see OCC NR 2015-6 Servicers Actions Restricted and 3 Services Released 2015 06 17
The OCC also has determined that EverBank; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Santander Bank, National Association; U.S. Bank National Association; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., have not met all of the requirements of the consent orders. As a result, the amended orders issued today to these banks restrict certain business activities that they conduct. The restrictions include limitations on:
- acquisition of residential mortgage servicing or residential mortgage servicing rights (does not apply to servicing associated with new originations or refinancings by the banks or contracts for new originations by the banks);
- new contracts for the bank to perform residential mortgage servicing for other parties;
- outsourcing or sub-servicing of new residential mortgage servicing activities to otherparties;
- off-shoring new residential mortgage servicing activities; and
- new appointments of senior officers responsible for residential mortgage servicing orresidential mortgage servicing risk management and compliance.
SEE ALSO
Related Links
- Chart of Bank Business Restrictions (PDF)
- Consent Order Termination Bank of America, N.A. (PDF)
- Consent Order Termination Citibank, N.A. (PDF)
- Consent Order Termination PNC Bank, N.A. (PDF)
- Amended Consent Order EverBank (PDF)
- Amended Consent Order HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (PDF)
- Amended Consent JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (PDF)
- Amended Consent Santander Bank, National Association (PDF)
- Amended Consent U.S. Bank National Association (PDF)
- Amended Consent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (PDF)
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: foreclosure, OCC |
I am trying to help someone find their Pooling and Servicing Agreement. The information is below:
M ERS #: 100091805003039211 SIS #: 1-888-679-6377
Date of Assignment: March 6th, 2012
Assignor: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRAT ION SYSTEMS . INC., AS NOMINEE FOR RESOURCE MORTGAGE BANKING, LIMITED, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS at BOX 2026 FLINT Ml 48501 , 1901 E VOORHEES ST STE C., DANVILLE. IL 61834
Assignee : US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIAT ION, AS TRUSTEE FOR ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE TRUST 2005-2 , ADJUSTAB LE RATE MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-2 al 4801 FREDER ICA STREET, OWENSBORO , KY 42301
· Executed By: STUART DENZIL EDWARDS AND KELLY ANNE EDWARDS HUSBAND AND WIFE AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY To : MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR RESOURCE MORTGAGE BANKING, LTD., ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
Date of Mortgage: 12/10/2004 Recorded: 12/20/2004 as Instrument No.: 2004-255773 In the County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii.
Property Address : 82-6291 MANIN! BEACH ROAD, KEALAKEKUA, HI 96750
James Smith: jsmith5915@msn.com or 443 677 2799. Thanks
Where are the complaints on the record with the Ohio AG to go with this open letter?
If the people of Ohio had filed the complaints giving names of the people working in these businesses who are doing these violations, this open letter would not just be sitting on a desk somewhere.
What can move the AG of Ohio is some names to interview, to ask questions, to get discovery of the documents that purportedly gave the power for the employee to do to the contract, what the people in these businesses are doing to our contracts.
The people wait for the savior, then they see am open letter, and automatically want that man to represent them, and go
‘Yeah!’
‘That!’
Where is the real information, Who did it? What, did they do? How, did it affect you? What, will you want the public servants to do, to help you? Get info? Get your money back? Make the offender, sit at the table and give you a new contract/modification? Disgourge/disgorge the gains received with unclean hands? What do you want; now that you have given the public servant the details of the criminal act?
Are the ones that steal from you, criminals?
Misprision of felony, We have a duty to report a crime just as much as we expect an agency employee or a business employee to whistleblow and report a crime.
We we are victims of a crime and don’t report it, we help them create more victims. We assist them by inaction. We have a duty to use the agencies that are there for us, instead of complaining and waiting on someone else to do it.
When a public servant agency takes an action against a business that has no complaints, ie. is perceived to have no victims; the public servant agency appear to be operating outside the powers of their office. Ultra Vires.
If the public servant agency work for you and are waiting on you to tell them what’s going on ‘out here’, then tell the the public servant agency so they can do something and prosecute these people for the crimes we are experiencing them commit
OCC settlement happened because the people, out here, complained, and showed the public servant agency, what was being done to us.
How do you get a list of 80+ violations? Written complaints from first pure witnesses, that’s how.
Why do the corrupt business employees get away with criminal acts, when a petty thief has all kinds of people pointing fingers? Cause a petty thief has no immunity, no one will give it to the petty thief.
Everyone will be eager to complain about the act of a petty thief.
Yet, someone working for a business with any name we consider in our head is important, or big, or has a status because if it’s ‘name’, and the employees are working for that business and trying to hide behind that name (that is not their name), and the employees are using the business name to steal property, why do those employees get immunity? Is it because people will come here and type about it on a blog, and feel important having a complaint against a ‘name’ that seems important, seems to be a sign of status, seems to be big, so they can lose sight that the business by any name did no thing, and that there are people who go there to hide behind that name, who sign the documents used in the corrupt enterprise to steal property.
Why the petty thief who made no profit, and not the people working for the business who are helping the owners of the business make profit and take over our personal property?
Are we not the hypocrite?
Read the letter, and figure if there is not a single complaint by any on in that state, naming someone doing the things that are mentioned in this open letter, will it even matter that the letter is written.
No body did it? No crime.
Somebody did it? Witness complains and tells Who? What? When? How? Why? Where? Then this letter will have some energy behind it
http://mcgookeylaw.com/2015/06/open-letter-to-ohio-attorney-general-mike-dewine-mr-dewine-will-you-stand-up-for-ohio-homeowners/
I will not get all relig u lus, yet in a David and Goliath scenario, all it takes is for one with the right information and access to the right thing that will bring down the giant, and the impossible becomes I’m possible. Do you think each man that stepped before Goliath knew they had what it takes to bring it down? All of them at least tried, that’s better than letting Goliath have more victims from inaction.
Are we different from David who succeeded, or the others who tried?
Did David know before he tried, or did he find out after he tried?
When good men do no thing, why do they complain about no thing being done by any one? Are they, good men, the anyone they are waiting on, to do something?
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Conscience, Corporeal, Life, People, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Ukg
And that is that – what it is
Hey UKG. ….
Make a billion illeagly …..
The Fine …. 5,000
No Jail
They made us All criminals … Unwittingly..
This is the business model in the Land of the Free.
Watch what is going on in Greece. ..
BRICS
Gold
U.S. Debt Facility
Ukg- yep, thats it in a nutshell- and a very succinct way of stating it, that the banks/servicers complied w 83 of the 98 criminal activites, but are still going gangbusters using the remaining 15. But who cares besides us? I appreciate your posts-
elexquisitor
So you hated my comment in the previous post, did ya?
Have you forgotten the freedom of speech, when is something a waste of space? When it gets your attention so much that you don’t want anyone else to pay attention to it.
I wrote enough disclaimers to bore anyone and keep them from reading it.
I spent a lot of time saying, consider it imagination and opinions.
Why get angry over imagination and opinions?
Does it do something? Reveal an option no one wants anyone to consider?
When people get tired of being the victim and robbed, they’ll see what is in that imagination and opinion and maybe unlock doors in their mind they didn’t know they closed.
People can ignore it, and Create the life they have for ignoring it, and people can take note and create the life they receive for taking note.
Should we all just ‘do the same thing over and over and get the same results’ within the veil, and using the same businesses and people?
Is it okay to life the veil, pull back the curtain and see the wizard has no power, the judgment is not final, and that even appeals court judges can be overruled, and reverses and remanded, and some removed from their positions if the right people know how they make their decisions?
Oh I forgot, the “hive mind” has no imagination.
Hive mind wants everyone on the same page, doing the same thing, getting the same results, playing (and I do mean playing) by the rules so others can rob, cheat, and steal.
There are agencies put in place for remedy and people don’t use them, what’s wrong with imagining someone using them?
Imagination is how we got electricity, and computers, and wifi.
It’s the unlocking of what we are shown to see what is available to us.
To use our power beyond anything anyone ‘gives’ us permission to use it.
We belong to you when you can tell us how to think and be and do.
I know the power before me, and I explored the world, and I have seen more than people who are ‘following’ people like you.
No worries, I put enough disclaimers in there, no one should have read anything from any one that knows no thing.
If Neil wants the space back, he knows how to take it back.
Thanks for your opinion elexquisitor, it’s about as useful as the pretend judges, ruling for the pretend lenders, on pretend contracts after a rescission was filed.
By the way,
We are dealing with people including bloggers who like to move in the dark and attack people who they want to not attack back.
As soon as that CFPB complaint goes out, that business will be disgourging.
Afraid some will be found colluding if she files a complaint?
No one wants their name known in a criminal complaint, I’ve seen what it does, and it makes them leave you the hel(k) alone, that’s what it does, cause they only have the power we give them by inaction and belief.
Who would make a complaint of the fact under penalty of perjury unless the were the first pure witness to the act?
People move the court with all kinds of nonsense, but when someone posts moving the system outside that corrupt RICO, mafia, gang induced system, the agent has to get paid and blast immediately.
Get some rest elexquisitor, I’m the last people you will need to worry about unless you plan to trespass, and I will file complaints that will keep you so busy, you’ll wish, yes wish you’d just ignored my imagination and opinions.
The door is getting narrower for the people who are doing this theft.
They are running and trying to find a place to hide. Remember hide and seek? You hide and someone else wants to hide in the same place or close by hoping to not get caught. Remember how that felt.
Well, I called game over a long time ago, and I’m done doing it the way the establishment wants to do it.
They rob you in a shell game and tell you to go to another shell game to get the money back.
Bump! that!
Melissa will find out if it works or not on her own, and she’s the Creator of her own world.
I wonder what you had a problem with….it sure touched a nerve.
Goldilocks and the Three Bears would not, but mine did.
Hmm.
I always pay attention to what raises you people’s focus.
You’ll waste Melissa’s time with your nonsense that if it worked everyone would not still be visiting this blog.
Lift the veil, if you want to see.
Wake up, if you want to know.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Comment: I know the news came out a couple days ago, but I’ve been too busy to post or even read any of this crap put out by ANY of the 4 sides reporting and spinning this story. I’m going to sum it up for every body, okay? Readers Digest version. So, let’s see, they’ve complied with 83 of the 98 items (THAT’S 98 ACTIVITIES THAT CONSTITUED OPERATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONALIZED LAW BREAKING). The fifteen remaining things must be the ones that I’ve encountered since the 2011 wrist slap: 1) forging assignments of mortgage before, during, or after foreclosure 2) forging notes before, during, and after foreclosure 3) bankruptcy fraud and, of course, 4) perjury 5) filing false documents in the public record 6) abuse of legal process 7) RICO 8) wire fraud 9) mail fraud 10) fraud on the market 11) continued predatory mortgage servicing 12) repleving violations 13) bribery and extortion 14) unauthorized practive of law 15) FDCPA violations 15)REMIC Tax Fraud 15)Securities fraud
Breach of Contract!
Contract Law 101
Perhaps Beach never claimed that…….
Never Mind.
Within 3yrs of CONSUMMATION.
If Escrow was not closed…?
Just Asking.
@JG – You should have read past the citation you presented in Beach to find out how SCOTUS viewed TILA rescsission with respect to recoupment. Beach upheld extinguishing the 3-year right for rescission in an affirmative defense thrown up by the obligor homeowner who notified creditor of rescission after 6 years. As I stated in prior post, court noted recoupment would have been considered if notice had been within 3 years of loan consummation. It’s the plain language that Neil is harping – the right of rescission is extinguished after 3 years.
re: NG’s blog today: SO?? Who cares? No one, except those of us most impacted but also the ones without the deep pockets to do anything about it. Ramifications for criminal activity limited to financial consequence? Probably using tarp and hamp funds to pay those fines!
jg: A while back I mentioned claims and defenses which could be made against an action even though the st of limitations would otherwise be up for them. Here are some cases which are at least indicative (must be made in first response, like all affirmative defenses or lost: lay opinion):
” Use of Equitable Recoupment to Revive Time-Barred Claims
As we all know, many clients often forego filing a legal action or complaint in an effort to preserve business relationships, particularly while those relationships remain profitable. In so doing, they may often unwittingly allow statutes of limitations to expire, thereby barring certain claims. Then when the relationship finally breaks down to the point where litigation is absolutely necessary, some clients are stunned to discover that past wrongs and disputes with the opposing party are now-time barred. This can be especially frustrating when the plaintiff intentionally waits to file certain claims knowing that the defendant has waited too long to file a counter-claim for past grievances. This article illustrates and describes how it may be possible to revive (at least defensively) such time-barred claims using the powerful equitable doctrine known as equitable recoupment.
It is well settled law throughout the United States and in Nevada, that the statute of limitations does not apply to an affirmative defense or an affirmative counterclaim of equitable recoupment. This principle of law is universally recognized and is typically quoted in almost identical terms in major treatises and cases that discuss it. A few examples are the following:
Recoupment, being in the nature of the defense arising out of some feature of the transaction upon the which the Plaintiff’s action is grounded, survives the expiration of the period provided by a statute of limitation that otherwise would bar the recoupment claim as an independent cause of action. In other words, if the Plaintiff’s action is timely, the defense of recoupment may be asserted even if the same claim, as an independent cause of action, would be barred by a statute of limitations.
51 Am. Jur. 2D Limitation of Actions, §123 (2000).
Likewise, another nationally recognized treatise, explains the doctrine as follows:
The defense of reduction or recoupment which arises out of the same transaction as the note or claim sued on, survives as long as the cause of action on the note or claim exists, even though an affirmative action on the subject of it may be barred by the statute of limitations. However, if the amount due Defendant exceeds the amount due plaintiff, and affirmative action on Defendant’s claim is barred by limitations, the Defendant cannot recover the excess by way of recoupment, but as to this point, there is some authority to the contrary (emphasis added).
54 CJS, Limitations of Actions, § 37 (1987).
Similarly, in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 13.93, 13-88 (3rd ed. 2007), we read that “if the main action is timely, a claim of recoupment arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the main claim, and not seeking affirmative relief nor relief different than that sought in the main claim, relates back to the filing of the plaintiff’s claim and is not time barred.” See, also 6 C. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1419 (2nd Edition 1990) (courts have properly held that notwithstanding the statute of limitations, a Defendant may assert a counterclaim to the extent that it defeats or diminishes the plaintiff’s recovery.)
The United States Supreme Court has explained and relied upon this important legal principle on numerous occasions. In Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998), the Supreme Court stated that “as a general matter, a Defendant’s right to plead recoupment, a defense arising out of some feature of the transaction upon which the plaintiff’s action is grounded, survives the expiration of the period provided by the statute of limitations that would otherwise bar the recoupment claim as an independent cause of action.” Id. at 415 (see also the numerous other cases cited thereat for this legal principle).
The Ninth Circuit has also relied upon this equitable legal doctrine in Klemens v. Airline Pilots, 736 F.2d 491, 501 (9th Cir. 1984), stating that “a claim for recoupment that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitation may be brought to defeat a claim arising out of the same transaction.”
Likewise, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada relied upon equitable recoupment in Vari-Build v. City of Reno, 622 F.Supp. 97 (D.Nev. 1985) stating that “on the other hand, where the Defendant’s claim is for recoupment, the statute of limitations is not a bar; it may be availed of defensively so long as the Plaintiff’s cause of action exist.” Id. at 100.
The Nevada Supreme Court in Nevada State Bank v. Jameson Family Partnership, 106 Nev. 792, 801 P.2d 1377 (1990) cited Vari-Build in support of the proposition that, “generally the doctrine of equitable recoupment reduces or extinguishes any judgment the Plaintiff is awarded, but does not allow the Defendant to pursue damages in excess of the Plaintiff’s judgment award.” Id. at 797. The Nevada State Supreme Court in the Jameson Family Partnership case further noted that “recoupment is a common law remedy designed to avoid the harsh results of a statute of limitations.” The Nevada Supreme Court went on to affirm the District Court’s ruling that the statute of limitations did not bar the Defendant from asserting its counterclaim as an affirmative defense of recoupment.”
In light of the foregoing, it is abundantly evident that the doctrine of equitable recoupment is a universally recognized exception to the statute of limitations. Although the Nevada State Bank v. Jameson case does not allow the “tolling” of the statute of limitations (which would allow the affirmative use of the claim to recover damages), it did allow counterclaims to be brought for all of the affirmative relief that the Defendant might seek pursuant to the counterclaim by way of defensive relief only.
It is interesting to note that 51 Am. Jur. 2nd Limitations of Actions; 123 cites to the Nevada State Bank v. Jameson case in support of the proposition that claims for recoupment survive the expiration period provided by a statute of limitations that otherwise would bar the claim as an independent cause of action. The Am. Jur. article notes that under the Nevada Supreme Court’s holding in Nevada State Bank, “although a bank’s deficiency claims were time barred, the bank could assert those claims as the affirmative defense of equitable recoupment.” Id. at 529, note 2.
It should be noted here by way of clarification that recoupment involves a claim by the Defendant, that grows out of the same transaction giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claim. On the other hand, an equitable offset does not necessarily need to be related to the Plaintiff’s claim and is defined as “a means by which a debtor may satisfy in whole or in part a judgment or claim held against him out of a judgment or claim which he has subsequently acquired against his judgment creditor.” Muije v. North Las Vegas Cab, 106 Nev. 664, 666, 749 P.2d 559 (1990).
One of the most significant distinctions between setoff and recoupment is that a claim of recoupment is immune from the effects of an expired limitations period. Properly asserted, recoupment serves as a judicial device employed to avoid the strict and sometimes egregious results stemming from the application of a limitations statute. Hence a counterclaim, setting forth recoupment as an affirmative defense, is permissible even if it would have been precluded by a statute of limitations in an independent action. One court explained the rationale for this equitable principle as follows:
[R]ecoupment seeks the reduction of a claim because of an offsetting claim arising out of the same transaction, … (a setoff seeks a reduction because of an offsetting claim arising out of a totally unrelated transaction). To hold differently, would be to permit the inequity of one party to a transaction, demanding full performance from the other, while refusing to perform fully itself.
See, Gibbins v. Kosuga, 121 N.J. Super. 252, 257 (Law Div. 1972).
Similarly, in Mid-Atlantic National Bank v. George & Ltd., the sword vs shield application was aptly explained. Mid-Atlantic Bank brought an action to recover monies loaned to the defendant. The defendant set forth a counterclaim for recoupment based upon forged checks that had been drawn on their account at Mid-Atlantic. Mid-Atlantic filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the counterclaim as being time-barred, due to the expiration of the one year statute of limitation period. In denying Mid-Atlantic’s motion, the Court established that “although the defendants may not raise this cause of action as a sword against Mid-Atlantic, they may raise it as a shield by way of counterclaim if the counterclaim sets forth a cause of action in equitable recoupment.” 233 N.J. Super. 621, 626 (Law Div. 1989).
In summary, the policy of equitable recoupment allows the Court to examine all aspects of a particular business transaction, and to then render judgment in light of the entire business transaction considered as a whole, including time barred counterclaims. In other words, “recoupment goes to the justice of the Plaintiff’s claim.” McGurdy, 136 F.2d 615 (quoting Grand Rapids, 121 N.J. Super at 256, 6th Cir. 1943). This contributes to judicial efficiency and fairness by equitably reconciling the demands of the competing parties whose claims are based upon the same legal transactions. Recoupment may then be employed by the court to decrease or extinguish a plaintiff’s demand (as compared to set-off which allows the court to make a monetary award.)
************
“67. Setoff and Recoupment CASES
See, e.g., In re Alpco, 62 B.R. 184, 188 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1986) (quoting In re Maine, 32 B.R. 452, 455 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1983)); accord In re Flagstaff Realty Assocs., 60 F.3d 1031 (3d Cir. 1995) (where the creditor’s claim for repair costs
and the debtor’s claim to rent payment arise from the lease relationship they arise from the same transaction and are subject to recoupment);
Matter of Coxson, 43 F.3d 189, 193-94 (5th Cir. 1995) (where creditor’s and debtor’s obligations arise out of the same contract recoupment is appropriate); Distribution Servs. Ltd. v. Eddie Parker Interests Inc., 897 F.2d 811, 812 (5th Cir. 1990)
(“Recoupment is a defense that goes to the foundation of plaintiff’s claim by deducting from plaintiff’s recovery all just allowances or demands accruing to the defendant with respect to the same contract or transaction.”); First Nat’l Bank v. Master Auto Serv. Corp., 693 F.2d 308, 310 n.1 (4th Cir. 1982)
(“Recoupment is the right of a defendant to have the plaintiff’s monetary claim reduced by reason of some claim the defendant has against the plaintiff arising out
of the very contract giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim.”); Speakman v. Bernstein, 59 F.2d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 1932) (“[Defendant]’s defensive right of recoupment under the contract remains so long as any right under that same contract is urged against him offensively”); FSLIC v. Smith, 721 F. Supp. 1039, 1042 (E.D. Ark. 1989)
(recoupment is “the right of a defendant to have the plaintiff’s monetary claim reduced by reason of some claim the defendant has against the plaintiff arising out of the very contract giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim.”); In re Midwest Serv.
and Supply Co., 44 B.R. 262, 266 (D. Utah 1983) (“A single contract must be considered one transaction.”); Waldschmidt v. CBS, Inc., 14 B.R. 309, 314 (M.D. Tenn. 1981) (in case under the Bankruptcy Act, court holds that where both obligations “grow out of the [same] contract,” the obligations “unquestionably arise
from the same transaction”); In re Bram, 179 B.R. 824 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1995) (where
prepetition overpayments and postpetition payments arise by the terms of the same
contract, they arise from the “same transaction”); In re LaPierre, 180 B.R. 95 (Bankr. D.S.C. 1994) (Reduction of ongoing payments is properly characterized as recoupment where the ongoing payments arise out of same contactual relationship as prior overpayments.); In re Izaguirre, 166 B.R. 484, 493 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994)
(“[R]ecoupment speaks not simply to the net amount due from one party to the other computed by subtracting one claim from the other, but rather to the amount of the plaintiff’s claim alone on a particular contract, transaction or event.”); In re Northeast Exp. Regional Airlines, Inc., 169 B.R. 258 (Bankr. D. Me. 1994)
(Obligations “arising from” and “directly related” to contractual relationship are subject to recoupment.); In re Bob Brest Buick, Inc., 136 B.R. 322, 323 (Bankr. D. Me. 1991) (A business relationship is a “continuous one which permits recoupment.”);
In re Tidewater Memorial Hospital, 106 B.R. 876, 881-82 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1989) (“Recoupment rests on the principle that it is just and equitable to settle in one action all claims growing out of the same contract or transaction.”); In re Hiler, 99 B.R. 238, 242 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1989) (A defendant “clearly has a right of recoupment” where “all the claims arise out of the same contract.”); see generally
Cecile Indus. Inc. v. Cheney, 995 F.2d 1052, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Indisputably, the Government has long enjoyed the right to offset contract debts to the United States against contract payments due to the debtor.”); In re Mohawk Indus., 82 B.R. 174 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1987); In re American Cent. Airlines, Inc., 60 B.R. 587 (Bankr.
N.D. Iowa 1986). Contra University Medical Ctr. v. Sullivan, 973 F.2d 1065, 1081-82 (3d Cir. 1992) (“same transaction” requirement for recoupment must be narrowly
construed); In re Thompson, 182 B.R. 140, 147-49 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995) (“One contract alone, however, is not sufficient to establish a single transaction, since separate transactions may occur within the confines of the contract.”); In re California Canners and Growers, 62 B.R. 18 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1986).”
jg: Many if not all these cases are in regard to bk, but recoupment is in no way limited to bk cases. Recoupment is clearly available in judicial foreclosure, but there may be a battle in regard to non-j because there’s argument, accepted, that non-j is not an “action (and recoupment defenses and claims are responses, essentially, to an action against one. That non-j is not an action is due for its own argument that it is, no matter how high one must go. If non-j is not an action to which recoupment applies, it’s clearly discriminatory, prejudicial, and patently unfair to all who entered into agreements where non-j is allowed. One set of peoples can’t be made to relinquish rights others enjoy. Lenders lobbied for non-j for their own benefit and got it: Non-j has clearly become highly prejudiciaL itself to borrowers if for no other reason than the trustee is the servant of (and often owned by the law firm actually bringing the foreclosure )or of the alleged beneficiary and not the unbiased party it was meant to be.
One internet blogger says tila claims and defenses are available in recoupment, meaning the st of limitations is up, at least in judicial foreclosure cases. I haven’t been able to confirm that, but common claims may be made past their st of limitations in recoupment.
As to the defenses needing to be made in the first responsive pleading, there may be argument to be made that the defenses weren’t apparent at the time of the complaint but have become apparent as the case has evolved and new info was garnered. Might be worth a shot…?
The state of California violated the settlement order! $292M was diverted from distressed homeowners to pay down housing bonds (so the state could shift revenue to schools for illegal aliens, for example). Imagine the legal landscape if those funds had been available for attorney fees for distressed homeowners. See – http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Judge-Brown-and-Legislature-illegally-raided-6329098.php
OneWest also has also violated the consent Order.
There was also mention of one West Bank still going through their investigations and those guys get off the hook way too much along with ocwen
Sent from my iPhone
>