Why the Big Guns Are Coming Out on Rescission

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
NOTE: The rescission package we offer provides information on the specific loan of the borrower, whether rescission is an option, to whom the rescission letter should be addressed, whether your prior letter of rescission is effective, and how to prepare for further litigation regarding the effective date of rescission and the consequence of having rescinded. If you are unconvinced that this package will do you any good then don’t do it. We won’t try to convince you. We don’t offer guarantees or warranties. But we do believe in what we are doing. And note that this article (or anything else on this blog) is no substitute for advice from an attorney who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located.
Confusion still reigns on the issue of TILA rescission. You go to a lawyer about it and he says no, the loan is too old (statute of limitations) or you don’t qualify (purchase money mortgage) or some other reason. And then the discussion turns to equitable tolling and whether the loan was really a purchase money mortgage and so the seeds of doubt are planted and take root without the banks lifting a finger. That is what they want.
The lawyers and judges and pundits were all wrong on TILA rescission. Before now, they were all saying that the rescission couldn’t be effective without the borrower filing a lawsuit and/or without tendering money or property. It all comes down to the same thing: when is rescission effective? And the answer is plainly stated by the TILA statutes, by the Federal Reserve in Reg Z and reaffirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court in Jesinowski. Rescission is effective upon mailing of the notice of cancellation of the loan deal. There is nothing that is contingent about that. You don’t need to file a lawsuit (in fact that is not the statutory procedure), you don’t need to tender anything (it is the banks and servicers who must pay borrowers for every penny they paid under the deal), and it is still effective in all events without any contingency regardless of whether the statute of limitations has run or the loan was a purchase money mortgage or anything else.
For corroboration of this, simply refer to the many arguments that banks and servicers offered when non-judicial foreclosure was invoked in those states that allow it. There, it was the banks who argued that the specific statutory scheme for starting a loan and foreclosing on it must be followed. The brief window (as short a 3 weeks in some states) for the borrower to stop a foreclosure sale has been allowed and confirmed in every case. The 20 day window for the banks to set aside a rescission that by operation of law is effective the date it was mailed is no different.
ANYTHING that might be used as an attack on rescission must be done by way of a lawsuit by the banks or servicers against the borrower and they must do it within 20 days of the effective date of the rescission. Right or wrong the rescission is effective upon mailing. If they file the action within 20 days, then the rescission for a brief window in time becomes voidable but never void. That is what Justice Scalia was telling all of us. So why won’t Judges, lawyers and borrowers believe it? The reason is simple — they are all intimidated by the power of TILA rescission and they all think that no borrower could level of the playing field by the stroke of a pen. AND they are confused by their understanding of common law rescission based upon fraud. But as Justice Scalia showed us, the rules governing common law rescission do not apply to an unambiguous statutory scheme in TILA. Courts have no right or discretion to interpret a statute that is unambiguous.

So what can a borrower expect if they have sent or is ending a notice of rescission? Be aware you are on their radar. We have emerged from the muck and ooze of primeval environment. That is why they bringing out the big guns. Holland and Knight is NOT a foreclosure mill and never will be. They want to do battle because they know the issue of rescission is a nuclear option that could blow up the entire “securitization” scheme of the banks.

What they are going to try to do is say that the rescission should not be considered effective because of the statute of limitations or because of something else like that it was a purchase money mortgage. They will say they could bring that up at any time because the rescission was void when sent. In other words they are seeking ways to make the rescission contingent upon being valid based upon some particular fact pattern they wish to represent.

That would mean that the rescission is NOT effective until there is a judicial determination that it is valid. AND THAT runs against the express wording of the statute, the express wording of the Federal Reserve’s Reg Z, and the express wording of Jesinowski. The rescission may be VOIDABLE if they file a lawsuit challenging the cancellation of the loan deal, but it isn’t VOID.

But the banks are not filing those lawsuits. They seek to raise “defenses” to affirmative allegations of rescission long after the 20 day window has expired. The Banks MUST attack rescission in this way. They can’t file the lawsuit within 20 days because of the problems with standing. If they don’t attack and try to weaken the “effective” (i.e., the day that by operation of law the deal was canceled) rescission they are admitting that their so-called mortgage backed securities are worthless junk — which is exactly what they are. Even in the current market, and even if they were doing it right, investors would need to be told  that there is a risk that one or all of the mortgage loans in the pool are susceptible to being rescinded; and, here is the kicker: they would need to disclose that any attempt to challenge such rescissions would require a proof of standing which is at the very least “difficult.” [It is difficult because standing would need to be established WITHOUT THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE, WHICH ARE VOID].

Effective means effective. It means the deal is canceled unless the banks get it set aside. But they can’t get it set aside without some action at law. A letter telling you that you are outside the statute of limitations or that your loan was a purchase money mortgage does NOTHING — except provide proof that they received the notice. And here is another kicker: those people who sent their notice of rescission years ago but were “foreclosed” anyway have a claim that every action taken after they sent their notice of rescission was VOID by operation of law. And any title company that issued a title policy without exempting transactions involved in securitized loans is probably liable for the damages. But they probably can’t get out of the cloud of liabilities created by securitization if it was a notice of rescission that was sent — because that applies regardless of securitization.

55 Responses

  1. “Plaintiffs unnecessarily seek leave to amend their complaint. A party may amend its complaint once without the opposing party’s consent or the court’s leave if the party has not yet been served with a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). A motion to dismiss is not a “responsive pleading” under Rule 15. See, e.g., Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir.2000). Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss does not preclude plaintiffs from amending their complaint, for what is here the first time, as a matter of course.”

    From: Catherine CALLOWAY and Michael Calloway, Plaintiffs, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Defendant.
    United States District Court, D. Delaware.
    February 18, 2009.
    (This case, for anyone interested, centers on servicer bs like force placed insurance, misapplication of payments, and so on.)

  2. I did a quick find on this page for the word hang.

    It is posted that someone here is a cult member and ‘hang on’ to a court filing.

    I found ‘hang on’ twice by the poster making the claim without proof of the claim.

    I found change twice and exchange twice.

    No one here gives legal advice.

    All who need to be saved from our posts, please say Aye.

    Is there anyone reading this blog who is harmed by any comment posted here, or think we give legal advice, or believe there is only one way to approach the system.

    The court filing is the creativeness of the Creator within three people who have decided to experience their world without seeking the approval or acceptance of anyone who posts here.

    Everyone has the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Pursuit of happiness does not require prior approval.
    Liberty of self determination is a basic need for life.

    I commend anyone who finds their way, however they find it.

    I have opened doors and unlocked passages by doing something that had not been done before.

    If any have seen the movie, The Matrix, Morpheus was captured and those that have dealt with the agents figured Morpheus was beyond rescue and he would die to protect Neo.
    Neo saw no limitations only opportunities and he decided there was an opportunity to save Morpheus from the agents of the Matrix.
    When asked how did he know his attempt to rescue was going to work, his reply was,
    ‘because it had not been done before’.

    The system creates a rule or process for specific behaviors and when someone is creative enough to make their own self determination, the system has to reload, thus the Matrix Reloaded episode.

    Remember an agent wants to limit your possibilities, tell you what you cannot do, discourage discovery of the possibilities, criticize individual thoughts.

    If you hive mind, you will make an agent happy, if you fall in line, communicate affirmations to their thoughts, you are accepted by the agent of the system.

    There are more of us, the ones who know we have the right to self determination, than there are of them, as they are of one mind and only function when all agree to the ‘same thing’.

    As for the court filing, one of the audios on the main page the originator explained their expectations and their reason for pursuing things the way they did. I don’t recall them mentioning getting permission from any one who critiques this blog. Oops, maybe everyone should ask for permission before living according to their free will. You think?.

    Like an overseer or a Lord, are we to gather acceptance before we move about in our day and before we find our way? Are we to garner approval of our every thought to make sure it’s in line with the ‘thought of the day’?

    I have no appointed anyone as my Creator. So I will stick with my unalienable rights.

    Shine the light, shine the light
    Shine the light, won’t you shine the light
    Philadelphia freedom, I love-ve-ve you, yes I do

    Read more: Elton John – Philadelphia Freedom Lyrics | MetroLyrics

    The control of the mind and specifically control of the soul is the ultimate goal of any agent.

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

  3. So…

    That Hudok thing is just a… court filing! Cult members hang on to court filings! That says a lot about Garfield’s winnings right there and then! No cases to celebrate. Cult members dig out something, anything to hang on to. Doesn’t have the Garfield seal on it. They don’t care. They want… hope!!! They dig and find something.

    And that Glaski affidavit is only… an affidavit (people here still bandy Glaski about as the door to the promised land while his own attorney declared his winning as “a narrow win in a huge, long-winded battle ahead, with a very uncertain outcome”). Serious people wait for the outcome. Morons get up and down, up and down, up and down with every filing of anything LL represents as a win or faithful cult members post.

    Faithful cult members. God have mercy on them.

    Desperation is starting to show big time! Has Garfield come up with a case he tried and won yet? Fatigue over the lack thereof has set up and is starting to show.

    There is not one legal brain posting on LL any longer. Even Rciferri, who got his 15 minutes of fame two weeks ago on the Garfield Show no serious attorney has ever compromised himself appearing on, (and who could never have been mistaken for a legal brain by a long shot) stopped posting cold turkey. The guy has something of an attorney license, somewhere, to protect. Passing the bar isn’t that easy in any state. Loosing it would really suck. He’s not THAT stupid! He knows Garfield has not represented anyone in foreclosure and is just a storyteller with the promise of a happy ending he can’t deliver!

    Wake up, people. Garfield is going down. Can’t sell pure B.S., insanity and costly, useless reports forever, right? In the old days, he would have been chased out of town, thoroughly covered with tar and feathers! After… having made a lot of money from suckers like you.

    Keep indulging him at your own peril. The thinning of the cult membership says a lot though…


  5. Thank you Trespass unwanted thank you

  6. Deborah,
    Sorry for your disappointment today, congratulations on your renewed resolve.

    People in North Carolina, I have not been actively keeping up with everything posted in a foreclosure blog, but has this been discussed to the level it should be?

    I mean anytime a court says the statute of limitations begins or starts or commences or any other term at the maturity of the loan, that is creepy.

    I mean I signed a 30 year note and knew the date of maturity.
    To think someone sits in their home thinking they have not paid for 12 years in North Carolina and a foreclosure is time barred and someone is holding the original note (if that thing still exists – apparently it would in these new modifications people signed – I doubt they would make the same mistake twice and destroy that note), I digressed, but to think there is someone holding that note and waiting on anything to pop up and either accelerate or wait until maturity and pop up with that promise to pay or take the property, is again creepy.

    bold emphasis mine

    the Court held that the NC foreclosure statute of limitations does not start to run upon the date of default on the note, but “instead begins on the date of maturity of the loan, unless the note holder or mortgagee has exercised his or her right of acceleration.”

    the above statement is from a jdsupra article titled

    NC Foreclosure Statute of Limitations – A Tale of “Zombie” Deeds of Trust?

    Many people will be shocked because they have not been paying attention and those that would do this to them will consider themselves having provided notice by that lawsuit and the contents of that article.

    Did North Carolina Main Stream Media report this decision from April 2015 or were we too busy discussing rescission to notice?

    Just pondering….I don’t live in North Carolina.

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

  7. And trespass Unwanted- ive been learning their ” language” and i have spoken back under the rules and case law and my timelines were within the time allowed, they designed it, and they must ” eat” it.

  8. Guys – i had an absolutely incredible disappointment today and i have to be careful what i say – but know that as a pro se litigant im being dragged to hell and back and im up for it ok, but i say you only lose if you quit, never never give up, take your cases to US Supreme Court because thats what got us Jesinoski, and we all should be in huge gratitude to the council that took it there. If enough of us can stay on the path of truth and seek Justice to the end of the line – then things may change. It takes commitment and stamina and god, im not “religious” per se but i believe in miracles – i promise you they happen ive seen many in my line of work and hence belief in a highest power, that shadows any other, and they should be afraid, very afraid.

  9. What I am please with is that people have not given up, and we continue to find our power and exercise our rights and find our way.

    I am so proud of everyone who have stepped outside of the box as we crack this wide open.

    Following the norm, and doing what is expected of us has led to the same results, dispossession by threat of a man with hands that has accepted an order that gives permission to put his hands on the people and their possessions to remove them from the property.

    The judge knows who has hands when they want to, and ignore life and living when they want to. If we are but dead making a ghostly appearance, there is no need for a man with hands to remove a ghost from a property that is possessed (ghostly possessed). What man can remove a ghost and it’s possess(ions).
    They ignore fact when it is convenient and recognize fact when it serves their purpose.
    Life has entered into the building and life has spoken the living word.
    They move papers as if in some probate court determining the estate of a deceased man or woman and send a man who has permission to put his living hands on the living occupiers of the property, but act as if the living man given permission to use his hands is not given permission to trespass against the living.

    Woe woe woe.

    jdsupra has an article titled
    Supreme Court Grants Certiorari on Notice of Rescission Under TILA
    stating the following first line:
    The United States Supreme Court indicated that it will review an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involving whether notice alone was sufficient to effectuate a rescission under the Truth in Lending Act.

    Does anyone know if this has been decided since the article is from May 1, 2015, and we are currently at June 1, 2015?

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

  10. Glaski is still alive and kicking. Gone to Jury Trial isnt waiting for Yvanova



  11. The people are awake and aware.

    We know there is no power, only force of their will upon ours.

    They claim to have contracts to do what they do.

    They claim we agree to what they do.

    They ignore us when we say they are acting against our will.

    There is no immunity for what they have done, and they cannot hide.

    We know how we create contracts.

    We know how ‘they’ create money from no thing and loan no thing.

    We know how they use papers to create an illusion of transfer of wealth, to attempt to stealth their theft.

    We know they are not our leaders, not our servants, they are pirates and thieves with no authority to delegate a power they do not have.

    We know, we know, we know.


    I would love to see what comes from this.

    Name them by their name, as they are nothing but an actor pretending to have a power or authority to do what they do.

    But they are a man or woman. All men are created equal.
    Equal has no power over equal.

    If the Pope’s Motu Proprio was for them, they violate their own Holy See’s Motu Proprio. Would not a Holy See see what they do? Is their Holy See blind to their acts?

    They have no honor and they cannot coerce or duress us to bend to their will.

    The truth will reveal we are free, but prevented from using our free because of what they do with no contract to prove we consent to their act. We have no verbal or gesture contract no implied or constructive trust of our free will to accept what is done.

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

  12. You really do know nothing about Estates..Trusts or POA.
    I advise you to hire an attorney.

  13. Looks like the only way the big guns (lawyers for banks and servicers) is more of the same obstructionist methods of not providing dox during discovery.

  14. so anyone have a bank sign there contract. poa is only for any mistakes . not them agreeing to contract . at closing of loan contract.

    so at time of closing there was not , and never was a consummation of both party, signatures.

  15. Ohhh.. Both parties signed the contract ….

    TU…NO POA from me.

  16. Ill tell you what is void after proper timely rescission – the foreclosure sale!



  18. Remaining general, opinion, rant, never legal advice, not proof of any claim unless stated under penalty of perjury, which I have not done here.

    Without speaking their stupid language (who would have a language that only they can speak, unless is it for the purpose of committing fraud?), we are rising above the filth they created.

    Truths that do not lie are, even as they refused to recognize One’s notice the contract is over, they cannot force One to remain in an unconscionable contract. That’s fruit of the poison tree.
    One cannot benefit from something that was created in fraud.

    I have always wanted to know and there is no one that can tell me, how someone can make a decision in 1933 and force that decision upon me to this day as if I agreed to it and consented to it.

    Unless these people can show power of attorney, or permission to use my identity, they don’t have it.

    So, if I sign a contract with an entity, and another entity wants in on that contract, they have to have my consent. I don’t care what the first entity agreed to. Even if they agreed to sell the contract to another, there is NO STATEMENT that is written, we have the right to sell the agreement, and that’s fine and freaking dandy, but they can’t hand you over to someone that doesn’t even know how to treat you as a party to a business relationship.

    We are no one’s property nor slave.

    So what have I learned.
    We signed an agreement.
    When it ended up with any other, they ended up with our identity.
    They use our identity without our permission, cause they can’t get permission from anyone else but us. The first entity filed/recordied docs using our identity because we had an agreement with them to do the thing.

    All subsequent interlopers have no such agreement signed or otherwise and they use our identity to record things on our credit report, and to claim we owe them money, they use our identity to file a public document of shame (NOD or acceleration of mortgage) to coerce us into abiding by their will, when it’s just an employee of a business pushing these papers to a law firm and attorneys, turning them over using our identity.

    They claim to sell our property in non judicial states, and the trustee doesn’t want to assign a substitute cause the trustee knows there is no beneficiary, so they commit fraud by claiming they have removed the trustee and all substitute trustees {When there is no document to support that claim} and they self appoint their self as substitute trustee without even a signature from any employee of the bank claiming to have a right to steal the property.

    Then they need to transfer the property from you to another entity, so that’s when the law firm with no power of attorney, steals your identity, and one of their attorneys record a document as if they are your representative

    you saw that, they represent you and you didn’t hire them nor pay them to do this thing.

    As your representative they transfer the property to Fannie Mae or some other entity without your consent but using your identity as the grantor/grantee, what freaking ever, they had no right, power, privilege, or immunity to commit that crime and for the value of the property transferred without your expressed consent using your identity that would be felony territory.

    Then they get some one who is a man or woman when they walk out of that building but while inside that someone is an actor or an actress. We didn’t appoint them, hire them, they have no contract with us, nothing, nada, someone else hired them, appointed them, voted for them whatever, and that actor/actress writes up a threat, an order, a terroristic document to send a man, by description he has to have a weapon because by the description no man without a weapon would fit the description, they call all men meeting a description that would include them carrying a weapon to answer the call to come to your property on a particular day to force you to leave it.

    By fact that the man described as any one who could answer that call, and knowing he will have a gun in order to fit the description, the actor or actress has assumed the power to tell them they can put their hands on you and your prepossessions to make you leave.

    We have no proof of their authority to issue such an order in the public, we see no backing of their power from any county attorney, or attorney general of the state, or the mayor, or the governor.

    We see an order from a self appointed, or hired by someone individual who is an actor or actress who claims to have the power to remove people by their word on paper.

    When we claim to do something, we show proof of our claim.

    Where is it written the man or woman can claim the right to issue orders for people to touch other people without their consent?

    Why is that not criminal to give an order to be handled like someone’s slave to be removed from someone’s shelter, where One has toiled the day and night keeping this shelter up for safety and protection from the elements?

    When the one who claims to be owed some debt, has no proof they loaned any money or had any risk involved with the property.

    They have no evidence that the property is encumbered to them.
    They have no signature of parties familiar with the transaction.

    We are the Ones who know what’s really going on and how the transaction really occurred and we are ignored and we created the transaction and are first party witness to whether there is a claim or not.

    How is this not wrong on so many levels?

    It has not been proven that any of these people can tell me I must remain in a contract I don’t want (ignoring rescission) and cannot tell me I’m in a contract I say I am not, (just because there is one signature).

    When I get auto insurance, the agent and I sign the contract.
    Don’t we see there is a problem here and everyone involved in the theft are colluding knowing we don’t speak their language and we have no weapon of words to defend our selves!

    It will unwind, and I declare I have no empathy nor pity for them whether they signed only one document, or sat idly by watching others sign documents and did nothing to disrupt this theft.

    The heavens and the earth were created long before man decided he wanted to claim pieces for himself and rob another of their piece unless One agrees to be a slave for empty promises and blank pieces of paper to share in what belongs to everyone equally.

    I am not frustrated, I am just ready for their judgment so I can enjoy the life I know I had planned before I came here to live.

    If One records a complaint with a public agency, the one who is complained about has no power to do intimidating things to get the One filing the complaint to back off the complaint.

    A truth is a truth, and intimidation does not change a truth to a lie it may suppress the truth, but it doesn’t make it a lie. Unequal things cannot be joined together.

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

  19. Its the Mortgage and Mortgage Note.
    Not the Note you attack.

    The Note, the Mortgage and the Mortgage Note.

    Its the Fees Boss…Its the Fees!

    Signed…A non borrower.


  20. elexquistitor,

    what most people dont know, or could even imagine, that when the closing attorney sent back to , gmac mortgage corp was, the original, and 3 certified copy’s of the original. and say it right on the closing instruction to attorney.

    so why would they have now 4 copy’s of your note to use.

    one note is givin to fed/tres for a credit amount of 30 times the value of the mortgage. so the banks on a 350,000 dollar mortgage got from feds/tres. a 10 million 500000 worth of credit sent to there accounts to use for anything.

    so if the borrower knew they were going to use there signatures and good credit, and OUR HOMES as a way for a bank to get 30 times the value, of the mortgage , for the banks to use for any reason. do you really think any one in this counrty would give a bank permission to use there home a mean to get free money????

    think about that. so if in 2005/2006 wallstreet banks took in 1 trillion in loans for mortgage s, the tres/feds gave the banks 30 trillion in credits to be used anyway they want.

    now if the banks would of came up to me and said look i will get you a loan for your home in the amount of 350,000 dollars, but we will get 10 million by using your credit and home. but we will give you , 30 percent of that amount for letting us use your home to steal from feds/tres/

    i would be all in on that. but they didnt do that did they. so as the saying go’s. PIGS GET FAT, HUGS GET SLAUGHTER. AND THEY WANT TO BE HUGS. RIGHT

  21. Its your problem if you warranted the title free and clear of encumbrance and liens except those of record.

  22. He didn’t pay the property taxes.
    The recorders office says you own it…..
    And paying the taxes is your responsibly and proof of an interest in the property.

    And Of course possession ….. And maintaining.

  23. You are rescinding the contract

  24. you have to remember under the hud 1 statement i sign , i paid the other loan off. as of gross amount paid by borrower, as stated on hud 1 statement. it show i paid it off. if they want to go after the money its there problem. not mine

  25. What makes anyone believe the “original” transaction was “funded” by the “lender” any differently than the refinance transaction?

  26. And Christine only makes it worse with her narcissistic, inconsiderate, and self-debasing non-sequitur postings.

  27. The same morons who have gotten absolutely nowhere for want of intelligent thought process jump on this kind of absolute nonsense, from a self-proclaimed attorney who doesn’t understand the law, has never TRIED a case, let alone won one, and to whom respectable attorneys with proven results would not give the time of day. But… the delusional morons bow down to him and get royally screwed each and every time.

    Such is humanity…

  28. @avid b – the good news is that if you return the property to the illegitamate ‘creditor’, that would be effective as of the date of the rescinded transaction, and you may be able to seek reimbursement of the property taxes you paid on a property you just found out you haven’t owned for years.

  29. @david b – the question was about the payoff of your previous loan as a result of your (void) current loan that you may have affirmed by a notice of rescission. As such, you may be legally bound to the terms of all that bogus crap you regurgitated that would be wiped away by your affirmation of an illegitimate debt. What will happen with the previous loan payoff when TILA rescission unwinds everything back to the point of before you signed the refi papers? Will you have to tender property or value to replace it?

  30. now remember , 2009,2010,2011 when they wrote off 22 billon in debt mortgage debt. who’s mortgage s did they do it to. ?????

    if i was one of then, then i didnt stop paying them until 2010. so again if they wrote off mind in 2009/even 2010 they did so while i was making payments. funny . hum . sound like fraud to me tax wise. doesn’t it.

    and by the way, i have to number one fraud examiner in business, marie mcdonnell property analistc. and as of even today. my payments are still being paid. by someone. so i have not mist a payment and not in default. if the trust is still recieving payment.

  31. elexquistitor

    i have the true letter of credit that was givin to closing attorney showing the true money , and bank that funded money at closing, it’s the wire transfer of credit slip. from the bank that recieved the funds for the closing attorney.

    all my closing docs , show nothing, from gmac mortgage corp, ever paid one cent to closing attorney or myself, in checks or anything. all check were made from closing attornet check book, and his account.

    i have all purchase and sales statements from security and exchange site, showing gmac mortgage corp, selling my mortgage to resinenual mortgage corp, in feb of 2006, then residentual mortgage selling it to , gmacm mortgage trust 2006 j1, then gmacm mortgage trust , selling my mortgage into the gmacm mortgage trust for certificate holder of certificate mortgage trust 2006 j1.

    now i also have the only true copy of the mortgage note on earth. got it from closing attorney in 2013, and it was sign over to,

    the same bank as who gave money 8 days later after closing date to attorney accounts.

    and it was signed without recourse to dauscher bank and trust, dated 8 nov 2005, from gmac mortgage corp,. signed and dated the same day we closed on refi. this is not a stamp. it is a signature from someone from gmac mortgage corp.

    now if the mortgage / and note was sold, without recourse on the closing date of the refi, then how could gmac mortgage say they own my mortgage 8 days later, and put that mortgage in there name at registry of deeds. please explain that.

    now first and only , recorded assignment at registry of deeds in mass.
    was from mers to wells fargo bank as trustee for trust. august of 2012.
    trust closed on 27 feb 2006. signed a course from someone acting for a company that went out of business in 2006. gmac mortgage corp stop exsising in 2006, gmac mortgage llc, started in 2006, and even them went out of business in 2009, and ally became in.

    now in 2009,2010,2011, just before bk of res-cap/gmac mortgage, and 5 other banks that held over 500 securited mortage trust.

    gmac mortgage /ally/res-cap/gmac mortgage llc. charged off 22 billion of mortgages off books.

    i have research this matter for 5 yrs now, have 10 of thousends of docs, have gone tru 10 of thousands of docs from bk , all assets of gmac,gmacm,gmac mortgage llc, residenual mortgage. and as of bk april 2012 as required by bk judge. they had to show all assets they own. guess what my mortgage was not to be seen. they had nothing.

    so how could any one , from gmac group,rescap, give MERS any athority to assign my mortgage to anyone, 4 month after all the companys were in bk. ?????????????????

    i could go on for ever on this.

  32. So if they wrote off the loans you have a tax liability.
    Tax forgiveness…what a Trick.

    Most were nailed on property taxes!

  33. Interesting, but hardly entertaining, the number of crap postings when real life legal considerations are presented here.

  34. TILA

    §1602(w) The term “residential mortgage transaction” means a transaction in which a mortgage, deed of trust, purchase money security interest arising under an installment sales contract, or equivalent consensual security interest is created or retained against the consumer’s dwelling to finance the acquisition or initial construction of such dwelling.

  35. I am so happy for you Dave and family.
    Great Job

  36. Actually Dave If I was your attorney I would not answer any of the questions on this blog anymore.

    But I am not an attorney.

  37. Dave doesnt have to anwser anything after the 20 day window. AND IF HE DOES well then it may be very tragic.

    I am not an attorney this is my humble opinion

    Awesome and great job Dave.


  38. Tod ShadowPussyCat et al.

    I dont care I love it




    The TILA statutes, plainly states that it does not apply to purchase money, certain refinance, as well as other transactions.


    §1635 (e) Exempted transactions; reapplication of provisions
    This section does not apply to—

    (1) a residential mortgage transaction as defined in section 1602(w) of this title;

    (2) a transaction which constitutes a refinancing or consolidation (with no new advances) of the principal balance then due and any accrued and unpaid finance charges of an existing extension of credit by the same creditor secured by an interest in the same property;

    (3) a transaction in which an agency of a State is the creditor; or

    (4) advances under a preexisting open end credit plan if a security interest has already been retained or acquired and such advances are in accordance with a previously established credit limit for such plan.

    Regulation Z at § 226.3(b) appears to be in conflict with the TILA §1635 (e)(1) and (2), as it does not make the distinction between extensions of credit for the purpose of acquisition or otherwise.


    § 226.3 Exempt transactions.
    This regulation does not apply to the following:

    (a) Business, commercial, agricultural, or organizational credit. (1) An extension of credit primarily for a business, commercial or agricultural purpose.

    (2) An extension of credit to other than a natural person, including credit to government agencies or instrumentalities.

    (b) Credit over $25,000 not secured by real property or a dwelling. An extension of credit not secured by real property, or by personal property used or expected to be used as the principal dwelling of the consumer, in which the amount financed exceeds $25,000 or in which there is an express written commitment to extend credit in excess of $25,000.

    (c) Public utility credit. An extension of credit that involves public utility services provided through pipe, wire, other connected facilities, or radio or similar transmission (including extensions of such facilities), if the charges for service, delayed payment, or any discounts for prompt payment are filed with or regulated by any government unit. The financing of durable goods or home improvements by a public utility is not exempt.

    (d) Securities or commodities accounts. Transactions in securities or commodities accounts in which credit is extended by a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    (e) Home fuel budget plans. An installment agreement for the purchase of home fuels in which no finance charge is imposed.

    (f) Student loan programs. Loans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.).

    (g) Employer-sponsored retirement plans. An extension of credit to a participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan qualified under section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, a tax-sheltered annuity under section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, or an eligible governmental deferred compensation plan under section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(a); 26 U.S.C. 403(b); 26 U.S.C. 457(b)), provided that the extension of credit is comprised of fully vested funds from such participant’s account and is made in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

    SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
    “The Truth in Lending Act gives borrowers the right to rescind certain loans for up to three years after the transaction is consummated.’

    In my opinion, the “certain loans” that Justice Scalia were referring to, are those which are non-exempt under the provisions of TILA and Regulation Z.

  40. Instead of everyone arguing about what’s IF, especially about rescission, which makes no sense to me, just ALL stop paying these fraudulent mortgages at once. And put an end to this madness once and for all..So Simple. Stop Paying !!!

  41. How do you rescind a contract that was never consummated?
    Who is the Original Creditor?
    How much is really owed?
    Depositor/Settler ass sets.
    Tax liabilities.

  42. @david b – How did the GMAC loan get paid off as a result of your non-existent (void) loan transaction? How will those funds be returned if rescission is pursued? Does the statute allow you to write them off? Will you have to pay taxes on a forgiven loan if that is the case?

    Do you really want me to ask any more questions?

  43. between what lines?? they say gmac mortgage corp, never funded a penny, so if gmac mortgage corp is on my mortgage and note saying they did fund the money.

    and now they say oh by the way we never did fund any money to you. but we are still going to foreclose on you. really..

    so again what between the lines are you saying,… to me it black and white. they say we did not fund any money.

  44. Elex you are correct

  45. this is how i see it going,

    1/ payed gmac mortgage over 6 yrs of paying a non creditor in the amount of 165,600 in payments, that went to them , and it shouldnt of went to them.

    2/ this was a refi- in 2005, and closing doc’s show’s me givin them, gmac mortgage 225,000 to pay off , other loan in this refi. so they say i gave them this money at closing,

    3/ plus all fees at closing at around 12000 dollars.

    4/ thats about 402,600 in total so far. that i would say is owed to me. for the closing part.

    5/ have security and exchange docs, showing them selling my mortgage for 500,000 dollars on 2 feb 2006. so lets just add that to the picture,
    shell we.
    6/ that would be now a total of 902,600 owed to me at a min.

    7/ now i would fight for triple damages, at a min. that would put it up to just under 3 million dollars, that i would ask for.

    8/ and any attorney fees.

    9/ and have all and anything taken off registry of deeds that say gmac mortgage corp/ gmacm, wells fargo, ocwen, trust. lien,security deeds, mortgages, notes.

    10. so no i would not give them back my property i own. they gmac mortgage corp payed no money for this note, so i would not pay them a penny, anyone that can prove they paid the money. maybe. but even that we would have a fight.

    i will say this, i know , the gov knows, sec knows, feds know, no bank or servicers,trust can prove they own anything.

    so the fight go’s on. i have a yr to file my suit for , enforcement. of my rescission.

  46. @David B – What that letter appears to state between the lines is that the beneficiary interest of creditor cannot be proved. They may be attempting to leverage the terms of the results of rescission which could be to their benefit if you have to return the property or its equitable value to them. You may be on very thin legal ice but with great leverage.

    IANAL, but if I were you at this point I would seek counsel, and try to find the worst-case scenario against you. You may need to answer this question – does rescission requested by obligor affirm an illegitimate claim of beneficiary interest by the creditor?

  47. to elexquistitor,

    then what would you say about the letter , i got and posted on from attorneys say fraud out load, and its been 10yrs from origination.

    just asking???

  48. @david belanger (@revolutionnow1), what was the format of rescission letter did you send and what state are you in? Can you send it to me? I would really appreciate it.



  49. Congrats David! Did you hire an attorney to help you or did you do this yourself? I deal with Ocwen and Wells Fargo is the master servicer I think I have different originator (Fremont). What is next? Would this mean you give them back the house and they return to you all the money you paid since November 2005? Congrats!!!

  50. Back to the “chicken and the egg” argument. The question remains, how is the 20-day period in force if the conditions precedent (proper notification by obligor, other qualification of statute terms, and exemptions of statute) are not met first? The narrower view of Jesinowski was explained by the quote from the actual decision – “We concluded only that there was “no federal right to rescind, defensively or otherwise, after the 3-year period of §1635(f) has run,” [citing Beach v. OCWEN Fed Bank, 235 U.S.], at 419, not that there was no rescission until a suit is filed [by obligor].” If you have no right to rescind due to a condition precedent, how does the 20-day window come into play?

    Ans: The same way the condition precedent applies to the creditor having standing to elect to foreclose non-judicially? In Jesinowski the obligor met the conditions precedent, filing the rescission notice within the 3-year qualification period. In Jesinowski, SCOTUS reviewed and affirmed Beach v. OCWEN, denying the right to rescission outside of the 3-year window. And there is no mention of the 20-day window in Jesinowski. That is the apparent boundary between ruling and interpretation.

    IANAL – I am not a lawyer, and I see rescission as a useful tool if the conditions precedent, as reviewed in the Beach v OCWEN and affirmed in Jesinowski v. Coutrywide, cases are met.




    Orlans Moran File Number: 189.5527

    There is currently no sale scheduled for this property, the foreclosure sale that was schedule for may 5, 2015 at 1200 PM, has been
    canceled by our office, we were told by OCWEN to stop any further and future actions on this property. that William a Marshall SR, and
    Joanna l Belanger, had as of the 4 march 2015, rescinded the mortgage contract and mortgage note. and that OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC
    has excepted the rescission, along with WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. there will no
    further actions taken , NOW and in the FUTURE will be taken by either party on this property, because of the acceptances of both parties to the
    rescission of the loan contract, mortgage, and note, dated November 8 , 2005. It has come to our attention that the loan contract, and mortgage,
    and mortgage note , has not been CONSUMMATED by the TRUE LENDER , THAT THE TRUE LENDER OF ANY AND ALL MONEY PAID TO ALL PARTY’S TO THE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION, THAT WAS GIVEN TO CLOSING ATTORNEY, WAS NOT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP did not fund the loan contract or mortgage , and the mortgage note. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq, enacted on may 29, 1968, as title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (pub. L. 90-321 ). The TILA, implemented by Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026 ) , became effective July 1, 1969. it has come to our attention that the required DISCLOSURE
    were never given to William a Marshall , SR, and Joanna L. Belanger, prior to and during or afterwards the closing date of November 8, 2005. By the proper
    parties, and true lender or creditor of the mortgage contract, and note, Dated Nov 8, 2005.

    P.O. Box 540540
    Waltham, MA 02454

    P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801
    E information@orlansmoran.com

  53. Great stuff, Neil!!

    Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

  54. And if you sent a rescission on a property that was not your primary residence? Got a letter back saying it was not possible to rescind according to TILA rules in that case.
    Please answer for those of us who need to know the answer.

  55. Oh boy. I think some people are going to choke on breakfast when they read this one !!!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: