Quicken Loans and FHA Fight it Out on Illegal Loan Practices

For further information please email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com. You can also call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688


see http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/compliance/fhas-new-loan-defect-taxonomy-is-no-panacea-for-enforcement-woes-1054864-1.html

Not much time today for discussion but this fight between Quicken Loans, who pretended to be making loans even though they were just a naked nominee at loan closings, is instructive about what really happened.

REAL enforcement cannot begin until everyone starts with the right premise, to wit: that investment banks sold an IPO for thousands of inactive, empty entities and called them REMIC Trusts. No money went to the Trusts or the Trustees; and the investment banks, who are the only people who have proof of what happened with the same of mortgage backed securities, kept the money. No loan ever entered the trusts.

The money that appeared in loans to borrowers was received by the closing agent hours, days, weeks, months and maybe years after the borrower thought the closing was complete. And that money came from a pool of money extracted from investors under false pretenses. Since the investors had apparently contracted away their right to have any direct relationship with the borrowers, there was effectively no legal lender at closing.

Hence, the note and mortgage were executed in favor of an originator who posed as the lender, like Quicken loans. The only “creditor” for these loans were the defrauded investors (pension funds etc.). But they only had actions for fraud against the banks or potentially unjust enrichment against the borrowers, but no claim to foreclose on a defective mortgage. My solution is to send the rescission letter which is effective upon mailing. Whether it was timely or the loan did not possess the attributes of a loan that could be rescinded is a question of fact that needs to be raised by the lender, if there is one.

The question is whether there was factually a consummation of the loan and when — or if no consummation then the action by borrower should be to get back the note, get the mortgage satisfied and get back all money that was fraudulently taken from them or paid to others as compensation for the origination of the loan. Those are the exact same remedies as rescission. If the other side brings an action to declare the rescission vacated they must prove the loan, which they cannot do. They cannot rely upon instruments that are void (note and mortgage) to raise affirmative defenses or bring a lawsuit. They lack legal standing unless they can show that the transactions (origination and purchases of the loan) were real.

Until regulators actually accept the truth as a starting point they will be arguing around the problem rather than solving it.

48 Responses

  1. Here’s an oldie in SOL, equitable tolling…on misleading, fraudulent, deceptive violations


  2. We’re interested in reading exactly how Deb has transcended the process , maybe she could post her successful argument that worked and forced the judge to allow discovery into who funded the loan at origination and each sale and transfer of the debt …show us how you worded your argument ..the one that transcended you above the process

  3. I believe I have already transcended the process, It appears I have been more successful than you have thus far. So I really don’t understand where your arrogance comes from. Instead of ridiculing other people who are here looking for help, why don’t you ever post information that might help them? You don’t. You sit here posting about how great your knowledge is. … and how others haven’t transcended to your heights of all knowing genius …but you offer nothing of value to anyone.

    If you are so well versed on the usual pitfalls of beginners litigation to defend against foreclosure, why haven’t you ever been able to put it into words that can help people looking for those basic tips? You sit back and criticise others who don’t know? And all you can say to them is that they will either learn what you know, or they’ll cave ?

    You clutter these threads with your useless banter in which you never spell anything out in useful terms that anyone could possibly use or even learn from. Neil Garfield posts a thread explaining how we should try to argue the rescission, and you come along posting hundreds of posts about vague secretive pieces of your personal knowledge that you have no ability of desire to share with others here, because you can’t simply explain anything …it’s all mysterious hidden things that only you are allowed to know, because your arrogance will not allow you to lower yourself to others levels who come here looking for help.

    Where was your smart ass when Rod Ciferri was here fighting hard to create the arguments for us to prevail in the rescission battle?

    You had nothing to say …quiet as a church mouse.

    But whenever NG posts a message where he keeps trying to clarify all the confusion and bullshit out here …thats when you people show up talking about all of your own personal greatness and your arrogant pride as you boast about how much better you are than the lowest of the victims on this board …yet you never post anything to help them. You mock them and insult them with your warnings of how they’ll cave if they don’t rise to your personal level of arrogance. Are any of you capable of posting useful information? If you can’t, then at least allow the threads to be used by people that are here to help each other, who know how to write basic tips from what they have learned that could be helpful to others… When you can transcend into a better person who is willing to help others, then maybe you can become a positive part of what this message board can be used for to help each other.

  4. “Transcend the process”, great way to put it Deborah. A frustration is the continuing abuse and “trickery” even after admissions and even courts saying the borrower shouldn’t have to “ferret” for BASIC paperwork to prove standing or debt.

  5. Dwight , i think Trespass gets it
    I think you are doing what we have all done at times during our litigation – being normal processing – you grieve, and react emotionally – because we all should be in pursuit of happiness not clawing our way through legal minoosha in the pursuit of justice. Btw you will transcend the process or cave. I wish you strength and justice.

  6. Dwight. .. Listen to your Attorney! !
    And for Heaven sake redeem those taxes!

  7. Hammertime – I’ll be taking a good look at that hummer – thanks.

  8. This could be helpful emphasis on induced or trickery
    “This analysis appeared to end the claim, but the Court marched on with it’s analysis:
    “Nor are the allegations here sufficient to satisfy equitable tolling. The First Amended Complaint pleads no facts indicating Defendant BofA prevented Plaintiffs from discovering the alleged TILA violations or caused Plaintiffs to allow the filing deadline to pass. See, e.g., O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir.2006) (“Equitable tolling is generally applied in situations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period, or where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his adversary’s misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Araki v. One West Bank FSB, Civ. No. 10–00103 JMS/KSC, 2010 WL 5625969, at *6–7 (D.Hawai’i Sept. 8, 2010).”

  9. I apologize to Trespass … I’ve had some bad breaks lately with some things in my life ..and I shouldn’t come here venting my frustrations.

  10. We’re all in the same boat Dwight. It’s the banks, judges, lawyers all laughing at us.

  11. I mailed my rescission letter back in 2007 when we didn’t have the luxury of knowing everything that Trespass and other experts all know today. It’s easy to be critical now, but back in 2007 every lawyer and judge across this country said that my rescission letter was useless and ineffective. So no, I did not keep sending them more rescission letters. But now we are in the year 2015 and just 5 months since Jesinoski has been decided …and Trespass is going to ridicule everyone because they didn’t know back then that the whole system was corrupt? Trespass knew it .. Trespass knew exactly what to do .. I wish we were all as smart as Trespass …because then nobody would have been in court , we would all be above it all ..sitting up high perched next to Trespass laughing at all the fools who aren’t smart enough to have figured it all out.

  12. You nailed it Trespass.

    Required reading for anyone that’s confused.

    Neil is saying THEIR letter is garbage! Great timing though on my letter they say I “admitted” 3 yrs since i noted note date as the form does in original docs. I had a feeling they’d pull their crap but I use “purported” whenever I refer to “loan” as recommended by paralegal a long time ago. But they ignore consummation and 7 yrs of dispute. If you did your complaints along with reading Garfield’s posts all these years how can anyone take their threats seriously with all the garbage they send us. If you’re afraid of being alone and desperate to cling on to your building instead of respecting Supreme Court go on cfpb web site and review published complaints. There’s only a fraction but you will see who they really are. Either your part of the bigger fight at this point or make your deal w the devil.

  13. TU _ ” He is worried that the rescission confuses and defeats the SOL.”
    Re-check your state law on st of limitations re: “recovery of real property”. Banksters and some lawyers posit there’s no sol on rec of real property by positing that ‘recovery of real property’ refers to / includes a foreclosure. But does it? A foreclosing lender imo isn’t recovering real property per se; he’s trying to seize and wants possession and fee simple title for the FIRST time of and to the loan collateral which happens to be real property. I don’t believe that’s a “recovery”. Recovery is when you get your stolen watch or car or even real property BACK and as to the real prop, maybe where the title was in dispute between the Hatfields and the McCoys – but I can’t support it right now.
    It only showed up for me recently that this (the alleged no sol on enforcing loans secured by real property) needs attention and argument re: foreclosure v “recovery”, so I can’t better formulate any arguments.
    But at any rate, you may list separate and distinct relief as alternatives. I rescinded or in the alternative, the sol for enforcement (collection?) of my alleged agreement is up, or alternatively, that’s not my signature, or alternatively neither the party named as my original lender nor its successor, that is the other party to the (alleged) agreement is present in this action.
    Banksters assert just about every aff defense in the book when actually answering a complaint (when they must answer because they didn’t get their rote mtn for sj or to dismiss granted). There are many overlooked aff defenses (and maybe counter-claims) to assert and the survival of just one denies a mtn to dismiss or for sj.
    lay opinions

  14. Dwight, did you submit an affidavit with your rescission letter to the court? Did you certify the resc letter as a true and correct copy? I’m getting rusty but I thought only a final judgment COULD be appealed unless one does an “interlocutory” appeal. HOW, if so, has your bankster denied you rescinded? Something its attorney wrote in a pleading – or an affidavit from a person with knowledge they never received it ??? You might (must?) see what and how and see if it’s procedurally of any value to them. But as I and trespass Unwanted and others prob have said, a day late and a dollar short hurts like hell. It’s just like the banksters to argue something as if they’ve submitted evidence of that something when they’ve done nothing of the sort.

  15. DwightNJ,

    I know nothing but I can ask some questions you may need to be asking.
    Is there any evidence, court case denied/rejected where someone appealed a summary judgment? Or are they just non-existent?

    Can a paralegal give legal advice or practice law without a license?
    Can you verify which side the lawyer that adviced them against rescission is on? Was he pro Jesinoski or not?

    If you don’t put items in your case, even as a statement, can you use it upon appeal?

    If you sent a rescission and got a response that did not mention the word rescission, did you write them back to ask which correspondence were they responding to. was it the one regarding your rescission?

    What is the success rate of the paralegals going after anyone on Statute of Limitations?

    Your relationship with the people you paid, is built on trust (or should be), do you trust them?

    If they lose will you be okay with that as a final result?

    I can go on, but, you ask questions, and you do things to make sure you have an answer.
    For me, I’d want to get clarification they received the rescission letter even if I have to communicate with them every day until I got an answer that they knew I was rescinding?

    For those riding on their one letter.
    Is there a rule that says you send one, and wait and wait and wait and wait. What happens if you sent another, or another, or another.

    For those that are rejected, did the re-ejector have first hand knowledge of the transaction, and do they have power of attorney to re-eject?
    Have they shown proof of their standing to make the decision for the purported creditor?

    My rescission was 2009, I was told I could not perform a self-executing contract by the people who rejected it. They even replied as much to the AG office which surprisingly I did not know they communicated with each other until the bank used the letter to the AG as a response to my dispute with CFPB.

    There is no statue of limitations on fraud.
    I see a lot of writings of the same things over and over, as if people are stuck or afraid to do ‘the thing’ that would stop all of this.

    One question I asked myself, where is it written as a law, that I have to go to a business I don’t trust, to let someone steal my property?

    I wish I had asked myself that question in 2009.
    Instead of freaking around with these bassboles, I would still have my property and they’d have a criminal complaint.
    I’d have peaceful enjoyment and they’d be answering for their trespass on my rights under color of authority.

    Needless to say, we walk our own walk, and no one can do any thing until they are ready to do it.

    I never wanted to go to court, especially for someone to make up shite and steal my property using what I thought was a legal process only to find out they were speaking Latin, and using their own dictionary and doing administrative stuff.

    But again. Until people are willing to do something different, it will be SSDD.

    This site after all this time and all the times people did something different and we get results, we still have people who insist on doing the same thing.

    It was those of us that filed the complaints, in the numbers, that got the judgments for the many, and those judgments made them pay for their wrongs.
    It is not the people going to court and spending their retirement and years of their life fighting for one home. It was us, who were willing to speak out and willing to be a witness to the crime, in the public, where other agencies and people can read our complaints, and we told them who did what and where they worked. It was collectively we, as the people, collectively made a difference.

    States got judgments because collectively we contacted them, people filed complaints with sheriffs and police, and when we went to the state, they asked in their complaint form, who else did you file with, and we told them who else whether it was CFPB, or FTC, or SEC, or DOJ, or FBI, or US Attorney, we told them who we complained to, and collectively we stopped things and made them get modifications to solidify their theft with the people who went to the table to sign new contracts.

    All the old contracts are still not good.
    But, they sent checks and some people cashed them, closing out their claims for $300 as final settlement.

    And there are those that use the courts, the first case is under coercion, but appeal is a contract by gesture, so you agree to let someone decide the final outcome of what appears to be a contract dispute, not a theft.

    People aren’t seeing it.
    They won’t step back, or maybe they can’t.

    I’m just saying, there is only so many ways someone can post use this case law, or use that decision, or this is fraud, or they have no standing, or there is no contract, or the entire agreement is fraud, or the entire financing is fake, or there was collusion, or there was no power of attorney, or they have no clearance to quiet title.

    So many hear quiet title and never did a title search to see if they are the ones who are supposed to have the home or if it was stolen from another in a foreclosure, and here they pay to quiet the title on a clouded title home that was not their title when it was stolen.

    Then people who file bankruptcy to keep the home, and never did a title search to see if they can keep it.

    I just don’t know what to say anymore. I watch.
    I know we have more power than we know.
    I wish I knew my power then, instead of after the fact.
    I see the government agencies do not have eyes in every town, city, or state, and we are their eyes.
    When enough of us show them what to see, they look and dig, and even if they don’t get an admit or deny, they have fined them.

    The banks have the power we give them by doing what they want us to to. Run to their paid for courts, trying to speak a language we do not understand, let alone comprehend, so that our writings in webster’s english is so flawed, they can 12B6 us, but will summary judgment against us without telling us how they did it.
    Cause we didn’t speak the freaking language, and we didn’t use their freaking dictionary to figure out what the, or an, or by, or always, or to, or with, or from, or in, or at, or any other word meant when we used it. most don’t know the meaning of person, and keep using the word foreclosure when by definition its done by the creditor, and if the creditor is not in the courtroom nor part of the case, you are NOT going through a foreclosure.

    Oh well, carry on.

    I wish I knew then what I know now, but if I did know, I would not have come back here trying to say something without saying anything.
    Trying to tell without trespassing on the right of people to NOT know something, to NOT want to know something, to NOT want to do something different, to NOT hear with their mind what is written in words in the blog.

    The banks get hurt by the judgments, (not enough to shut down, but they feel it), cause they have to unwind the monetization they had put out there that relied on those millions they pay in fines, to be in their reserves.

    Rescission means they have to unwind.
    If you don’t protect your right to rescind, it makes no sense to come here to get advice on getting what you told them you want.

    If something belongs to you, like your home, who are you to let someone tell you they are ignoring you, cause they’d rather keep your money and steal your home, than to let you keep your home, and get your money back.

    Seriously, do we really have to ask each other how to protect our rights?

    It doesn’t take a deadly weapon to protect a right, that would be excessive force.

    The pen has always been mightier than the sword and other deadly weapons.

    But I guess the t.v. show and some court papers are more important.

    Keep sitting with them and signing with them, and they will tell the agency, ‘Look agency, look right here, here is their signature agreeing to let us do to them what we did to them. I don’t know why they are complaining…they agreed to let us do this to them…see this modification dated after the news was saturated with the fact that the people were not paying the creditor for their loan? See this quiet title request, knowing they bought a foreclosed home that had a clouded title, and they expect to get free and clear, someone else’s home who’s title was not clean when they bought the home. We won’t even insure the property with homeowners (hint, hint) insurance because they are not the home owner…oh, well we called the home abandoned by the previous owner, not our problem someone chased them out with a gun and they could not speak our language and didn’t file criminal and regulatory complaints when they had the chance.

    Trespass Unwanted, Life, Conscience, Creator

  16. You can appeal a summary judgment? I’m in NJ and am told that we can’t appeal until a final judgment has been entered. I’m sitting here waiting for my paralegal foreclosure defense guy to write a motion for reconsideration. The SJ was granted March 18, 2015 …

    The paralegal is now trying to talk me out of pressing the rescission. He says lawyers have told him it’s a losing battle since I have no proof of mailing the letter, I didn’t use certified mail return receipt. But I have the copy of the letter and a response letter from Wells Fargo saying they will work to resolve the problem but never use the word rescission in their letter, they refer to the telephone conversation we had after I called them about the rescission letter I had mailed.

    The TILA statute does not say you have to mail it certified, it just says mail, fax, etc.

    Paralegal says the rescission conflicts with my other argument, that the 6-year statute of limitations had expired before the FC complaint was filed. He’s worried that my rescission argument will kill my SOL argument…

    Back when Rod Ciferri was posting, he called this pleading in the alternative ..meaning we all know they are inconsistent with each other, but we are asserting alternative arguments because we’re not sure which one will get accepted by the court and which might be rejected.

    The paralegal and his lawyer friends think I should let go of my rescission argument and just press the 6 year SOL fight.

    Rod Ciferri had concluded in the Back to the Future thread that the main concerns he had was if a borrower allows a judge to invoke himself into your rescission claim because you are in court arguing its merits of something …he felt you should just file a federal action for Declaratory Judgment based on you telling the court you had rescinded and they missed the 20 day deadline to respond, waiving the statutory process to avail themselves of the remedies. They waived the remedies by not complying with the 20 day rule.

    My problem is this …did I screw up by raising the fact that I had rescinded in 2007 as an affirmative defense to the FC in 2014?

    I also asserted the TILA rescission as a counterclaim.

    They were both dismissed with prejudice early in the case before the Jesinoski case came out in Jan 2015 …

    I tried to motion for reconsideration on the rescission issue and was denied by the judge because he said I never tendered money.

    Did I invoke the judges jurisdiction simply because I was defending against a FC??? This was not my action ..I was just telling the world that I had rescinded in 2007 ..telling them that the morgage lien was void by operation of law.

    Rod Ciferri ultimately believed they should not be allowed to come in after they missed the 20 day deadline …but was saying that a judge could believe he has jurisdiction if it is invoked somehow. Then he could start looking at the validity, the tender, etc.

    But Rod also believed that Scalia and the others made it clear that the rescission was complete and effective once mailed.

    Meaning that the lenders only time to challenge it was by filing a court action TRO…within 20 days.

    The only other possible way to undo a rescission would be to file an action seeking to have the rescission set aside ..but he felt that it should not prevail if done after 20 days because the statute was a remedial statute that said the 20 day rule shall apply unless a court changes the procedure … Rod says that since Jesinoski ruled that the rescission was effective and complete …that means the language used in the statute about unless a court changes the process must mean if the lender acted to file a court action inside 20 days …Otherwise the rescission could never have been held to be effected by Scalia if a party could come forward years later and argue the merits …Then it would have said you needed a court order to effect rescission. We all know you don’t need a court order to complete a rescission, that is what Jesinoski was all about.

    So do I include my rescission argument in the paralegals motion that he is preparing …he wants to focus on the 6 yr SOL..

    He is worried that the rescission confuses and defeats the SOL

    This sucks .. I’m not sure what to do …but I’ve paid him over 3000 so far

    And have nothing to show for it yet … I need to file something before a final judgment gets entered …after that happens, we live by whats in the record and have to go to the appellate division …this is the time the paralegal is supposed to be cleaning up my case for appeal

  17. @JG Yeah I think in normal world there would be delivery but in fc and reo when it “goes back” to bank can keep charade going. As to banks going broke mire smoke and mirrors that’s how they’re going to cry chicken little again. If we track the trillions, q uadrillions we’d all end up in Cayman Islands somewhere. Gotta quit chasing their rabbit. Time they fess up cut a deal or off with their heads!

  18. JG said
    “If banks dumped the loans on pension funds, etc., why would their own balances sheets be neck-deep in anything? If the banks took the funds from investors, why would the banks be broke?”

    this is a great question and probably a forensic accountant might have an opinion – any takers

  19. Hammertime: “These bastards keep us trapped and trash our neighborhoods by not recording.”

    A deed is effective on delivery. So perhaps what isn’t being done is delivery of the trustee’s deed to the grantee. It doesn’t matter if it’s recorded or not, since recordation is something else. I think I read that a trustee’s deed must issue in a time certain (21 days?). The law prob just literally regulates issuance but not delivery, so still a load as you say.

    Something else. If a broker orig’s a loan for B of A and B of A creates the closing docs and sends them to title and title closes the loan and the dot says return to those bums in Lewisville, TX, the broker whose name is on the dot never has possession (now remember that delivery thing). Generally, the law finds that a title co. is not the agent of the lender. It’s not the custodian either, or wasn’t. Ditto with the note. The note goes from closing to B of A or to B of A’s warehouse bank. Brokers used to get poss of the note, but after 2000, my money’s on, for reasons I won’t bother with, the note went where I said from closing: no possession. So one of two things may have happened. The note was endorsed by little guy to B of A before closing or B of A had a stamp and worked like, you know Mers, had an employee who was designated the little guy’s officer so he could endorse the note. The note is learned speculation. The route of the dot isn’t, because the title co. keeps the orig dot and has it recorded and returned to say Lewisville, TX , B of A. or like that (see dot for “after recording return to”): no delivery.

  20. I like Mr. Rickards short and easy summation of the economic collapse.

    “The brokers would not have been able to fund the loans in the first place if the banks had not been buying their production.”

    Have to say something about this, tho. The brokers didn’t fund the loans they originated – the bigger fish did with money from the banks if the bigger fish weren’t itself a bank. F & F did, to my knowledge, have unlimited funds to buy loans, as he said. It wasn’t broken. F & F WERE the “secondary” market, as was RFC, but none of them would buy the garbage those guys started pumping out, whether they did it themselves or underwrote loan applications originated by their brokers and correspondents and then funded those loans (regardless of where they got the money – the little guy didn’t fund jack.) The losses of the agencies became tax-payer losses, it’s true (and I could from the hip see arguments on both sides of that). I don’t know who all, if anyone, were squawking about that. But whether by design or whatever, the losses were apparently moved to the private sector, our pension plans and so on. Or so it might’ve been. But, as it’s often said around here, the government (and so taxpayers) ended up with losses monstrously in excess of the gov’s / our original liabilities. All I really want to say is the B of A’s funded these loans, they were sold to others, and the taxpayer got an astronomically larger tab.

    But what always confuses me is stmts ike this:

    ” ** Bank balance sheets were neck-deep in liar loans and underwater home equity lines of credit.** The fact that banks did not fail proves nothing except that they were too big to fail.”

    If banks dumped the loans on pension funds, etc., why would their own balances sheets be neck-deep in anything? If the banks took the funds from investors, why would the banks be broke?

  21. Neil, I guess you’re busy. Good. But I see zero corrolation between your blog and this article re: Quicken. I’ll try to fill in some of the gap
    (I’m an antique now as this stuff goes, but I’ll give it a shot).
    Back in the old days, lenders had to send their files to VA and FHA for loan approval. Send means deliver personally or courier or mail or fedx or UPS. Obviously this was cumbersome, time consuming, and the internet wasn’t aglow just then so electronically wasn’t an option (and no faxes for either of them). Eventually, FHA and VA started allowing delegated underwriting. Employees of the bigger fish could attend classes (in person of course) and test into being a delegated underwriter for FHA and VA.
    So, lenders started having in-house fha and va underwriters. Far as I know, it didn’t create any new problems (and the lender had to spot audit – at random – a certain percentage of those loans).
    When the internet got up and running, things changed again to desktop underwriting – underwriting done electronically based on someone’s software program. But the way I get it is that a processor can “move stuff around” and eventually get an ‘accept’ even tho the original info got the loan rejected. I wasn’t around when this came about, so I don’t know if an underwriter could manually overrule any du outcome. Maybe not because it seems more likely than not that the case no. and rejected info would remain in the computer program.

    Also back in the old days, private mortgage insurers (generally conventional loans over 80% ltv) insisted on underwriting a loan file before they would insure. That changed, too. PMI cos. allowed delegated underwriting by lender employees, just as fha and va did.
    There was said to be pressure to approve loans for minorities and lower income people, so even back then, it’s possible people who really didn’t qualify for loans were nonetheless approved. And that doesn’t consider the rest of the population which didn’t qualify and yet were approved by the de and du (or even agency) programs. Then ‘they’ found a way to move the risk off their own books and it’s snowballed since then, whether by design or opportunity made or taken by people with no personal or social conscience. imo. And we ended up at “if you’ve got a pulse, you can get a home loan”. We’ve seen the devolvement / erosion of all moral and ethical considerations and most horrifying, at least to me, the same erosion of the law. Fwiw I personally still don’t know if the banks truly own Washington or if the banks actually hold us hostage. We need some more Warrens. In the mean time, I think we’d benefit by the skills developed by those in the criminal arena in advocating our positions, as apparently only they can. They must have the corner on “evidence” and little things like one must prove his position. I read yet another case today where a law firm which thinks its lawyers are F. Lee Bailey’s folded like a cheap suit on a mtn to dismiss (on the usual inane, unfounded, nonsensical arguments). And no I don’t think I’m a smartie. It does zero good to learn a day late and a dollar short. It just becomes useless information, as I’m sure others here have experienced. Bitter pills, tho, that’s for sure.

  22. And make no mistake – i know we must fight like hell for it

  23. If you rescinded prior to all the minoosha ( is that a word – means a big pile of it) then what happens next will be up to the judges in light of the JESINOSKI CASE

  24. As for tila – imon it

  25. Thats frcp

  26. Melissa
    If you do not accept the SJ and do not appeal it within timeline for whatever reason theres one more avenue to get justice rule 60b – thats when material facts come out later ( ie more fraud ) or if the judge made a mistake in granting SJ – under rule 60 it gives court a grande reservoir to do justice and must be held in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, i did my appeal based on this , perhaps ask your lawyer if that is the case or study it if you dont have one because the timeline under rule 60 is one year.

    Im citing the rule not legal advice please do not rely on my blog opinion. Consult an attorney ( i would if i could but i cant so i wont 😐 )

  27. Too right David too right.
    I know that all it takes is just a few good men from there its like ripples on the ocean – far reaching, the jesinoski case is that ripple, i believe it is the only absolute so far – SCOTUS. So onward.

  28. Debra,

    as you know that most cases that get turned over on appeal, and there are allot now just doing that.

    they get settle out of court. you should know that by now, and they are bound to keep there mouth shut.

    they try and try but in the end, if the court doesnt go the banks way, they settle. its that simple.

    so all should just keep the pressure on full speed. and fight the fight.

  29. From TILA/Title 15 wording boils down to 3 yrs from CONSUMMATION as this post refers to or sale whichever first. In CA non judicial understanding is sale isn’t done until sale deed/Title? Is recorded. These bastards keep us trapped and trash our neighborhoods by not recording. My thinking is if not recorded then rescission makes everything attached to void note/deed, mortgage void imo.

    I would suggest we get on more secure site/forum to share info.

  30. Deb,
    You are correct about fighting the summary judgment in the appeal courts, but if you lose or don’t appeal the judgment, what does that mean for TILA

  31. David,
    Can you tell me more about your HUD complaint. It is interesting if HUD agrees with your predatory lending because that plays right into rescission.

  32. I dont mean to but in
    But some are fighting ” summary judgement” up on appeal, if you prevail in lower courts in non judicial states ill eat crow.

  33. Melissa,

    If you had disputed your foreclosure doesn’t this put you into judicial foreclosure? The reason for me asking is the notice of rescission, Neil stated that a notice sent after a summary judgment may not be effective, something that no one is addressing.

    to my knowledge and i would think i would know if there was a summary judgment on this property. unless am missing something that they could have gotten a summary judgment with out my knowledge???

    i dont see how. like i said they said on 3 occasions, this is when we will be having a foreclosure sale, a suit i had going on with hud for
    preditarty lending was approved by hud, so that stop them in there tracks for 2 yrs, and now in 2015 they have schedule 2 other sales, each one cancelled because i ask them for there authority , and sale was stopped , and now that i sent out rescission letter , i have herd nothing from anyone.

  34. David,
    I know the different states, some judicial like Wisconsin where I am at or non-judicial like Mass, where you are. But I thought that Mass could be either. If you had disputed your foreclosure doesn’t this put you into judicial foreclosure? The reason for me asking is the notice of rescission, Neil stated that a notice sent after a summary judgment may not be effective, something that no one is addressing.

  35. And sometimes they purport to pay ” cash” or ” legal money”!

  36. DB… if there is in fact a bona fide public auction,
    Bank na typically win because they bid fair market value ( credit bid)

  37. Melissa,

    In Massachusetts, the bank does not have to go to court to foreclose on your house. The bank, or mortgage holder, can hold an auction to foreclose on your home. The bank announces that it is selling your house on a certain date. The bank can sell your home to the person who offers the most money.
    When banks foreclose on a property without going to court is using the “power of sale.” But to use the power of sale, banks must follow all the terms of the mortgage and obey state foreclosure laws.

  38. David,
    Then how could they have a sheriff sale

  39. Melissa,

    as i have stated many times, they have never tryed to foreclose on us from 2010, till 2012, stoped foreclosure do to suit, than they tryed again in 2014, 2015, again got it stopped . they have not gone to court for anything, so there hasnt been any judgement, nothing. haven’t been to court , on anything and havce not been ask to go to court on anything.

  40. NPV
    You said
    “Moreover, the funding sources for origination were funds from foreign investors and pension funds – very real currency, which was deceptively robbed as a result of lax fund managers just taking wall street advice, and getting kick-backs to invest in the offerings.
    The leverage is created through the CDS tranche and the cash flow from the mortgage pools being sold into different tranches and securitization pools as they were cleaned up from prior pools”

    And mers tracked this right ( since the signing officer is under oath when he /she assignes the , ” instrument” which is dishonored up the yaz)
    Who was it that said it was likened to passing a whiskey bottle around at a frat party…but it was absolutely more complex than that

  41. David,
    Good for you! Your in a pretty good state for change. When you sent your rescission was it after a summary judgment in favor of the bank?
    Hammer the hell out of them

  42. Melissa,

    no one from any entity, service r,trust, attorneys , even the company that said they represent the bank to bid at foreclosure sale that was cancelled. has gone away. puff gone.

    now i have hire a lawyer to do what should be done. enforcement of the rescission, and for quite tittle the property. as i was away caring for my father for past few weeks. now that am back, i will be letting all know what is and will be happening in my case.

    but again. no word from anyone, and its been 3 months . and remember they had 5 yrs to foreclose on this property, so when something stinks like grap , it is grap .

    i cant wait to see judge face when i bring this in. am in mass. and i have sent all judges in this state many many doc’s showinmg them they have been wrong on so many issue. and am working with my senator in mass to change the laws, on mers. to get them off all records. as fraud.

  43. Exactly…

    Bank of America. Where did my hard cash deposit go ???

    How was the entire loan application done online ??? ( Even back in 2006 i didn’t think that seemed normal)

    Why was my loan number changed ???

    Why did you send paperwork with NOD about a Trust that doesn’t exist ??

  44. Reblogged this on littlefolksblog and commented:
    “There was effectively no legal lender at closing.
    Hence, the note and mortgage were executed in favor of an originator who posed as the lender, like Quicken loans. The only “creditor” for these loans were the defrauded investors (pension funds etc.). But they only had actions for fraud against the banks or potentially unjust enrichment against the borrowers, but no claim to foreclose on a defective mortgage. ”

  45. One last thing to everyone,
    If people would post if they sent a notice to rescind, when and if before or after a summary judgment, before or after Jesinoski, and how many years into the transaction. Information is to help everyone.


  46. David,

    What is going on with your rescission? The last post I remember is that Ocwen agreed with the notice. Do you have a lawyer, did you file a enforcement in court or going for quite title? I am interested in what approach people are taking and if they are doing it alone or with legal help. I am kinda in limbo and gathering information on my next steps.
    I also had Ocwen at the time I sent my notice to rescind.
    Good Luck.

  47. David, very interesting read, except banks did not use insured depositories to underwrite private securities. They merely stuck them out in front the impending collapse using the FHLB funding to get the attention of the FDIC and the than OCC.

    It was the mortgage banks, investment banks and credit card banks that had to convert to bank holding company status to get their hands on the funds being provided through the access window…

    Moreover, the funding sources for origination were funds from foreign investors and pension funds – very real currency, which was deceptively robbed as a result of lax fund managers just taking wall street advice, and getting kick-backs to invest in the offerings.

    The leverage is created through the CDS tranche and the cash flow from the mortgage pools being sold into different tranches and securitization pools as they were cleaned up from prior pools.

    Because our alleged national banks (FRB Banks) were so heavy with the upper tier certificates used on their balance sheet as tier one assets, they too were at risk or insolvency and certainly were not well-capitalized institutions. When the regulators starting getting to close to home, BAC fired the first shot to stop them in their tracks by effectively moving the deposit funds out in front of any insolvency…

    This is my last post on this site unless the folks that dissent are allowed to comment. You may not like what they have to say, but their opinions are also important and provide some insight as to what lenders are putting forth in the Court’s.

    “Tough to say you won the game, when the other team can only sit on the sidelines watch you score”.

  48. David:

    Mortgage notes are not securities. Period. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 110 S. Ct. 945 (1990)

    Bob Hurt Blog 1 2 f t
    2460 Persian Drive #70
    Clearwater, FL 33763
    Email Call: (727) 669-5511
    Law Studies: Donate E-Letter Subscribe
    Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

    bob hurt,

    as always , you are looking into cases that were done prior to wall street ending, glass steagall act. and mortgage securitization became the bank fraud money after 2000. so again.
    your mind is somewhat delusional. see, i see the real world, as it is. you see the world as they want you to see there world. i feel sorry for people that cant see the truth.

    Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis
    The repeal of the law separating commercial and investment banking caused the 2008 financial crisis.

    By James Rickards Aug. 27, 2012 | 1:19 p.m. EDT + More
    Editorial Cartoon
    James Rickards is a hedge fund manager in New York City and the author of Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis from Portfolio/Penguin. Follow him on Twitter at @JamesGRickards.

    The oldest propaganda technique is to repeat a lie emphatically and often until it is taken for the truth. Something like this is going on now with regard to banks and the financial crisis. The big bank boosters and analysts who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008.

    In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it’s critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis. Without a return to something like Glass-Steagall, another greater catastrophe is just a matter of time.

    History is a good place to begin. After the Depression of 1920-21, the United States embarked on a period of economic prosperity known as the Roaring Twenties. It was a time of innovation, especially in consumer goods such as automobiles, radio, and refrigeration. Along with these goods came new forms of consumer credit and bank expansion. National City Bank (forerunner of today’s Citibank) and Chase Bank opened offices to sell securities side-by-side with traditional banking products like deposits and loans.

    [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

    As the decade progressed, the stock market boomed and eventually reached bubble territory. Along with the bubble came market manipulation in the form of organized pools that would ramp up the price of stocks and dump them on unsuspecting suckers just before the stock collapsed. Banks joined in by offering stocks of holding companies that were leveraged pyramid schemes and other securities backed by dubious assets.

    In 1929, the music stopped, the stock market crashed and the Great Depression began. It took eight years from the start of the boom to the bust. Subsequent investigations revealed the extent of the fraud that preceded the crash. In 1933, Congress passed Glass-Steagall in response to the abuses. Banks would be allowed to take deposits and make loans. Brokers would be allowed to underwrite and sell securities. But no firm could do both due to conflicts of interest and risks to insured deposits. From 1933 to 1999, there were very few large bank failures and no financial panics comparable to the Panic of 2008. The law worked exactly as intended.

    In 1999, Democrats led by President Bill Clinton and Republicans led by Sen. Phil Gramm joined forces to repeal Glass-Steagall at the behest of the big banks. What happened over the next eight years was an almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties. Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and once again they sold them to their customers in the form of securities. The bubble peaked in 2007 and collapsed in 2008. The hard-earned knowledge of 1933 had been lost in the arrogance of 1999.

    [See a slide show of Mort Zuckerman’s 5 Ways to Create More Jobs.]

    The bank supporters’ attacks on this clear-as-a-bell narrative deserve a hearing to show how flimsy they are. One bank supporter says you cannot blame banks for fraudulent loan originations because that was done by unscrupulous mortgage brokers. This is nonsense. The brokers would not have been able to fund the loans in the first place if the banks had not been buying their production.

    Another apologist says the fact that no big banks failed in the crisis proves they were not the cause of the problem. This is also ludicrous. The reason the big banks did not fail was because they were bailed out by the government. Clearly the banks would have failed but for the bailouts. Bank balance sheets were neck-deep in liar loans and underwater home equity lines of credit. The fact that banks did not fail proves nothing except that they were too big to fail.

    Yet another big bank spokesman says that nonbanks such as Lehman and Bear Stearns were more to blame for the crisis. This ignores the fact that nonbanks get their funding from banks in the form of mortgages, repurchase agreements, and lines of credit. Without the big banks providing easy credit on bad collateral like structured products, the nonbanks would not have been able to leverage themselves.

    [See a slide show of 5 bright spots in the U.S. economy.]

    It is true that the financial crisis has enough blame to go around. Borrowers were reckless, brokers were greedy, rating agencies were negligent, customers were naïve, and government encouraged the fiasco with unrealistic housing goals and unlimited lines of credit at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Yet, the fact that there were so many parties to blame should not be used to deflect blame from the most responsible parties of all—the big banks. Without the banks providing financing to the mortgage brokers and Wall Street while underwriting their own issues of toxic securities, the entire pyramid scheme would never have got off the ground.

    [See a slide show of 6 ways to fix the housing market.]

    It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long.

    Now, when memories are fresh, is the time to reinstate Glass-Steagall to prevent a third cycle of fraud on customers. Without the separation of banking and underwriting, it’s just a matter of time before banks repeat their well-honed practice of originating garbage loans and stuffing them down customers’ throats. Congress had the answer in 1933. Congress lost its way in 1999. Now is the chance to get back to the garden.

    Read Eileen Appelbaum: Report Gives New Insight in the Decline of the Middle Class
    Check out Economic Intelligence on Twitter at @EconomicIntel.
    Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider’s guide to politics and policy.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: