New York and California Foreclosures: Rod Ciferri Guest on Neil Garfield Show Tonight!

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

More than 20,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.


Tonight we talk about navigating the foreclosure process with our guest Rod Ciferri, a New York lawyer transplanted to California. That means we will be talking about judicial and non-judicial foreclosure, the mess created by the banks, rescission, enforcement of rescission, and what gets traction in foreclosure defense. His postings on this blog shows that he has a deep understanding of securitization and securitization fail.

Rod’s number is 650-346-3741. If you are looking for a lawyer who gets it in New York, look no further.

85 Responses

  1. Does anyone have any contact information for Wells Fargo Legal Department or in House Attorney’s. I need to send them a Demand Letter.

  2. Neil Garfield
    Some of the links in your Glossary are invalid.
    The RESPA link is invalid, but it lead to and I got the following from a recent post there.

    Beginning August 1, there will no longer be a Good Faith Estimate or Truth in Lending disclosure; those two forms will be combined into a single Loan Estimate, which must be given to consumers within three business days of applying for a loan. At the same time, the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and the final Truth in Lending disclosure will be replaced by the Closing Disclosure form. This form must be given to consumers at least three business days before closing, and any significant changes to the loan terms could reset a new three-day waiting period and delay closing.


    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life,


    Yep. They all flock here to better get fleeced too. And the most hilarious part is that… they’re all smug about it!

  4. Christine what a racist comment.

    @Afflicting. LL: the microcosm of a fallen country. No wonder China, India, Russia and the Arab emirates own most of it…

  5. I bet no one noticed — went over their head — like everything here, there are things written, and things that we interpret what we think was written.

    heavens and earth …………. and …………… earth and heavens.

    (what’s created is a mirror of what’s created? Got me! I don’t know any thing, I know no thing)

    I bet no one would have noticed that the name in the first chapter was a single word starting with a G
    The name in the second chapter after G rested, yes G was resting, not doing a single thing, the second creator, is called by a what has two words starting with an L and with a G.

    John and Deacon John, Judy and Judge Judy

    If one is resting, it’s not the same one doing the thing who is not resting is it?

    This is two different entities/beings/things/creators/etc, etc, etc.

    But you don’t hear me, and you don’t need to.

    Trespass Unwanted

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  6. One more thing they didn’t tell you outright but they did tell you.
    See in order to put the home in a deed, it was unencumbered, that means paid for and then you turned around and put a trustee and beneficiary on it AFTER you signed the promise.
    That’s buying a car with a check that is paid from your bank account and then signing documents AFTER to say the car dealer can accelerate the payment if you don’t make payments.

    No it doesn’t make sense because there is no TILA and with enough study of how money is created, and I know I’ve posted videos to that fact, you’d know who money is created, and such.

    Anyway, the bank has to tender back what it received from you and what it earned after it unwinds the transactions they got rich off of from selling the paper with your signature.

    They are concerned, and you listen to the audio, that they have to do it first. They have to release the lien. listen to the audio, they are concerned with no lien you will not give them tender.

    Ask yourself why is it called tender and not money? I mean you promised to pay and they want it, but they don’t call it money or cash. But even further, why do they release a lien if you still owe them, why is it not you tender and they release the lien.

    when someone is telling you something and not telling you at the same time, they humm and hah, and clear their throat and carefully choose their words.

    We want to know everything in 30 seconds and then assume we know everything, but to really know that a veil is pulled over your eyes and that a man is behind the curtain you have to break everything down to it’s simplest form. You watch the video in pieces, you draw pictures, you figure out what was SAID not what you think it meant.

    I heard a man say the first two chapters of that ‘religion book’ gave a lot of info. I didn’t believe him, the first two are so short, how on earth can it give a lot of info.
    So I decided to research, learn for myself.

    Okay we have someone, ah huh, the heavens and earth, omg, there is a plural there I didn’t notice, okay, all things come from the sea, dang, didn’t know that, from the creepy crawly to the flying, all came from the water, okay, separate the waters from the waters, call something a firmament. Totally over my head until I heard a video of a couple who purchase a telescope and the salesman mentioned the distortion up there due to the water, and they were like HUH? Then you see to practice for spacewalks they do it in water, and of course all those youtube videos where a space walk has an air bubble, but I digressed.

    So you go further, and there is a light for the day and a light for the night, okay, and created male and female, wow, thought Adam was first, but nope, male and female, I need to stop letting people tell me what it says, so go further, and evening and morning is the first day, and evening and morning is the second day, and I”m like, why do we do things morning and evening, so that gives rise to why people say Christ did not rise on a SUN day, and the third day was a different day, so did someone trick people into sun worship? Well after reading that chapter on how they lived and their day of rest, well lets just say, people are probably worshiping things they don’t know about, but I digressed again, so on the six day the creator rested, wow, he’s asleep, where’s Adam…where’s Adam.

    So we see, created the earth and the heavens, and I’m like, wasn’t that created already? Wow, and you get to created man and named him Adam from the ground? Whoa, what about the man in the image, what’s going on here, and then Eve from his rib, what is this? DNA splicing or something, cloning, what on earth are they telling me? These creations are secluded in a garden that is supposed to have everything they need, don’t question the one who created you, all info comes from him, but a prior creation, one that was created in chapter one tells them they don’t know everything, that secrets are being kept and that to find out the rest, they have to partake in some act, that would reveal, and these creations decide they want to know, an untrusting thing, but hey want to know, so they find out…and when they find out, they hide because now they know.

    The one who set up this wonderful place for them as long as they don’t know finds out they know and gets mad.

    Whoa, in the first chapter, it was all good, but here, someone says ‘not good’…wow, not good. And punishes and says he hopes what he created lives miserable lives and procreate in pain, and kicks them out, an says something that assumed we know.

    Says something as if there are others, somewhere, they are sent out to mix with them.

    Then the parable of the seed, where man slept and his enemy mixed weed seed with good seed, and all kinds of stuff.

    What I’m saying is, just because someone tells you something, you have a duty and responsibility to learn for yourself what is fact.

    They/we sound convincing but we have our own slant our own reason for seeing it the way we see it.

    For me, finding out if my home is mine, or if the debt is real, it’s worth it to rescind and let them prove.

    I would not consummate with PNC when they changed servicers, and now even as they mess with the credit report, they claim I had done business with them in 2003, or in 2007, and there are papers that say I did not, that they did no business with me at that time, so to even claim to foreclose based on a contract from 2003 or 2007 is a lie because the purported merger was in 2009. Anyone stating otherwise is putting misleading information in the public. You will not get my energy fighting stuff that isn’t true.

    They can’t show three months payment when they took over, and they do not want to unwind the transaction they thought they purchased from NCM. Not my problem. When my home was collateral I knew it, and when it was not collateral I knew it, and they are stuck and equitable tolling works cause I don’t listen to people who aren’t looking at anything from my point of view or know legal things so they only know a legal answer or what you are ‘legally supposed to do’, all this nonsense.

    I am me. I do not speak their language and I’m tired of pulling out a law dictionary for the most basic of words like in, to, the, a, by, and such. These words mean stuff…attorney at law and attorney in law, and I am handicapped to hold a conversation with them, and I don’t trust their interpreter to tell me what they are saying because he represents their interest and how he tells me what they are saying has an effect on what I decide to do, and if I’m not told the information exactly as it is, my decision will be based on misrepresented information.

    No way.
    I’m not playing.
    Game over, a long time ago.

    Nationwide in recent trouble for not wanting to handle transactions within the allotted time frame, if it arrives before a time, they have to do a thing with it, so they paid people to make sure it didn’t arrive in time.

    You have court business that would not find a problem with what they did and rule against a borrower, consumer, customer who complained. You have a regulating agency that did have a problem with what they did.

    You don’t hear me.
    If there is a way to make money with a ‘material defect’, they will find a way, and rescission is our remedy if we know how and when to use it.

    Tell me about three year statute of limitations when the fraud is ongoing, who’s going to stop the clock and say, you, you, and you, your can only rescind from 1995 to 1998, okay you, your window is 1997 to 2000, oh you just found out, well too bad, and you are still a customer, well tough luck! Really? Seriously?
    Will you find out for yourself or let someone who is not there tell you, you are out of luck as soon as you find out and want out of the deal’ that you have recently discovered is NOT what you signed up for and they should not benefit from their crime at your continued expense.
    Published: May 14, 2015 1:51 p.m. ET

    From Oct. 1995 to Sept. 2011
    Nationwide fined for low-frequency trading
    Nationwide neither admitted nor denied the allegations and paid an $8 million fine.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Croporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  7. Afflicting. LL: the microcosm of a fallen country. No wonder China, India, Russia and the Arab emirates own most of it…

  8. Disclaimer, I don’t lknow legal things, give legal advice, and I don’t seek legal advice.
    I want no thing to do with legal things.

    It’s up to people to be represented or take care of their rights.
    A bit of research would indicate whether you can start the clock, and there is no statute of limitations on fraud, the goal is that no one gets to benefit from their crime.

    Even the banks where when they are charged, don’t recall, don’t konw the facts to answer questions, neither admit nor deny, and all the other defenses they used for plausible deniability, there is a ton of crooked ways things are done, and the people do things the straight way.

    It’s obvious what coming into a business with your self wide open with facts, does to you when you leave.

    We spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they have, and they spend a lot of time not wanting to reveal it, and in no way do we realize they do not have the things we are asking for. If it doesn’t exist, they’d have to create another firm to create the documents, or ignore you.

    Then we go and affirm the rest of the junk they bring which is not proof they have any debt what so ever. I don’t remember, that’s not mine, I didn’t do it would be what they’d tell the judge and we’d beat our heads against the wall to make them accept they did and what we say is true.

    But they do something to us, and we affirm and say, but, but, they did this with it after I signed it! or we say, but they sold it here or they didn’t put it there when they promised to do it…and we can’t prove it, and they don’t affirm anything we say.

    We do not speak their language, we have no interpreter, we are handicapped when we walk into their business. We might as well be in a wheel chair at a foreign theme park with no access into the park and no way to comprehend the language written or spoken by anyone who works there and when we leave they have confiscated our wheel chair.

    Upon appeal it’s res judicata, already decided that by going there we should have known someone was going to lose something, and when we left it was decided that we would leave the wheelchair.

    I’m just saying there may have been a contract, there may not have been, but we have spent a lot of time proving a contract between the parties and then disputing the terms. Rescission of signature is the first thing you do, and for people saying three years and you can’t do it, if they are your god, or representative you let them tell you what to do.

    When I was growing up, I had parents tell me, ‘all they can say is no, how much does that hurt?’

    These people will take your home, don’t you want to know if there is a no in there or are you going to go down the path of life and say, ‘I wonder if I rescinded what would have happened?’ Are you really going to wonder what would have happened?

    What they didn’t tell you was a rescission is supposed to trigger the bank seeking summary judgement on your property within 20 days, and if they get it, in their favor, you get kicked out.

    This is both a benefit and a trap.

    It’s a repeat of people calling their servicer and asking if they have the note and the servicer throwing them into foreclosure when they were not in default on their payments.

    The early bird gets the worm, they haven’t set up departments to deal with this yet, but later people may find they purchase a home, pay for a few years, and then rescind. This drops the finance charges that was amortized on the prinicipal, but if they didn’t pay the principal in the three years, they’ll be getting out of the home. If they paid the principal in the three years, they’d have a release of the lien and not have paid three times the price of the loan the way banks write it out and amortize it for 30 years.

    Many rich people will probably abuse this, they have the financial ability to get a home with no interest.

    How much home do we need and how much do we afford, and since no job is promised for 30 years, people need to rethink how much time they will use to purchase a home. Some people purchase it within 7 years, so if you save up 4 years, finance the home, pay for three, rescind, they tender back the three, you have the 4 you saved, the three they tendered to you, so you tender to them 7 years, you have the home without a lien.

    They are concerned about these situations where people will use their income tax check or some other savings from retirement or whatever and leave them with no interest payments within three years by pre-thinking how they will purchase the home. It is not unheard of to save to buy a home. It was done before they came out with zero down, negative amortization, no doc loans, and liar loans.

    When servicers changed, you can tell if there is a relationship if you can show a few months payment to that servicer, that’s why modifications were a big deal, get you to create an adhesion contract by making payments to the servicer cause you believe you owed them the money.

    Without that adhesion they have no legs, no standing.

    A lot of people to save their home, sat at the table with the devil and the devil sued when it got enough to prove you were not unknown persons to each other, you were familiar with each other.

    My useless opinion, not legal advice, but for certain, step on the path and never let someone tell you what you can and cannot do. When you listen to them, you get what they set you up for.

    Time to listen to you, and do something according to your will, and find out what your power really is.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  9. Robber Hurst, Shadowdrypussycat (Porn does’nt have dry pussycats), and RockCrackheadlimpdick what a headline

    Shadow here is some medical advise for you.

  10. Really Neil?
    Since when did this become a porn site?

  11. The chances of them responding within 20 days are slim to none

  12. Shadowdrypussy and Rocklimpdick what a couple

  13. TU .. Equitable Tolling starts from the time you discover the fraud and the damages.

    But I don’t know if it tolls the 3year TILA violations.
    I would ask a lawyer.

  14. that video wants everyone to think three years.
    A little or a lot of research on equitable tolling would give a clue the time can shift from the moment someone discovers the material defect has occurred, thus resetting the clock.

    I mentioned it in discovering the Hud-1 statement had an amount that was more than $35 of improper charges, that would have reset the clock, but everyone wants to run to the court business and let these people that put their pants on one leg at a time, judge their fate, as if they are God.
    A God of man would be more favorable, these people are creators of businesses and contracts, they are gods to their creations, not over man.

    As gods of their creations they want to protect their creations from destruction, and we keep helping them.

    I didn’t lose, and I know they wish I’d done 5 years ago what I do today, cause they have 5 years of extra shite they’ve done making the hole bigger and deeper.

    Equitable tolling works for me, because I lodged complaints back then, and I lodge them today and all they have is more evidence, and more evidence, and given more time, more evidence. There is an overseer and maybe there is a reason to wait, or let it pile.

    I see a reason it piles, because even as we know of the fraud, so do judge businesses, and the supreme court says something and the judge businesses ignore, at some point you ask them what part of ‘no’ did you not understand? Ignorance of their law is not their bliss.
    And complaints have power whether people see them or not, and not complaining leaves them with the power they had over you by your consent to not complain about what they did/do to you.

    Your trespass is your own, and you can keep it and use it for the best stories, my trespass is documented and it is known any benefit received was against my free will. My rights will be protected because I make it known someone has interfered with them.

    Not a warrior, just someone who knows how to say no, and say it in public (public complaint).

    Now what employee ignored it before people knew it was fraud, and what employee would ignore it now that everyone knows it’s fraud. I don’t know. No worries, something is happening and will happen.

    One big diatribe opinion, worth nothing and not legal advice, nor suggesting anyone do what I say less they make me their God.
    We are all capable of entering our own contracts and protecting our own interests and if someone won’t help you protect it, you either accept their control or you reject their control.

    In your own time, you will know what works for you and what you want to do, you know it’s wrong, and you know it doesn’t sit well in your conscience, and when you are ready, you’ll do what you do.

    I know that is a fact. I believe in you.
    You – is non specific.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life.

  15. DwightNJ, they don’t serve us, and we still keep going to them.
    If a service is useless, no one will use it.
    Yet each someone who gets a notice of foreclosure, after all the publicity of the fraud run right to the business that has helped perpetrate the fraud.
    Until people do something different all all new people who get that offer to contract with the court to have their house taken, if they would just file a criminal complaint and not go, it would be the beginning of the message we convey.

    We will NOT be compelled to perform the obligations of a contract we did not enter into, and not only that, the one you are bringing into that business we did not enter into knowingly, willingly, nor intentionally.

    We can’t just keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over ad infinitum from 2007 to 2015 and think we will get different results.

    Today it’s the same thing different day, and yes that’s a true meaning, you can take any case and change the date from then to now and it’s the same decisions, and the same case law, and the same coercions.

    As always, the disclaimer:
    Never take advice from someone who knows no thing.
    Never assume you heard legal advice from someone who does not know legal things.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life
    Trespass Unwanted,

  16. Trespass … Agree .. Yet the judges and courts play dumb and refuse to allow the deeper discovery or trial to focus on these basic tenants of contract law. ..

    Contract law and its long held principals are ignored in foreclosures ..

    There is a bias against borrowers that is denying due process and equal protection ..

    And nobody is stepping forward to stop this abuse ..because nobody cares about borrowers in foreclosure.

    All the courts are in on it ..its an unspoken rule ..nobody gets a free house .. the banks get the free house … Our system is broken and corrupted. But americans are too lazy to march in the streets and protest the abuses and injustice taking place… Theres a darkness falling over the world and nobody has anything to say ..they all just sit there watching in silence as women and young girls are tortured, raped and killed around the world for being Christians …the world remains silent as young children are sold by ISIS … Who do these judges and political leaders serve ? Its all related in the spiritual realm , the bad actors are serving their dark master, the enemy of God .

    Soon we will see things get worse ..the economy, wars, panic, food shortages, forced vaccinations, martial law , this world is on a fast track to total chaos ..this foreclosure injustice based on the crimes of banks is juut the tip of the iceburg …keep praying for God to protect us

  17. A ma. … Agree ..the prior misinterpretations and misapplications and abuses prevented everyone from even exercising their rights , they were told they can’t do it by lawyers, judges, courts …the borrowers were barred from exercising their rights and so most just never sent the notices because the system told them to do so was a waste of time.

  18. So my “lender” on my note and mortgage is Commerce Bank … but they had the note already stamped prior to my closing “pay to the order of Washington Mutual Bank” and then they endorsed it after closing, making Washington Mutual the true owner.. But Commerce Bank has always remained and treated as the owner of my loan … MERS was named as nominee on the mortgage ….

    Fast forward to 2014 …. MERS as nominee for Commerce assigns the mortgage to Wells Fargo to foreclose … No mention of Washington Mutual … Wells Fargo tells me that Fannie Mae owns my loan !!!

    The judge looks at me with a dumb expression on his face and says he doesn’t understand the point I’m trying to make .. “You received the money didn’t you what does it matter about all this other stuff?

    So Commerce at my origination probably never funded my loan ..
    And Washington Mutual never funded the loan …
    And Wells Fargo never funded the loan …

    Most likely Fannie Mae used investors money to fund it? But how does the wire transfer prove wrong-doing?

    Who sent the money …and to whom did they send it?

    Did the lender receive the wire transfer? Or somebody else?

  19. In my layman’s opinion the 3 years should start from January 13, 2015. Because anything I sent prior to the Supreme Courts decision is MOOT.

    I could have sent it and they would have interpreted the law incorrectly.

  20. Rciferri
    I’m no attorney but I opinion the reason anyone brings a claim into a court business is to compel someone to perform the obligations of a contract or to claim someone failed to perform obligations causing loss of property or injury.
    A signature is presumed behind any complaint.
    Even as you file complaints with regulating agencies they want to know if there was a contract (no) or agreement (no) and if you received a benefit from the conflict (no).
    If the persons compelling you to perform are unknown the first thing you do is tell them anything they (purportedly) hold with your signature on it, you rescind your signature [cause you wouldn’t enter into such an unconscionable contract knowingly, willingly, or intentionally],
    This hold true even if your identity is on the document. You are not bound to someone’s will just because they have identifying info on you, as much as a cop writes a ticket he signs, how is that your obligation to pay the debt unless and until you do things to consummate the contract.
    When courts ignore contracts not entered to with agreement of the parties, you report the people who used your identifying information to create the debt, to compel the performance of a debt when they have no power, authority, standing, or any other provable connection to the contract, and you report those who are forcing you to perform obligations of contracts you did not enter into of your free will and name their name not their capacity. Had they performed in their capacity you would not be compelled to do things you did not enter into of your free will.

    That’s my non legal opinion and I know no thing and do not give legal things to anyone including legal advice

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  21. Yes and the title company is just as guilty. They should have informed you.

  22. If I contact my title company .. they might have all the docs showing who funded , and the closing disclosures docs , etc ?

    The wire transfer proof of funding was in the title companys file?

  23. You are correct circuit court doesn’t care who funded what. You got the money you owe the money.Yes I am the appeals court.I sent my notice to resind last year.I got the wire transfer from the title company. It is a beautiful thing.

  24. Food for thought. The 3 years should start from Jan. 13 2015 until then the law was not clear. So the deal was not consumated until the Supreme Court Decision.

    Justice Scalia used the word “Consumated” not Originated for a reason.

    in the webinar they use Originate on their slide show. Snakes. But what do you expect from lawyers. Sorry Neil


  25. Melissa … You said you are in Appeals , so I assume you lost at the trial, or summary judgment?

    Did you get anywhere trying to argue that the named lender on your docs never funded the loan? Most judges don’t have the patience to try and understand that argument and they kill it immediately far were you able to get with that argument? How do you prove it?

    I asserted the same thing in my answer ..but the judges seem to only rely on whether the plaintiff is the “Holder” of the note ..judges all agree that mere “Holders” are entitled to foreclose ..they don’t want to hear arguments about who funded the loan ..the judges mock our asserions and defenses and refer to them as in-artful theories ..they go back to the fact that “you received money”… To prove who funded the loan you would need full cooperation from the lender and the court ..the lender controls the documentation and the court provides cover for the lenders to keep it hidden and out of view.

    Was you rescission mailed within 3 years?

    Did they respond within 20 days?

    You may not have to tender if they missed the 20 day window to respond.

  26. Rock Cocaine can never agree with us because he/she/it will loose job and will not be able to support habit.

    Shadowpussycat Bob Hurst and ChristineSuperstar are all in the same sinking boat.

    Rock I found another good webinar for you.. Rehab Rehab Rehab


  27. Or you could enforce it ….. Scratch!!!!

  28. What’s to rescind?
    A void contract?
    Voidable! !!!!
    Cancellation vs Rescission

    Purchase Loan Remedy

  29. I also did not ask the court for recession because that was done by operation of law. I ask the court to enforce the recession.

  30. I agree nothing to resind. The problem is they did not deny my recession or the origination. They meaning the bank,ignored the claim. So how do they straighten it out. The bank must unwind the transaction, I say go ahead. That will never happen in a court room.

  31. At the end of his lesson he also said..
    A lien is effective When the borrower receives full disclosures.

    Think about it.

  32. @Melissa

    You said:

    “My position is consumation. If the named lender on the note and mortgage is not the source of the funds, then the transaction was never consummated.”

    That may very well be the case. However, I believe that, if the loan has not been consummated, no right of rescission under TILA could have been created. Therefore, I believe a borrower should plead the inconsistent theories in the alternative, or, in the case where a borrower is a defendant, the borrower should assert each theory as a separate defense.

  33. Perfect answer. My position is consumation. If the named lender on the note and mortgage is not the source of the funds, then the transaction was never consummated.

  34. @Melissa

    You said:

    “Again please address the issues. If the banks are right, why have a seminar on Tila. Everyone talks about tender, I say unwind the transaction first, then let’s see who owns what”

    That’s right.

    None of the Jesinoski deniers have explained how SCOTUS could have done anything BUT AFFIRM the 8th Circuit’s ruling if the borrower’s rescission WASN’T complete upon his notice.

    On that point – nothing but shocked silence.

    The lenders just cannot believe how Jesinoski pulled the rug out from under them.

    So, they are opting for denial instead.

  35. @14:56 in, through about 15:05, the partner from their New York office, Mr. Epstein, stated Jesinoski made it clear that the borrower can exercise his right of rescission by 1) sending a notice, or 2) commencing an action. Since Jesinoski, it is clear that there are two distinct ways TILA rescission may be completed. I agree with Mr. Epstein in that regard.

    This is an important clarification of TILA rescission because the continued authority of prior cases is affected by whether or not the issue of TILA rescission was before the court in such cases upon a borrower’s claim of rescission (where the court is asked to determine whether rescission should be granted), or whether the borrower is trying to establish that his notice was effective to, in and of itself, complete rescission, without court intervention.

    In the former cases, a court may properly treat the claim for TILA rescission as one for common law equitable rescission by authority of the last sentence of Section 1635(b).

    In the latter cases, in my view, the court may still be able to treat the borrower’s rescission according to common law equitable rescission rules if 1) the borrower does not allege his notice was effective to complete the rescission, and 2) the borrower prays for the court to order rescission despite his notice, or, 3) if the court otherwise recognizes the borrower completed rescission of the loan based on his notice, but sets aside the borrower’s rescission and then proceeds to adjudicate the claim in accordance with the rules of common law equitable rescission.

    However, the webinar does not address (except in a dismissive and conclusory way) the case in which a borrower effects a TILA rescission by notice, does not ask for affirmative relief based on such notice and merely seeks a declaration that by her notice, the borrower completed a rescission of her loan.

    I believe, in such an instance, the court may use its equitable powers to set aside the rescission and thereafter proceed under the rules of common law equitable rescission only if the court acts to set the borrower’s completed rescission aside within the 20 day period for unwinding the transaction.

    The webinar does not address this instance because I believe it is interpreting the word “rescission”, as used in TILA in accordance with its legal definition rather than in accordance with its common and ordinary definition.

    In its legal meaning, the word “rescission” cannot be divorced from the common law process of rescission, which, in the case of legal rescission (contract), requires a simultaneous tender by the borrower and, in the case of equitable rescission (court action for rescission), the granting of rescission to the borrower by the court may also be conditioned upon the borrower’s tender. Probably due to their interpretation of the word “rescission”, the lawyers at Dorsey & Whitney believe that, no matter what, a court may condition its recognition of a completed rescission upon the borrower’s tender of the amount of the loan.

    I believe that view of TILA rescission by notice is in error because Jesinoski held his rescission was EFFECTED by his notice and because I believe the Jesinoski Court is using the word “rescission” and its derivatives in their common and ordinary sense.

    Since the webinar did not consider this point, I’m assuming the lawyers at Dorsey & Whitney believe that the only thing effected by the borrower’s TILA notice is the commencement of rescission, as defined in its legal sense, rather than a completed rescission, as defined in its common and ordinary sense.

    The common and ordinary definition of the word “rescission” is:

    “n. rescission.

    1. The act of rescinding.

    American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.”

    The question then becomes, what does it mean to rescind, and, more particularly, what is the effect of the act of rescinding?

    The common and ordinary definition for the word “rescind” is:

    “rescind. tr.v. re·scind·ed, re·scind·ing, re·scinds
    To make void; repeal or annul.

    American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.”

    Thus, I believe the Jesinoski Court is stating that, by his notice, he voided his loan.

    The Jesinoski Court could not have meant that Jesinoski took the first step in a rescission process due to its holding that, the language of TILA “…leaves no doubt that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind.” I’m assuming the Jesinoski Court uses the term “rescission” and its derivatives in their common and ordinary sense, due to the SCOTUS rule that, where a statute does not define a term, the term is defined in its common and ordinary sense, rather than by its legal meaning.

    By using the word “effected”, the Jesinoski Court was stating notice settles, accomplishes and completes the rescission.

    Here is the definition of the word “effected” (the common and legal definitions of this word are essentially the same):

    “Adj. 1. effected – settled securely and unconditionally; “that smoking causes health problems is an accomplished fact”

    established, accomplished

    settled – established or decided beyond dispute or doubt; “with details of the wedding settled she could now sleep at night” effected. (n.d.)

    WordNet 3.0. (2003-2008).”

    Therefore, I believe Jesinoski has far greater implications for how TILA rescission by notice should be interpreted by the courts than Dorsey & Whitney seem to think.

    In fact, due to our differences in interpreting TILA and Jesinoski, I disagree with the following assertions made by them in the webinar:

    1. That the borrower must tender in all instances;

    2. That, as long as the lender files suit and disagrees with the borrower’s TILA notice of rescission, its lien is preserved; and,

    3. That its obligations to unwind the transaction are not necessarily triggered by the borrower’s TILA rescission notice.

  36. Again please address the issues. If the banks are right, why have a seminar on Tila. Everyone talks about tender, I say unwind the transaction first, then let’s see who owns what

  37. Rock limp dick (rock cocaine causes a limp dick) and shadowdrypussy. What a couple.

  38. Rock ” Sold his Mother for a Rock of Crack”

  39. know me A Man…..
    Just pussy footen around on my little piece of the Rock.
    14 inches and rising.
    Do you garden?

  40. This is exactly why Rock is called Rock. His comments fit the description bellow

    What Are the Effects of Crack Cocaine Use?

    Users typically feel a ‘rush’ followed by a sense of alertness and well-being. Cocaine increases levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is associated with pleasure and increased movement. The pleasant effects of crack wear off quickly (5-10 minutes), causing users to feel ‘down’ or depressed, more than before taking the drug. Some users report being unable to duplicate the intensity of the first exposure with subsequent use.

  41. Rock is this the webinar you were reffering to?

    Whats happening Shadowdrypussy

  42. Rock, the answer to your statement is IF the bank is right. Most are not. You are not helping anyone here, you protect the banks.If tender becomes into play I say great, after the transaction is unwound. Because there is not one solid loan or holder in due course.

  43. Look, here’s the thing…or at least one of them….who gives a rats-ass what you think, Christine? This isn’t:

    Living Lies, featuring Neil Garfield, with on-going guest commentary from Christine

    The level of snark and narcissism that you and your friends bring to this site is nothing short of astonishing, dialed in at 11 or 15 on a knob that only goes to 10, at most. Your combined argument is that you folks know better….about everything legal (and otherwise i.e. China, BRICS etc.), that everyone else knows nothing and desperately needs your insight. Discussions about false assignments, perjury, counterfeit documents, standing, are all off base because you’ve deemed them to be so, and will be dealt with so severely that any and all discussions will be ceased by your disruptions.

    Who cares, that is, besides you and your clique, whether or not Garfield or Ciferri have tried cases? You don’t have to be a frontline litigator to be a knowledgeable source of information and commentary, not to mention just enlightening and insightful reads. For possibly a short time to go, it’s still a free country, and these people have every right to exercise free speech and debate, without needing your approval. On Neil’s dime, you don’t have that same right, save for through Neil’s generosity.

    You, Christine, say that Garfield and Ciferri haven’t come clean about their careers, as if either of the two have boasted of wins (I’ve seen nothing of the sort from either)…. and yet you refer to an alleged RESPA win on your part….whereabouts and details unknown, and you call out a win from a person referred to here as Rock, as proof of something or another. My….you do stretch a bit. Elasto-gal. Just contact Bobhurt….he’ll vouch for Rock…what a ringing endorsement.

    There’s simply not a better descriptor for you folks, you’re all trolls, as you fit the exact accepted definitions. You, or Rock, are always the very first responders to a new Garfield post, just waiting in the weeds to attack with more derision. Don’t either of you have anything better to do with your lives than to hang out here just waiting to pounce? Have you tried knitting? Golf? Xanax?

    Enough of the Puritanical stance of saving us all from our selves….we’ll be just fine without you. Trust me.

  44. From the seminar tape at minute 47:25-47:40 the attorney explains:

    “You (the bank) really don’t have to do anything, because the mortgage lien remains valid!”

    Its clear from this seminar that the nitwits in Garfieldtown are the only ones that don’t understand how TILA rescission works.

    It appears that Christine, Shadowcat, Bob, myself, and a few others, are the only antidote for the Kool-Aid poison.

  45. Sorry, forgot to add this part from the materials:

    – Pre- and Post Jesinoski status HAS NOT changed – IF A
    • The servicer should be aware of the rescission notice.

    What we’ve been saying all along!

  46. From the materials given at the Dorsey & Whitney seminar proving Garfield & rciferri WRONG!

    – Is it a purchase-money mortgage?
    – Is it the borrower’s primary residence?
    – Was it a refinancing by the same lender, not in excess
    of the original principal balance?
    • The disclosures were demonstrably accurate and
    sufficient, and therefore the borrower is not entitled
    to a 3-year extended right to rescind.
    • The borrower did not serve the notice within 3 years
    of the origination of the loan.

    How many times do I have to prove these criminals are misinforming unsuspecting homeowners?

  47. C
    I have 2 friends with a JD who never practised and have no intentions of ever practising they realized it was not for them one is an engineer the other a nurse i asked the nurse if she had studied law because her vocab was full of ” well the truth of the matter is” that was before i started litigating and now i see ” the color of the sky is” your honor
    ” any color i say it is” and that is NOT the truth of the matter.
    I have a very wise old friend say this to me ” Deborah, there are three truths, your truth, my truth, and Gods ( THE) truth.

  48. Deb,

    Being a “lawyer” doesn’t mean jack. I’ve dealt with more bad ones than good ones. In fact, bad ones are a dime a dozen. Congress is full of them! Politics is where you go when you can’t do anything else with your diploma!

    Rciferri is not a good one. Know why?

    Rciferri hasn’t come clean anymore than Garfield has. Did Rciferri ever WIN a case? Better yet: did he ever TRY one? Did he ever try and win anything remotely associated with… TILA? Access Pacer and find out for yourself. Either in NY (where he is a registered attorney with nothing to show for it) or CA (where he’s only a paralegal working for How come? Couldn’t pass the Bar in CA?)

    Rock never pretended to be an attorney. He still won on TILA. I never pretended to be an attorney (going to law school opens many doors other than being an attorney). I still won on Respa.

    When people are clean, they come clean. Am I? You know that. Is Rock clean? You bet! All you have to do is contact Bob Hurt to know how clean Rock is. Is Rciferri clean? Well… is Garfield clean?

    Birds of a feather… They make money. You and everyone else on that site giving them the time of day are just a wallet to empty. A means to an end: their making money.


    I’ll tell you what: play the Rciferri/Garfield name-it-claim-it rescission card. Manage to appear before Scalia, have your case reversed to a lower court and… see how you make out when the lower court your case was remanded to asks you… if you can TENDER!

    Boy, how thick can they be!!!

  49. I add my useless opinion since I know nothing and do not know legal things and I don’t plan to learn legal things, either.

    The video speaks a lot about the lender, never the creditor.
    I believe they know certain disclosures are never made and that the borrower has certain defenses within three years and not just, you failed to give me two pieces of paper to rescind.
    I forget what is written on my papers but I assume it is the name of the lender.
    When that lender goes away bankrupt or purported sale of the note the named borrower still has papers with that original name and address to send to rescind.
    The banks may sweat bullets of sweat with a MERS transaction.
    That is a material defect in that MERS has made it clear it has no interest in the note and a sale; closing with MERS lacks the disclosure of the lender as per the TILA and a bank can try to run to a court within 20 days to get a summary judgment but with CFPB looking over their shoulder and all these issues of using someone’s identity to transfer property without holding the security interest in the property; well if people have learned anything – the emperor has no clothes.
    Think about it. The reason property was transfered in the first place was because there was agreements for them to use your identity to put the information in the public.
    But,who has permission to use your identity again to take the property from you if there is no valid agreement for them to do so in writing.
    Remember all those papers you signed? Some gave a time trustee the right to record that deed in the public record.
    But then when the thievery began the trustee would not appoint its substitute. The purported substitute self appointed (their self) and the self appointed their self by their future acts with power of attorney over you and acted as you to transfer your property to a bank or MERS or FannieMae or whoever.
    When you listen to the audio, there are things unsaid and I paid close attention to when they decided to use the word purported.
    The material defects when found does not even have to be rescission, it is fraud when you realize the violation of TILA.
    Do you use a thief’s best friend to settle your dispute that the thief robbed you (court) or do you find an adult that regulates the children’s behavior andet them oversee the complaint and how the thief and his best friend resolve it equitably?

    Did you hear their concern we would abuse our right to rescind and make them unwind the transaction and release the lien.
    Until now they only issued a paid in full statement never releasing the lien.
    I wonder if they never unwind the transaction.
    I heard them not say a lot.
    Trespass Unwanted, Creator Corporeal, Life, Free, People

  50. Rod,
    Thank You. I am in Wisconsin and I am in the appeals court right now and this Tila is right at the center of it.

  51. @Melissa

    Thank you for asking my opinion on the matter. I will watch it tonight and then comment here about it.

  52. So far all the non believers here say that Neil is totally wrong about the Supreme court ruling, but according to that video Neil is right on the money. I am waiting to hear what everyone has to say. I don’t think I can post the video, because then all that come here and call all of us losers could watch, listen and comment.

  53. I did Melissa. Its lengthy but very informative to those unfamiliar with TILA. What specific points do you want to discuss?

  54. Shadowcat,
    Did you watch it. I would like to have a CONSTUCTIVE discussion about it. The banks are scared.

  55. Great catch on that training vidio Melissa!

    Oops… Not effective until ……..otherwise just cloudy.
    Act Quickly…Hell Yes! Not wait 4 years Banker.

  56. Rod,
    I found a video on youtube put on by lawyers to let their clients(the banks) know how to handle TILA recession after the Jeskonski case.
    If you could watch it and then give us your comments that would be a good thing. The law group is Dorsey & Whitney, also if you could pass it along to the Garfield team.

  57. … And save ” thats not how it works” only by taking our arguments through court, as Jesinoski did will we clarify the argument entirely. Onward.

  58. My belief FWIW is rescission of the CON tract tender or no tender and to be argued thereafter – burden on them.

  59. Im sure you all realize how ridiculous the saying ” you can take it to the bank” sounds now right. Emperor has no clothes, none not even an olive leaf.

  60. Rock is not a lawyer you can take that ” to the bank”
    Nice try tho, good intented – i hope so.

  61. In street talk Rock you’re full of Sh4t.


  62. @Rock

    I’m here to discuss legal issues, particularly with regard to TILA rescission, not to talk about how great I am or to get dragged into irrelevant discussions about past wins or defeats.

    Such banter doesn’t affect the legal analysis going on here, and, would in fact, be a distraction from the same.

    Especially with regard to people like you, Rock.

    You’ve proven again and again that you do not understand, inter alia, basic legal issues, such as abrogation of common law by statute, the authority of higher court decisions over lower court decisions and the principle that, for a case to be authority to support your contention, it must be substantially similar to the facts on which you base your contention.

    Because you don’t display the ability to even want to learn these basic legal concepts, you have not been able to meet my legal contentions in a way that lawyers have been trained to do and courts expect to see.

    To cover up that basic inability, you are fishing for a way to attack me personally and have shown that is your basic modus operandi from the beginning.

    While running out of fodder for such personal attacks upon me, the same are increasingly wearing thin and have lost their power to meet your goals of obfuscating the legal issues under consideration and covering up your own lack of experience.

    Due to your inability to behave like a lawyer, it is you who should be giving your resume.

    Maybe someone might think you understand what you are talking about, despite your words indicating the contrary, if you show a nice resume. I wouldn’t be fooled, but maybe some others would be.

    I’ve been practicing law for a long time. I’ve seen a few like you.

    I’m leaning towards not believing you are a lawyer at all.

    However, I’ve seen a few new attorneys come with a lot of bluster and little substance, like you do, before finally being humbled by experienced lawyers and judges.

    At that point, such newby lawyers face a decision: are they going to fake it for the rest of their career or are they going to be humble, learn as much as they can from experienced lawyers, and, with such an attitude and work ethic, become experienced lawyers themselves over the course of many years.

    You may still be young enough to turn it around, Rock. However, it isn’t going to happen by fishing for fodder to add arguments from authority to ad hominen abusive attacks in your toolbox of logical fallacies.

  63. @Christine, Are you and your doom gloom buddies telling us Justice Scalia and his colleagues were wrong ? Please take a break from this blog,or accept the truth.

  64. Christine, rciferri is just parroting what we’ve been proving all along; rescission, by definition, is the unwinding of a contract.

    He somewhat appeared to be coming out of his delusion. But then goes back into his psychosis by stating:

    “if the lender doesn’t sue to set aside the completed TILA rescission within 20 days, it may not invoke the court’s equitable powers to set aside the rescission thereafter because it had an adequate remedy at law created for it by Section 1635(b) and did not take it.”

    He would last about two seconds in a court room, making such an outrageous statement, before a judge would sit him down.

    Why would Garfield have on a guest who’s never tried a foreclosure case, let alone a TILA case. And I can tell by some of his comments that he’s never tried any kind of case.

    Its hard to tell exactly because he’s clearly incompetent and makes comments about the law that have no basis in fact or law. But if I was going to bet, I’d bet he’s he’s never tried a case!

    So, why would Garfield have has a guest, and that someone is totally incompetent to speak on foreclosure matters. Me thinks, the answer is pretty obvious.

  65. Rciferri knows how to write. Can he try a case? Has he ever? Is he a name in foreclosure defense?

    Can’t find ONE case he’s tried. Let alone won… Damn! Just like Garfield!

  66. @Trespass Unwanted

    Thank you for your kind words.

  67. @DwightNJ

    Thank you for your kind words.

    You said:

    “Rod, very good job with the interview. Please finish your last thought you were attempting to make when time ran out .. Something in regards to part (b) of rescission … available remedies and the 20 day window … were you going to clarify an issue? Was it about how the court might become involved in the order of tender? If so, you were probably going to clarify that the court could be involved if the lender challenged inside the 20 days? Meaning that some now are misinterpreting it to mean a court and lender think they can redo the tender issue at any time , but thats where they are in error?”

    As to the 20 day period:

    I think I was going to say that if the lender gets to court within the 20 days, it can then change the time limit and procedures by authority of the last sentence of Section 1635(b). I also don’t see why the borrower and the lender can’t agree to do whatever they want by contract and set up their own timetable, payments and/or exchange of property – as long as they reach agreement within the 20 days, or possibly, even agree to agree at some other later date. Any other path is governed by the statute by default.

    As to the significance of available legal remedies to the lender:

    By authority of Section 1635(b), a court may alter the time limit and procedures involved in the unwinding process. That can lead to the court using its equitable powers to order the borrower to tender, among other things, the amount of the loan. From there, as Bob Hurt has pointed out, and case law cited by him has borne out, the court may deny rescission if the borrower cannot make a tender ordered by the court.

    Similarly, I think if the lender gets to court within 20 days, it can invoke the court’s equitable powers to set aside a completed rescission, Jesinoski notwithstanding, because the last sentence of Section 1635(b) allows a court to get involved within that time frame – but not after.

    However, if the lender doesn’t sue to set aside the completed TILA rescission within 20 days, it may not invoke the court’s equitable powers to set aside the rescission thereafter because it had an adequate remedy at law created for it by Section 1635(b) and did not take it.

    It is fundamental law that a court will not act in equity if an adequate remedy at law was available to the party seeking equity.

    Here, the lender is asking the court to do something (set aside the rescission), rather than merely seeking damages (money).

    In the old days, there were courts that would hear only cases for damages (law) and there were courts that would hear only cases seeking the court to order someone to do, or not do, something, or to set aside a judgment, etc. (equity).

    However, in America, by 1938, the separate courts and pleadings were merging together. No longer would there be separate courts or separate pleadings for actions at law and actions at equity (at least in the Federal courts; Virginia courts still had separate pleadings until 2006).

    So, despite the merger of law and equity, a court will not use its equitable powers, such as to set aside a completed rescission, unless there is no other adequate remedy at law. I believe the unwinding process created by Section 1635(b) is an adequate legal remedy for the lender.

    You said:

    “Meaning that some now are misinterpreting it to mean a court and lender think they can redo the tender issue at any time , but thats where they are in error?”

    Yes, I think they are in error contending that it can be done after the 20 days because that require the court to act in equity to set aside the completed TILA rescission which can only be done if the lender had no adequate remedy at law.

  68. Dwight,

    If quoting you verbatim is “misrepresenting”, you might want to express yourself better. And if the judge “erred”, by all means, appeal. Appeal all the way to the Supreme Court so Scalia can clarify rescission for you and for the thousands who still don’t get it.

    I read. I understood. You don’t have a prayer. The judge made the only decision he could under the circumstances but… go for it! Appeal! Or forever hold your peace. ‘Cuz… your arguments sucked and you never tendered. Know why? You didn’t have the money! And you still don’t have it, do you?

  69. SC … Yes, you are correct , the lender caused both injuries .. they caused my injuries ..abd they caused their own injuries.

    I agree .. it can be viewed that they did infact fail to accept my tender when they failed to comply with the TILA process ..they waived the tender that would have come if they had simply complied.

  70. Christine… You are mis-representing the facts in my case … allow me to school you on a few simple issues that you fail to understand or comprehend …

    1) The judge in my case said I did not tender in 2007 when I mailed the rescission letter. He read the copy of my letter and said that I did not write that I was tendering the money, I had only stated that I was rescinding effective July 1, 2007 due to TILA violations which include disclosures, missing right to cancel notices, APR errors, etc.

    2) The judge erred when he failed to comprehend that I had property worth over 300,000 and only owed them 180,000 .. I tendered the value of my property, needing them to release the security instrument so I could refinance with a new lender, or sell , or work out a negotiated settlement ..but they failed to accept my offer and after 20 days the law says I get to keep the property.

    3) The lender failed to comply in 20 days and waived the remedies available. They filed the FC out of time almost 90 days after I had rescinded. They are time barred and my mortgage is void, they can’t foreclose on a void mortgage.

    Justice Scalia and a unanimous Supreme Court is on my side !!!!

    Class Dismissed

  71. SC,

    I don’t know that R.E. taxes had anything to do with the loss. It isn’t mentioned. Let’s put that aside it for a minute (assuming that you’re right).

    Reread what Dwight posted: he pleaded the exact nonsense Garfield has been peddling all along: “Table funded”, “predatory lending per se”, “MERS as nominee”, etc.

    “the judge said that he did not understand why I was arguing the chain of title, how MERS could skip Washington Mutual when WaMu had the note stamped and endorsed to them, how Fannie Mae purchased the loan and became the owner, etc, etc … he said none of that really mattered.”

    What did the judge do? He considered TILA. So much so that he handed the olive branch: “Can you TENDER”? Had Dwight had the few bucks to make the other party “whole”, he would have gotten his rescission. Coming to court as he did with that utter nonsense and not a penny in his name, the judge had no choice but grant the MSJ.

    They’ve been pleading that Garfield crap for 7 years and losing, one after the other. Apparently, they don’t get it. And to top it off, they go at it… SOLO, with absolutely no experience of litigation! The problem is that, instead of taking stock of their shortcomings, they come here to get pats in the back (good boy, good boy, the judge was mean to you) and to cry on other losers’ shoulders. Or to vent, attack, blame, every immature behavior they can muster.

    Bob G. was right: they do deserve what they get. But fret not: Garfield will still make out royally! And Ciferri is lining up to get a few crumbs out of it. ‘Cuz from what I’ve uncovered, the boy is nothing whatsoever in foreclosure defense, in NY nor in CA.

  72. Lets say that Dwight had a valid recession and offered tender.
    Lets say they denied or pussy footed around with a valid recession causing harm to the borrower by reporting default to the credit reporting agency. Refused to provide a payoff less their tender to the borrower as afforded under TILA. Is that not the same as refusing tte tender.? And causing further harm in addition To the clouded and slandered titles ?


    What if lost to the state because they didn’t pay property taxes?
    Make the recession issue moot issue.

  73. Rod, very good job with the interview. Please finish your last thought you were attempting to make when time ran out .. Something in regards to part (b) of rescission … available remedies and the 20 day window … were you going to clarify an issue? Was it about how the court might become involved in the order of tender? If so, you were probably going to clarify that the court could be involved if the lender challenged inside the 20 days? Meaning that some now are misinterpreting it to mean a court and lender think they can redo the tender issue at any time , but thats where they are in error?

  74. Nice interview Rod.

    Trespass Unwanted

  75. Dwight,

    “The judge denied me the TILA Rescission based on :
    – Judge said that in my rescission letter, I failed to offer any tender.
    – Judge did not agree that a letter alone was sufficient. He said that I would have needed to tender at the time I rescinded for it to be accepted.
    – Judge cited Yamommota case law that has been used in the past, requiring that the borrower must first show their tender before the rescission will be acknowledged by the court.”

    No rescission without tender. TILA 101.

  76. That FL Nash case was won only because America’s Wholesale Lender compounded serious issues of wrongdoing VERY FEW PEOPLE can relate to and, among those who could have, most failed to do their homework before presenting to court.

    In addition, and contrary to what Garfield has been alleging over and over, the note and mortgage were only VOIDABLE until a judge declared them VOID. It takes a judge to make that call. Not a homeowner fighting foreclosure. All the homeowner can do is argue that it should be. Not peremptorily state: “Judge, the note and mortgage are void. Garfield said so.”

    Another nuance which will fly completely over the heads of the cult followers.

  77. Congratulations Rod Ciferri,

    Reminder for you to point out to NG how some courts (like the judge in my case) will refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court Jesinoski ruling and try to deny justice.

    My Answer to the 2014 Foreclosure Complaint included:

    – I pleaded that no valid contract was completed at origination.

    – Undisclosed third party funding / table-funded, predatory per se.

    – Commerce stamped and endorsed “Pay to the order of WaMu” at closing in 2004 refinance.

    – Commerce named MERS as Nominee

    – Washington Mutual was my servicer and received payments until 2007 when Wells Fargo became servicer.

    – Washington Mutual Bank went out of business in 2008. There has never been any proof shown in title chain of how WaMu either received title and ownership by assignment, or how they sold their interest to Wells Fargo. The only proof Wells Fargo submits is a MERS assignment of mortgage from Commerce to Wells Fargo , skipping the gap in the chain where Washington Mutual owned the loan due to it being endorsed to them at closing. MERS should not have been allowed as a nominee for Commerce to assign mortgage from Commerce to Wells Fargo , skipping the owner WaMu in between.

    – In 2007 after Wells Fargo became my servicer, they told me that Fannie Mae owned my loan. That is when I mailed a rescission.

    – In my Answer, one of my affirmative defenses was that I had already mailed a TILA Rescission letter in 2007, which they ignored.

    – I included a counterclaim stating that they had been in violation of TILA for disclosures, APR errors, etc., and that I had rescinded on July 1, 2007 within the extended 3 year window allowed from 2004 loan.

    – I included a copy of the letter that I had mailed in 2007, showing that I had hereby rescinded effective on date of letter July 1, 2007.

    – I included an affidavit in my opposition to plaintiffs MSJ.


    The judge denied me the TILA Rescission based on :

    – Judge said that in my rescission letter, I failed to offer any tender.

    – Judge did not agree that a letter alone was sufficient. He said that I would have needed to tender at the time I rescinded for it to be accepted.

    – Judge cited Yamommota case law that has been used in the past, requiring that the borrower must first show their tender before the rescission will be acknowledged by the court.

    Based on the above reasons, he denied my timely rescission and granted Wells Fargo their motion for summary judgment, which was based on them being mere holders of the note.

    Although I submitted QWR replies from Wells Fargo showing that they state that Fannie Mae is the owner of the loan, the judge said that he did not understand why I was arguing the chain of title, how MERS could skip Washington Mutual when WaMu had the note stamped and endorsed to them, how Fannie Mae purchased the loan and became the owner, etc, etc … he said none of that really mattered.

    So in essence, any thief can come into a court with a stolen note and foreclose on your property. The court only cares that they are holders of the note. The court does not seem to care about any legalities that pertain to ownership, chain of title, MERS as nominee assigning a mortgage for Commerce Bank, when Washington Mutual owns the loan? None of these issues are relevant in the courts opinion.

    And in DENYING my TILA RESCISSION, the judge foreclosed on my note and mortgage that were void by operation of law in 2007.

    – the amount refinanced was 230,000

    -The lender owed me over 50,000 in payments.

    -Which would have left a balance due them of 180,000

    -my house right now is valued at 260,000

    -The judge was not even being equitable on this point, he is allowing them a windfall of 80,000 of my equity .. he is giving my 260,000 house to the servicer when he says my tender amount was 180,000 ..

    But the main points of his errors are :

    1) My rescission was effective upon mailing my letter and voided the mortgage, meaning it cannot be foreclosed on. The lender waived its remedies when it chose to ignore the 20 day compliance.

    2) he erred in saying my rescission hinged on my offer of tender or lack of tender in my rescission letter.

    Interested in how NG will deal with judges like mine, and how he plans on overcoming their attempt to defy the Supreme Court. Will he just wait to appeal to the next higher court? Or is there a strategy in mind on how to win the case at the lower court and make the judge see things our way?

  78. Aman
    That’s a Good case.
    I sear the truth will come out – all of it

  79. Does the Cat have your tongue?

    Speak Up!

    📢 I cannot’ hear you! 📢

  80. 1st..lead me to his discussions on securitizations and securitizations fail. I don’t recall that conversation.

    What I have read is his view on TILA RECISSION. …since he appeared on this site. He is waaaaaay off base!!

    Lets talk about common law cancalation of the contract for misrepresantions…reliance..fraudulent inducement.

    Lets talk about TPP Bricks Jade Helm and the preparations for civil unrest and Marshall Law.

    Lets talk about the World Bank Global Debt Facility the Worlds Gold
    The Federal Reserve and 60 banks taken under conservership last September, i.e..foreclosed .

  81. lol – BLB

  82. This gives new meaning to the “blind leading the blind.”

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: