Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products
===========================
For more information please email us at gtchonors.llblog@gmail.com or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located. while it is possible that the rescission laws might apply to all consumer loans, the author has researched other types of loans in any detail — student loans, auto loans, furniture loans, credit cards, and other cash advances etc. No opinion is offered on those —- yet.
Rescission strategies are coming fast and furious and the banks are painting themselves into a corner. One issue was what happens if the rescission letter refers to the transaction as of a certain date? That is evidence of the consummation but not the total proof. In response to one person who used the date of the instruments in his letter of rescission, I wrote the following:
——————————————
The only problem I see is that the date of the transaction is listed but it is not clear that was the date of consummation. We also found an Orlando case where a Federal Judge did apply the TILA rescission rules as we have described it. The wrinkle is that the homeowner later entered into a modification agreement and then was deemed to have consented to judgment — she was proceeding pro se and seems to have literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. SO in her case we don’t hold out much help that we can do anything for her.
These cases are going to hinge on procedure and standing. If the Judge looks at the notice of rescission and decides as a matter of law that the transaction was (a) consummated and (b) on the date shown in the letter he might rule that the rescission was not effective. This would be contrary to law and contrary to what the Supreme Court said, as to procedure, but within the boundaries of what TILA rescission says is a loan qualifying for TILA rescission.
Our view, based upon a literal reading of the statute (the only possible reading according to the Supreme Court in Jesinoski) is that the the issue of consummation is a factual issue that may be raised by the creditor — or waived. They could simply comply without raising the defenses or waive the defenses by failure to to raise their challenge in a court proceeding (i.e., counteracting the rescission which is effective by operation of law with another action that is effective by operation of law).
Failing that, they must bring the claim. But the “they” is the crux of the issue. Who can bring a claim challenging the rescission? The answer can only be a party who has standing. Without standing there is no jurisdiction in the court to consider their claims regarding the rescission. Without standing it doesn’t matter whether they have any legitimate objections to the sending of the rescission or any basis for demanding that the rescission be vacated.
Standing means that the party presenting the claim has or will suffer injury as a result of the sending of the rescission, which became effective (same as a court order) the moment it was mailed. In foreclosure actions most of them have skipped over standing based upon “holding” the note. While we disagree with that interpretation because it treats the “holder” as a “Holder in due course” the procedure changes when a party seeks to vacate the notice of rescission, which as of the the date and time of the challenge is effective by operation of law.
Since the rescission is effective by operation of law as of the date of mailing, that means, according to 15 USC § 1635 et seq., Regulation Z, and the US Supreme Court (Jesinoski) that the note and mortgage were rendered void by the mailing of the notice of rescission. Once something has happened by operation of law, it is a fact whether we agree with it or not. Once it happens not even the party who invoked it can avoid it or seek to ignore it without filing some action which by operation of law would allow the Judge to vacate the rescission.
If the borrower can’t revoke it, then neither can the creditor. The only caveat here is if the borrower and creditor enter into a new agreement that uses the old note and mortgage as the documents that will be used in the new agreement. At that point a new loan arises, along with the rights of rescission, which must be delivered to the borrower as part of the rescission. The TILA disclosure requirements must be met for the “new loan.”
Which brings us to the issues of who can enter into this new agreement and who can ask the court to revoke the or vacate the rescission? The answer is the real creditor (see posts from prior two days). And the real creditor may NOT use the note or mortgage as evidence of their standing. Those instruments were rendered void by operation of law when the rescission was mailed. So the “creditor” must show that it is in fact the real party in interest having funded or paid for the loan — or that they have legal authority to represent a creditor who funded or paid for the loan. They no longer even have the opportunity to use presumptions that might attach to a holder or possessor with rights to enforce because that would mean they are seeking relief based upon claims arising from two instruments (note and mortgage) that are already void by operation of law.
This is why I have repeatedly said that homeowners MUST have an experienced trial lawyer who knows how to argue these points, understands them and can stay on message without getting lured into an argument about whether the rescission was effective. There can be no such discussion. THAT issue — the effectiveness of the rescission is already over and done.
The rescission IS effective upon mailing. That issue is 100% decided by the Supreme Court whose unanimous decision was (a) that the TILA rescission statutes are not ambiguous and that therefore (b) that the Judge has absolutely no right to read anything into the statute.
The Judge’s duty is to read the statute and follow it line by line as to procedure and substance. That means the rescission is effective even if the borrower was wrong in mailing it. It is up the the creditor to decide whether to accept the rescission under TILA or to contest it. If they contest it they must do it within 20 days of receipt. If they don’t do it within 20 days, they waive their potential objections or challenges.
How do we know that? Because the statute, Regulation Z and the Supreme Court have made it perfectly clear that the rescission is not contingent in any way — i.e., the rescission is effective without waiting for any Judge anywhere from interpreting the statute and the actions of the borrower to mean that the rescission was effective. It is effective without the borrower going to a lawyer, without the borrower filing a lawsuit and without any court order being entered. The rescission itself is equivalent to a court order.
As to the “Public Policy” arguments against this procedure and substance of TILA statutes there are several answers. The first and foremost one is that Congress, the President and the Supreme Court have all decided it is just fine and no court can change public policy set by the legislative branch nor is there any power on earth that can overrule the Supreme Court. The second reason is even easier — if the creditor shows up having proof that they funded the loan transaction or funded the purchase of the loan transaction with actual proof of payment, they lose nothing. They can either vacate the rescission or accept it — either way they get paid off — in fact with an easier claim if they accept the rescission. The only parties that will scream here are the ones who have been faking their interest int he loans — and that is exactly what the Truth in Lending Act was meant to prevent.
Filed under: foreclosure |
SECTION 305. NO CREDITOR RIGHTS IN TRUST PROPERTY. A creditor of a
beneficial owner or trustee may not obtain possession of, or otherwise exercise legal or equitable
remedies with respect to, the property of a statutory trust or any series thereof.
Comment
Principal Sources – Delaware Statutory Trust Act § 3805 (2009); Uniform Limited
Partnership Act § 701 (2001); Uniform Trust Code § 507 (2000); Uniform Limited Liability
Company Act § 501 (1996); Revised Uniform Partnership Act § 203 (1997).
By confirming that a creditor of a beneficial owner or a trustee has no recourse against
the property of the statutory trust, this section implements the concept that a statutory trust is an
entity separate from its trustees and beneficial owners.
With respect to a trustee, the rule of this section is familiar from the operation of
common-law trusts. See Uniform Trust Code § 507 (2000); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 42,
cmt. c (2003); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 308 (1959). The rule of this section is also
consistent with federal bankruptcy law. Property in which a trustee holds legal title as trustee is
not part of the trustee’s bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(d) (2009).
With respect to a beneficial owner, the parallel provision in the Delaware Statutory Trust
Act is discussed in Wendell Fenton & Eric A. Mazie, Delaware Statutory Trusts § 19.4, in 2 R.
Franklin Balotti & Jesse A. Finkelstein, The Delaware Law of Corporations and Business
Organizations (3d ed. 2009 Supp.).
That was the court trap until now and still. But that’s the power of TILA now is they have to go to court and try to prove there’s a valid transaction. so if tgry come up w 3rd version maybe theyll get laughed out of court at laat. The other key is when “paid off ” yhey had to give it to you. If yours was not purchase lian it seems u can raise the issue if u haven’t. G post today was about undoing sale so who knows. just brainstorming as usual.
I am aware that you cannot have more than one note, but when the judge does not look at the note and see what is happening and does not want to do his job, that is what you get.
But we do over and over!
Louise the question would be where’s the wet ink note. Or if there was a refi where’s the wet ink note marked paid and DELIVERED by right.. This is where people accepted copies and transfers no matter what type of transfer and copies were ok.
Sounds like you have 2 different versions on ur lap. So which will they say is valid transaction and tied to thee original?
There are exceptions like fire or e file but you can’t have multiples popping up all over.
H, I have two notes on my house: one is in one law firm’s files with an auto pen forged signature, and he other one that has been admitted to the record (out of court BTW) is a copy. The banksters sold multiples of the notes (many times) and even if you get a satisfaction or mortgage and paid in full Note, someone could still came after you in the future for that debt. This BS goes on all over credit card debt and car loans, too.
@ db looks like u actually read something lol!
elexquisitor, on July 27, 2015 at 12:33 pm said:
@db – who stated “The rescission IS effective upon mailing.”
If sent within the 3 years as ruled upon by Beach, the rescission is effective upon RECEIPT BY LENDER.
There. Fixed it.
beach was common law, not tila. even the supreme court stated this.
I requested the canceled note but never received it… thanks for reminding me. I’ll visit the county records room, get a certified copy of the satisfaction, and head back to the bank to “demand the (canceled ) note”.
“The only parties that will scream here are the ones that have been faking their interest…”
As to double edged sword it’s all been a catch 22 by the fakers that got away with their scam since TILA and other laws were twisted and not enforced.
So if there’s no fraud in your loan, ur balance is less than harm done yeah u might “lose out ” but if a fraudster is trying to steal ur home u can risk the paper cut in mailing rescission.
@ dand did u ever receive the paid note on your “good” payoff. If not even ur “good” loan could be toxic.
So if u believe this is all about, ur default, sub prime/people of color then you’ll keep propping up their interest and not ur own.
@db – who stated “The rescission IS effective upon mailing.”
If sent within the 3 years as ruled upon by Beach, the rescission is effective upon RECEIPT BY LENDER.
There. Fixed it.
Fixing DB is a different matter. He REFUSES to point out in the statute where it states the bank has only 20 days to file a suit if it disagrees with a TILA rescission, but trumpets it all over this blog like it’s the truth. And still no word on whether the lender returned his original loan documents or not, which is one of the conditions actually stated in the statute regarding the 20 days.
As for waiving of rights by the lender by not contesting in 20 days, that flies in the face that an affirmative defense of standing can be made at any time, even as late as appeal. If the 3 years have passed before the bank received a notice of TILA rescission, the right of rescission is irrevocable extinguished. And the right to raise the question of standing of the borrower to prosecute a TILA rescission trumps the right of TILA rescission claims found void due to the passage of time. So much for the 20-day fallacy propounded by DB that the bank has to file suit. If the right doesn’t exist, the 20 day condition doesn’t exist, either.
elex, said
Think about it. If DB is held to rescind the loan by the banksters,
held to what? ARE YOU THAT STUPID. by operation of law, even i can not take back the rescission letter. go read the transcripts of the supreme court on this matter. justices said that the banks have to file in the 20 days a declaratory judgment suit?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Suppose suppose the
19 suppose the notice comes 3 days before the 3year period
20 ends, and the bank just doesn’t have time?
21 MR. FREDERICK: No, the bank under the
22 procedures in Section (b) has 20 days in which to
23 tend to pay back the loan proceeds that had been
24 conferred to the borrower. So the way this works in
25 practice is that the bank takes its 20 days, and if it
investigates the loan file and it comes to the
2 conclusion that it has an argument that the borrower has
3 improperly sent a notice of rescission, it does what the
4 bank did here, which is to write a letter back and say:
5 We contest or we dispute your rescission.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Frederick, the bank,
11 as soon as it receives the notice of rescission one
12 of the benefits for people who don’t want to pay a
13 mortgage is that it suspends the mortgage payments;
14 correct?
15 MR. FREDERICK: That’s correct.
16 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. So isn’t it
17 in the bank’s
18 MR. FREDERICK: Although if I could
19 interrupt
20 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: isn’t it I’m
21 sorry.
22 MR. FREDERICK: Sorry. If I could interrupt
23 you, many times borrowers will send their rescission
24 notice and actually continue to pay.
25 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But for those who don’t,
the bank can file a declaratory judgment suit?
2 MR. FREDERICK: That’s correct.
3 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. And even for
4 the ones who do, they could do the same thing?
5 MR. FREDERICK: That’s correct.
The rescission IS effective upon mailing. That issue is 100% decided by the Supreme Court whose unanimous decision was (a) that the TILA rescission statutes are not ambiguous and that therefore (b) that the Judge has absolutely no right to read anything into the statute.
The Judge’s duty is to read the statute and follow it line by line as to procedure and substance. That means the rescission is effective even if the borrower was wrong in mailing it. It is up the the creditor to decide whether to accept the rescission under TILA or to contest it. If they contest it they must do it within 20 days of receipt. If they don’t do it within 20 days, they waive their potential objections or challenges.
How do we know that? Because the statute, Regulation Z and the Supreme Court have made it perfectly clear that the rescission is not contingent in any way — i.e., the rescission is effective without waiting for any Judge anywhere from interpreting the statute and the actions of the borrower to mean that the rescission was effective. It is effective without the borrower going to a lawyer, without the borrower filing a lawsuit and without any court order being entered. The rescission itself is equivalent to a court order.
As to the “Public Policy” arguments against this procedure and substance of TILA statutes there are several answers. The first and foremost one is that Congress, the President and the Supreme Court have all decided it is just fine and no court can change public policy set by the legislative branch nor is there any power on earth that can overrule the Supreme Court. The second reason is even easier — if the creditor shows up having proof that they funded the loan transaction or funded the purchase of the loan transaction with actual proof of payment, they lose nothing. They can either vacate the rescission or accept it — either way they get paid off — in fact with an easier claim if they accept the rescission. The only parties that will scream here are the ones who have been faking their interest int he loans — and that is exactly what the Truth in Lending Act was meant to prevent.
THERE IS NO FRAUD because THERE IS NO LONGER A TRANSACTION from which the fraud derives.
they admitted to all the fraud.
. At best, there is no fraud because DB accepted the fraud as part of his rescission terms.
db has not accepted anything yet. they accepted the FACTS that they never was A LENDER,CREDITOR, OR THE PROPER PARTY TO GIVE ALL TILA/RESPA DISCLOSURES. THATS A FACT. THAT THEY ADMITTED.
IANAL, (I am not a lawyer) but if I can come up with these questions, you better believe a bankster barrister will do the same.
as people on here say should happen. as to rescission. that both party
are put back as if nothing ever happen.
well we own are home out right. so this would mean to me , that once they do what the laws say they have to do. give back all funds ,payments, all money they made on note from selling it, and take off any and all liens.
i will be back were i was in the beginning. whole. so once they pay me the 165000 in payments back, plus the 12000 in closing cost, and the 500,000 thousand that i know they sold my mortgage for, as i have proof of that doc. and all will be set.
damages for emotional stress on my hole family for past 6 yrs, night and day, 24 hrs a day. etc,etc,$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
they have admitted to the fraud.
Has accepted 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.
EL…..
“Think about it. If DB is held to rescind the loan by the banksters, THERE IS NO FRAUD because THERE IS NO LONGER A TRANSACTION from which the fraud derives. …
Exactly my point about TILA recission appearing to be a “double edged sword.”
In my case, because I was refinancing, the Pretender Lender’s closing attorney cleared the last “valid lien” by paying off my original “pre-repeal of Glass Stegall ‘real lender'” who had received my payments for 15 years.
That payoff is/was evidenced by a recorded satisfaction of the purchase money mortgage by the last “real lender” financing (with their own money) two homes we’ve purchased since our marriage.
So…. It appears to me that a TILA Rescission frees up my equity accumulated by previous home ownership.
I’ve got a year now to decide if I’ll initiate a Quiet Title action to recover disgorgement of funds associated with the rescinded contract, the note, and security “manufactured” by the Wallstreeters who engineered this 7 year Ponzi scheme.
NG stressed in an earlier post that one should strategically decide if “pursuing disgorgement ” will really be “worth it” if we can walk away with no debt and clean title … at this point, I’m not sure.
At age 71, with no family members having emotional attachment to our home, getting a “line of credit” reverse mortgage may make me sense.
https://m.facebook.com/senatorsanders/photos/a.91485152907.84764.9124187907/10154100879147908/?type=1&source=48&ref=6
In my case closing officer was supposed to stamp originals of ALL docs and it looks like it never happened. I gotta check how many copies if note were in instructions. On previous loan I had multiple transfer forms I didn’t notice that didn’t make sense. It could be there are different types of evidence depending on their web.
Warren’s “smash them to pieces” rant.was pretty good.
She’s out but Bernie Sanders is picking up steam and he’s independent.
He helped expose all the trillions on bailouts.
my closing doc’s states to the closing attorney, the following. send back asap the original mortgage note, PLUS 3 CERTIFIED COPYS OF THE NOTE . now think about it for a minute people.
why do they need 4 copys of your note,. 1/ I believe happen is they sold it 4 times.
If the promise was principal and someone paid principal and interest. Would rescission return all that is paid?
If there was no amortization table for 30/years. Most would have paid home in full when they total principal and interest together.
If they tender what you paid and if that was all that was tendered, most may have enough to pay for the home and little something left over and not remain stuck I. A 30/year agreement.
I ponder that they’d tender more than what they received from you because there are behind the scenes transactions they did not tell you about.
Trespass Unwanted, Life
Ooo i think that could be liz Warrens battlecry wish she were going to run.
Its time especially with election coming up
That we tell them the he** they do ,
the thing is they hang themselves because they Believe ” they own the place”
DW ur post lays out major money trail nicely. Makes distinction of investors or another bank being source of funds. And throws in LIBOR.
This is the “normal” corrupt system where we could not have known “lender”
So you CAN have fraud with NO transaction AS WE UNDERSTOOD IT.
But then go to next levels w/ MERS and the ponzi scheme explodes like donkey Kong!
So no straight line I.e. broken chain on what, 90%+ of loans.
But we just need to show our “transaction” was a fake or other disclosure, material violations to rescind when it’s time to enforce expose the rest and show their malice and greed.
Think about it. If DB is held to rescind the loan by the banksters, THERE IS NO FRAUD because THERE IS NO LONGER A TRANSACTION from which the fraud derives. At best, there is no fraud because DB accepted the fraud as part of his rescission terms.
IANAL, (I am not a lawyer) but if I can come up with these questions, you better believe a bankster barrister will do the same.
@db – if you know the difference between rescission and loan satisfaction, why didn’t you press for satisfaction and a clear title to your property? After all, “… my mortgage as being paid to date, and in full as of feb 2, 2006” seems pretty straightforward, and doesn’t raise those knotty questions like who lent you the money and was supposed to send disclosures.
Rescind means return everything to where it was before the transaction was consummated. They return your money, and you return theirs. And you may have talked yourself out of a house in the meantime, because you had no claim to it before the transaction.
And despite the repetitious posting of the same letter (what, 5x already), I still haven’t found a statement about the whereabouts of the original promissory note and deed of trust.
Its important to remember this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warehouse_line_of_credit
Very important post by DB on transfer code. This is a huge part of the smoke and mirrors claiming transfer of servicing rights, administrative payments is same as purchase as owner of loan.
Anyone else out there have Chase transfer to PennyMac or any one else recently?
With transfer notice they send debt notice you have 30 days to dispute.
I disputed and originator, rate were DIFFERENT on documents PennyMac sent as new owner/servicer/investor.
Reliable evidence? More robosigning?
DB exactly as to operation of law which is where shoe on other foot comes in.
That’s why the 3 yrs etc is mostly a distraction but also important to understand and counter even the lawyers, agencies that are “advocates” that will still resist. …The looming fight of greed, arrogance and basic human nature that alot of people have to admit THEY WERE WRONG!
It’s great you and Deb put yourselves out there and validates what I’m doing although PennyMac is on other end of scum spectrum looks like.
My letter was THEIR denial in a letter possibly w/in 20 days which is worthless in my eyes.
They’ve gone forward w shady broker after sale after the 20 days to make offer that is also pretty much worthless.
You’re not lucky you took action and the law is creating intended consequences for these criminal acts.
It’s the way it’s supposed to be. We have to all keep taking action until WE make it right.
As MK said we are in unique position and you landed major blow with TRUTH IN LENDING hammer.
If we come together like a Bloomberg article I think it was said as a major voting block we have to stop the buyout of Congress to change the law.
Those of you on the fence do ur homework and take action..If u have sale, getting thrown out take action.
Make THEM PROVE everything like DB did.
As it should have been!
A new report by Oppenheim Law reveals “the Black Magic of Securitized Trusts”. The largest key to REMICs is that they are required to be passive
vehicles, meaning that mortgages cannot be transferred in and out of the trust once the closing date has occurred, unless the trust can meet very limited exceptions under the Internal Revenue Code. I.R.C. §860G. The 90 day requirement is imposed by the I.R.C. to ensure that the trust remains a static entity. However, since the mortgage-backed securities trust controlling documents, the Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA), requires that the trustee and servicer not do anything to jeopardize the tax-exempt status; PSAs generally state that any transfer after the closing date of the trust is invalid.
And since you mention the appraisal ( face value) you see onnthe 1099a the loan amonut and what was recouped ( tongue in cheek) as ” fair market value” when they sold my home.
Thus lost market value was written off against my name, this is fact. Again- who lost ?
Indeed David B, said
” – they have already accepted the rescission , in writing, so tell me who lent me money!!! and again who is supposed to give me the disclosures!!! you still haven’t answer”
Its the servicer silly says right there on the 1099a –
Of course im being facetious
and to your question do I know the difference in all. yes, as I do have a copy of doc’s from security and exchange, showing my mortgage as being paid to date, and in full as of feb 2, 2006. and then they also showed them selling my mortgage for the fraud appraisal price of 500,000 dollars., even though my mortgage was showing paid in full. as of 2 feb 2006.
so who owes me money.
elex- they have already accepted the rescission , in writing, so tell me who lent me money!!! and again who is supposed to give me the disclosures!!! you still haven’t answer that.
Comptroller’s Handbook 64 Truth in Lending Act.
Comptroller’s Handbook CC-TILA
lenders, must give
Notification of Sale or Transfer of Mortgage Loans—12 CFR 1026.39
Notice of new owner: No later than 30 calendar days after the date on which a mortgage
loan is acquired by or otherwise sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred22 to a third party, the
“covered person”23 shall notify the consumer clearly and conspicuously in writing, in a form
that the consumer may keep, of such transfer and include
• identification of the loan that was sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred;
• name, address, and telephone number of the covered person;
• date of transfer;
• name, address, and telephone number of an agent or party having authority, on behalf of
the covered person, to receive notice of the right to rescind and resolve issues concerning
the consumer’s payments on the mortgage loan;
• location where transfer of ownership of the debt to the covered person is or may be
recorded in public records or, alternatively, that the transfer of ownership has not been
recorded in public records at the time the disclosure is provided; and
• at the option of the covered person, any other information regarding the transaction.
22 The date of transfer to the covered person may, at the covered person’s option, be either the date of
acquisition recognized in the books and records of the acquiring party or the date of transfer recognized in the
books and records of the transferring party.
23 A “covered person” means any person, as defined in 12 CFR 1026.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an
existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment,
or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any 12-month period. For purposes of this
section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title
to the loan or it is assigned to the servicer solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing
the obligation. See 12 CFR 1026.39(a)(1).
Date: Mon, May 4, 2015 12:38:15 -pm
Please send ASAP an email reply simply stating that the Foreclosure Sale scheduled for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. If not we will be forced to appear in Middlesex Superior Court tomorrow to file a new complaint and argue an Ex-Parte Motion for a TRO and further arguing 24 CFR 100.400 Violations.
Thank You for your prompt attention to this matter.
David a belanger
power of attorney
William a marshall sr
Joanna l belanger
978-618-3105
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18, United States Code, ?? 2510-2521. This e-mail message and any attached files are the exclusive property of DAVID A BELANGER, POA, FOR JOANNA L BELANGER, AND HER FATHER WILLIAM A MARSHALL,SR. are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, forwarding, duplicating or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of this e-mail transmission is strictly prohibited and violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 16:08:14 -0400
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: URGENT!!! Orlans Files#: 1895527
From: Information <
Date: Mon, May 4, 2015 12:38:15 -pm
To: David Belanger
Dear whom it May Concern,
I just spoke to John Mason at your office and he informed me to send this email that confirms that the Foreclosure Sale for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. The property information is as follows:
William Marshall, Sr.
9 Rodman Street
Shirley, MA 01464
Orlans Files#: 1895527.
ORLANS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail and the documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address above. The transmission is to be deleted and any items that may have been printed are to be destroyed. Thank you for your compliance
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 accepted 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.
ORLANS MORAN PLLC
P.O. Box 540540
Waltham, MA 02454
P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801
Orlans Files#: 1895527.
ORLANS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail and the documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address above. The transmission is to be deleted and any items that may have been printed are to be destroyed. Thank you for your compliance
What i enjoy thinking about regarding my rescission is they were in such a smash n grab rush to take my home and were – as it turns out 100% wrong telling me in writing that i could not rescind and that they did not have to file for declaratory relief / as i told them to and everything us there now on the public record. My big question is how many more cases just like mine
@db – Do you understand the difference between a loan satisfaction and a loan rescission? What happens to the fraud in a loan satisfaction? What happens to the fraud in a TILA loan rescission? What happens to the fraud if you rescind under equitable state statutes after the 20 days? If you haul them into court will they ‘Beach’ you with the 3-year life of TILA rescission? These questions focus on your possible liability of returning the funded amount, even if it is an admitted fraud, under TILA or equitable rescission.
hammertime, as gf has said many times. they have 20 days to dispute the rescission, on the basis of time bar, statue of limitations or on anything else they might come up with. 20 days. if not , like us having 20 days to appeal a dission, if we don’t do it in time. oh well , is what a judge would say. and the banks are no different. they have 20 days, if they don’t. they lose. cant bring up anything on the note mortgage,statues of limitations, nothing. they cant say I received all doc’s at closing.
as a operation of law. the note,deed of trust,mortgage, security, is void.
period.
it is up to the banks to dispute it in a timely manner, and if they do not do this in the 20 days, they LOSE.
SO AGAIN, now I was lucky to get a letter from attorney , even after the 20 days days, but they have accepted the rescission, and have stated that it was all fraud.
there is only one way this will go down in court. and the judge that has the balls to say anything other then , you owe the borrower this amount and you will take off all doc from registry of deeds asap, leaving a clean title to borrower. will be doing his job. for once. and real justice will be served.
remember they stated it was not consummated..
What I’m doing. ..
My Rescission Letter to Deutche Bank is now unanswered for more than 20 “working days” from the time they received and signed the certified mail receipt.
Even before David told us his attorney filed his pertinent information in the land records of his county, I had already decided my next step would be to complete a sworn and notarized Affidavit and file it with copies of my Rescission Letter and a copy of Justice Scalia’s recent ruling… additionally I will provide proof of mailing the certified letter to Deutche Bank along with a copy of the receipt showing the signature of the receipent. I will do this later this week.
Now a question to whomever will reply..
I’m seriously considering sending a “Cease and Desist” letter along with a certified copy of the Affidavit and attachments to the attorney representing Ocwen whom I have faced down 10 times when he started foreclosure actions headed to the courthouse steps in Cobb County, Ga. , a non-judicial foreclosure state.
In the “Cease and Desist” letter I intend to demand that Ocwen immediately stop any future collection or foreclosure actions relative to their now voided contract, note, and “security deed”.
I will also send a certified copy of the Affidavit via certified mail to Deutche Bank.
Now the question….
Other than providing additional fodder to present when I follow up by filing a Quiet Title case, what “legal impact” does a “Cease and Desist” letter have?
DB case originated ’05
Rescission ’15
Unless I’m reading it wrong
El ur confusing the 2 posts.
The Supreme Court Jesinoski quote refers to consummation, sale being the criteria for 3 yr clock.
Garfield field quote is separate on equitable tolling, fraud.
If in db’s case his rescission was after ’08 it sounds like then ur wrong.
@hammertime – no, what the quotation (taken from your earlier post, BTW) shows is that YOU added a phrase not rendered in the ruling you cited. YOU added ‘… from the date the violation is revealed’. In the case cited, the revelation came after 1 year but within the 3 years. The fact that the court emphasized the 3 years was totally lost on you. Had the revelation of error come after 3 years, the court would have tossed it as trying to exercise an extinguished right. Like I have been saying all along.
@ db u should be proud u saw it through no matter what. If judge ignores it all needs to be shut down.
I interesting with LAW ENFORCEMENT against Ocwen they are reacting. Rule of law and truth will do wonders.
@ el if u are genuinely acting as devil’s advocate why do u always resort to insulting us?
Otherwise it was a good dialogue to think things through for others as well as ourselves and bonus of db’s REAL CASE not just theory.
As to ur quote I don’t think it changes anything. It’s taking it out of context which is what banks have done and will do on looming battle I’m seeing first hand.
All ur quote is saying is in that case the transaction date was accepted by both parties as consummation. Which would have been case in normal times.
In that case issue becomes disclosure etc.
But if homeowner does not acknowledge consummation clock doesn’t start as db’s case shows imo.
@david b – I hope you are successful at trial and have enough leverage that you can get a good settlement w/ out a confidentiality agreement. What homeowners can use are tactics that are proven to have worked, especially if they survive appeal. I don’t enjoy playing Devil’s advocate. I do it because I was somewhat successful by doing so with my case, discarding what didn’t work and re-examining what was left.
(somewhat successful – forced CA appellate court to concoct argument for MSJ appeal in favor of banksters that wasn’t presented in lower court and evidence controverted.)
MY lawyer just put it on at registry of deeds. along with the copy of the note sign and dated with real funder of money.
now we are doing up court papers for the judge to look at and shit himself or herself.
when he say , sorry bank,trust,servicer,debt collector. ocwen you better run, and run faST. LIKE THE WIND,
you owe millions, and the house of cards are falling fast.
@hammertime – maybe if you bothered to read the case you would have come across this statement – “Therefore, if the McIntoshes do have the right to rescind, the statute of limitations for the damages they seek is three years, not one, and their case was timely brought, as it was filed on July 6, 2001 — within three years of the loan’s issuance on December 10, 1998. “. NOTE THE ABSENCE OF THE PHRASE ‘… from the date the violation is revealed’.
NICE IS RIGHT HAMMERTIME.
DONT KNOW WERE OUR FRIEND WENT. LOOK’S LIKE RUN FOREST RUN. HAHAHAHAH
Wow!!!
Sorry, Had to jump in
elex, just for you. and when i get into court with this, to RECLAIM ALL THE MONEY THEY MADE OFF MY SIGNATURE. I WILL SEND YOU A PICTURE. OF THE PILE OF MONEY.
Subject: save important news ocwen
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 16:08:14 -0400
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: URGENT!!! Orlans Files#: 1895527
From: Information <
Date: Mon, May 4, 2015 12:38:15 -pm
To: David Belanger
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 accepted 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.
ORLANS MORAN PLLC
P.O. Box 540540
Waltham, MA 02454
P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801
From: david a belanger ; djabelanger@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 12:06 PM
Subject: URGENT!!! Orlans Files#: 1895527
Importance: High
Dear whom it May Concern,
I just spoke to John Mason at your office and he informed me to send this email that confirms that the Foreclosure Sale for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. The property information is as follows:
William Marshall, Sr.
9 Rodman Street
Shirley, MA 01464
Orlans Files#: 1895527.
We have A Complaint and Ex-Parte TRO Motion, we were going to file today in Middlesex County Superior Court. We have been informed by your offices that the Auction Sale date for this Tuesday has been canceled. We need an email referencing this so we don't have to file the complaint mentioned herein.
Your client OCWEN may not have informed you that we have filed a HUD Discrimination Complaint, which has been accepted that there was infact Discrimination and the matter . has been sent to MCAD (Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and they have also determined that there has been Discrimination which violates both 1964 Civil Rights act and Mass Civil Rights Satutes.
As we are now in the Investigation phase of this Complaint, it would be a violation of 24 CFR 100.400 and Section 818 of Fair Housing Act.
24 CFR 100.400 – PROHIBITED INTERFERENCE, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION
? 100.400 Prohibited interference, coercion or intimidation.
(a) This subpart provides the Department's interpretation of the conduct that is unlawful under section 818 of the Fair Housing Act.
(b) It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this part.
(c) Conduct made unlawful under this section includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Coercing a person, either orally, in writing, or by other means, to deny or limit the benefits provided that person in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling or in connection with a residential real estate-related transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
(2) Threatening, intimidating or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of such persons, or of visitors or associates of such persons.
(3) Threatening an employee or agent with dismissal or an adverse employment action, or taking such adverse employment action, for any effort to assist a person seeking access to the sale or rental of a dwelling or seeking access to any residential real estate-related transaction, because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of that person or of any person associated with that person.
(4) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part.
(5) Retaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Fair Housing Act.
Please send ASAP an email reply simply stating that the Foreclosure Sale scheduled for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. If not we will be forced to appear in Middlesex Superior Court tomorrow to file a new complaint and argue an Ex-Parte Motion for a TRO and further arguing 24 CFR 100.400 Violations.
Thank You for your prompt attention to this matter.
David a belanger
power of attorney
William a marshall sr
Joanna l belanger
978-618-3105
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18, United States Code, ?? 2510-2521. This e-mail message and any attached files are the exclusive property of DAVID A BELANGER, POA, FOR JOANNA L BELANGER, AND HER FATHER WILLIAM A MARSHALL,SR. are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, forwarding, duplicating or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of this e-mail transmission is strictly prohibited and violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.
My job includes exceptional customer service. If you would like to comment on the service you have received, please email your feedback to
Federal law requires us to advise you that communication with our office could be interpreted as an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.
ORLANS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail and the documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address above. The transmission is to be deleted and any items that may have been printed are to be destroyed. Thank you for your compliance.
And from Supreme Court case 3 yr period defined contingent on “…consummation of transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever comes first.” 1635 (f)
So sale can occur before transaction consummated so not likely date of signature necessarily the same as consummation.
Disclosure must be clear and conspicuous and IDENTIFY TRANSACTION.
Not a lawyer just reading not interpreting.
aman, hammertime.
Garfield ’10
“STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
When a violation of TILA occurs, the one-year limitations period applicable to actions for statutory and actual damages begins to run. U.S.C. § 1641(e).
A TILA violation may occur at the consummation of the transaction between a creditor and its consumer if the transaction is made without the required disclosures.
A creditor may also violate TILA by engaging in fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive practices that conceal the TILA violation occurring at the time of closing. Often consumers do not discover any violation until after they have paid excessive charges imposed by their creditors. Consumers who later learn of the creditor’s TILA violations can allege an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. When the consumer has an extended right to rescind or
pursue other statutory remedies because a violation occurs, the statute of limitations for all the damages the consumers seek extends to three years from the date the violation is revealed.
McIntosh v. Irwin Union Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 26, 30 (D. Mass. 2003).”
these are the 1099 in the trust they say my mortgage is in, really.
Residential Asset Mtge Products, 2006-J1,, this is the name of the trust,
SERIES:
SERIES EIN:
SERIES ADDRESS:
CLASS:
CUSIP:
No
GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust
Series 2006-J1 REMIC
54-2195437
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
A1
36185MEB4
251,679,000.00
Premium
Wells Fargo
CTSLink
My Account
Change Password
Contact Us
Help
Sign Off
Welcome david belanger
Home Securities Reports All Securities
this is the trust trying to foreclose. no where to be found.
GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-J1
GMACM Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-J1
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEB4 Portable Document Format 12/30/2013 03/30/2014 05/04/2014 08:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEC2 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MED0 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEE8 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEF5 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEG3 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEH1 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEQ1 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MER9 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MES7 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEK4 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEM0 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEN8 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEP3 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
1099 Form – CUSIP 36185MEJ7 Portable Document Format 12/31/2012 03/31/2013 05/06/2013 10:00AM EDT Additional History
Deal Name: Asset Type: Closing Date: First Distribution Date: Determination Date: Distribution Date: Record Date: Book-Entry: Definitive: Trustee: Main Telephone: Bond Administrator: Telephone: Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates 02/27/2006 03/25/2006 06/25/2015 05/29/2015 05/29/2015 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 818-260-1506 Jeanne Weiss Residential Asset Mtge Products, 2006-J1 612-341-1551 (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable) (Not Applicable) 06/15/2015 Pool(s) : 140009
Fitch Rates $548.6MM GMACM Mtg Loan Trust, Series 2006-J1
The depositor will cause the trust assets constituting each pool to be assigned without
recourse to the trustee named in the accompanying prospectus supplement, for the benefit of the
holders of all of the securities of a series.
The master servicer or servicer, which may be an affiliate
of the depositor, named in the accompanying prospectus supplement will service the loans, either
directly or through subservicers or a Special Servicer, under a servicing agreement and will receive
a fee for its services. See “The Trusts” and “Description of the Securities.” As to those loans
serviced by the master servicer or a servicer through a subservicer, the master servicer or servicer,
as applicable, will remain liable for its servicing obligations under the related servicing agreement
as if the master servicer or servicer alone were servicing the trust assets. With respect to those
mortgage loans serviced by a Special Servicer, the Special Servicer will be required to service the
related mortgage loans in accordance with a servicing agreement between the servicer and the
Special Servicer, and will receive the fee specified in that agreement; however, the master servicer
or servicer will remain liable for its servicing obligations under the related servicing agreement as if
the master servicer or servicer alone were servicing the related trust assets. In addition to or in place
of the master servicer or servicer for a series of securities, the accompanying prospectus supplement
may identify an Administrator for the trust. The Administrator may be an affiliate of the depositor.
All references in this prospectus to the master servicer and any discussions of the servicing and
administration functions of the master servicer or servicer will also apply to the Administrator to the
extent applicable. The master servicer’s obligations relating to the trust assets will consist
principally of its contractual servicing obligations under the related pooling and servicing
agreement or servicing agreement, including its obligation to use its best efforts to enforce purchase
obligations of Residential Funding Corporation or, in some instances, the Special Servicer, the
designated seller or seller, as described in this prospectus under “Description of the Securities—
Representations with Respect to Loans” and “—Assignment of Loans” or under the terms of any
private securities.
If stated in the accompanying prospectus supplement, and in accordance with the rules of
membership of MERSCORP, Inc. and/or Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. or,
MERS®, assignments of mortgages for any trust asset in the related trust will be registered
electronically through Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., or MERS® System. For
trust assets registered through the MERS® System, MERS® shall serve as mortgagee of record
solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity on behalf of the trustee and shall not have any
interest in any of those trust assets.
February 27, 2006 02:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Feb. 27, 2006–Fitch rates GMACM mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2006-J1, as follows:
— $529,377,384 classes A-1 through A-7, PO, IO and R certificates (senior certificates) ‘AAA’;
— $11,001,000 class M-1 ‘AA’;
— $3,300,000 class M-2 ‘A’;
— $2,475,000 class M-3 ‘BBB’;
— $1,375,000 privately offered class B-1 ‘BB’;
— $1,100,000 privately offered class B-2 ‘B’.
The privately offered class B-3 ($1,374,662) is not rated by Fitch.
The ‘AAA’ rating on the senior certificates reflects the 3.75% subordination provided by the 2.00% class M-1, 0.60% class M-2, 0.45% class M-3, 0.25% class B-1, 0.20% class B-2, and 0.25% class B-3.
Fitch believes the above credit enhancement will be adequate to support mortgagor defaults as well as bankruptcy, fraud and special hazard losses in limited amounts. In addition, the ratings reflect the quality of the mortgage collateral, the strength of the legal and financial structures, and GMAC Mortgage Corporation’s capabilities as servicer. Fitch currently rates GMAC Mortgage Corporation ‘RPS1′ as a primary servicer for prime residential mortgage loans.
The total mortgage pool consists of 1,127 fixed-rate mortgage loans with an aggregate principal balance of approximately $550,003,046 as of the cut off date, secured by first liens on one- to four-family residential properties. The weighted-average original loan-to-value ratio (OLTV) was 69.98%. Cash-out and rate/term refinance loans represent 42.79% and 16.07% of the mortgage pool, respectively. Second homes and investor property account for 5.27% and 0.21% of the pool, respectively. The average loan balance is $488,024, and the weighted average FICO credit score is approximately 732. The three states that represent the largest portion of mortgage loans are California (30.70%), New Jersey (8.78%) and Virginia (5.21%).
None of the mortgage loans are ‘high cost’ loans as defined under any local, state or federal laws. For additional information on Fitch’s rating criteria regarding predatory lending legislation, see the press release issued May 1, 2003, ‘Fitch Revises Rating Criteria in Wake of Predatory Lending Legislation’, available on the Fitch Ratings web site at .
The loans were sold by GMACM to Residential Asset Mortgage Products, the depositor. The depositor, a special purpose corporation, deposited the loans in the trust, which then issued the certificates. For federal income tax purposes, election will be made to treat the trust fund as one or more real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs).
Fitch’s rating definitions and the terms of use of such ratings are available on the agency’s public site, . Published ratings, criteria and methodologies are available from this site, at all times. Fitch’s code of conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, affiliate firewall, compliance and other relevant policies and procedures are also available from the ‘Code of Conduct’ section of this site.
Contacts
Fitch Ratings, New York
Laura Pokojni, 212-908-0228
Marc Lessner, 212-908-0693
Sandro Scenga, 212-908-0278 (Media Relations)
this go’s to show that no one , i mean no one lost a dime. except for insurance companys. and they should be the ones suing homeowners but cant. they did not have a securitiy ownership in anything.
read it. no one lost a dime.
GMACM’s Securitizations and Financial Guaranty Insurance Generally
(1) Financial Guaranty Insurance Policies
53. To increase the marketability of its RMBS, GMACM from time to time sought
credit enhancement for its securitizations from FGIC, a financial guaranty insurer, in the form of
financial guaranty insurance policies. Such financial guaranty insurance policies were generally
issued to the indenture trustee for the insured securities, for the benefit of the holders of the
insured RMBS, to insure the risk of shortfalls in cash available to the trust to repay the insured
securities.
54. In a typical GMACM-sponsored securitization, including the 2006-HE1
Transaction, GMACM, as servicer, remits proceeds from the mortgage loans backing the
securitization to the indenture trustee, along with a servicer’s certificate that details the
distributions to be made. Then, in accordance with the servicer’s certificate, the indenture
trustee allocates those funds to the payment of principal and interest due on the RMBS, as well
as the payment of fees to GMACM and other participants, and in some cases to reserve funds
and other uses.
55. The primary source of the funds administered by the indenture trustee is the
remittance of payments on the underlying loans. Delinquencies by borrowers in making their
mortgage loan payments, by definition, will reduce cash flows to the trust, which will directly
impair the ability of the trust to meet its obligations. Delinquencies, if not cured, will eventually
result in mortgage loan charge-offs, which reduce the aggregate principal amount of the loan
pool supporting the RMBS. In this manner, high levels of mortgage loan delinquencies and
defaults can lead to shortfalls in cash available to pay RMBS investors. Such shortfalls result in
claims on FGIC’s policies.
56. Under the terms of a financial guaranty insurance policy, like the one FGIC issued
here, the insurer unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees to the indenture trustee for the
benefit of the holders of the insured RMBS that, if there is a shortfall in cash available to it to
make required payments on the insured securities, the financial guaranty insurer will pay the
amount of the shortfall to the indenture trustee for the benefit of the holders of the insured
securities.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS ALL RESIDENTIAL FRAUD COMPANY’S , THAT WERE MEMBERS OF MERS.
CAN YOU FIND. Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.
Depositor
ALSO DO YOU SEE THE FOLLOWING TRUST/TRUSTEE AS A MEMBER OF MERS??
GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1
AS THE LOANS WERE TO BE SOLD TO THE TRUST, SO THE TRUST WOULD HAVE TO BE A MEMBER..
Prospectus supplement dated February 23, 2006
(To prospectus dated February 16, 2006)
$546,153,384
GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION
Seller, Servicer and Sponsor
GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1
Issuing Entity
Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc.
Depositor
GMACM Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-J1
Residence Lending, LLC
Residential Acceptance Corporation
Residential Acceptance Network, Inc.
Residential Bancorp
Residential Capital Mortgage Corporation
Residential Credit Solutions
Residential Finance Corp.
Residential Funding Company, LLC
Residential Home Funding Corp.
Residential Home Funding Corporation
Residential Home Loan Center LLC
Residential Home Mortgage Corporation
Residential Lending Corporation
Residential Lending Network Inc
Residential Lending Services, Inc
Residential Lending, LLC
Residential Loan Centers of America, Inc.
Residential Mortgage Advisors LLC
Residential Mortgage Associates, Inc. dba RMA Lending
Residential Mortgage Capital
Residential Mortgage Center Inc.
Residential Mortgage Corp.
Residential Mortgage Corporation
Residential Mortgage Funding, Inc.
Residential Mortgage Group, a division of Inter Savings Bank
Residential Mortgage Network, Inc
Residential Mortgage Services Inc
Residential Mortgage Solution LLC
Residential Mortgage Solutions
Residential Mortgage, LLC
Residential Mtg. Group, Inc.
Residential Wholesale Mortgage, Inc.
Who admitted transaction completed? And if they LIED who cares? And THEY still have to prove it! Even if “admitted” tgey still have to go to court and prove it and have standing.
@David B – MAYBE IF YOU STOPPED YELLING YOUR BRAIN WOULD HAVE TIME TO THINK.
“Specifically, where in TILA or Reg. Z is the “disclosure requirement” mandating the identity of a “real lender” (statutorially defined as a lender) who is using “own or corporate money” to fund mortgage financing?” you asked.
WHY DON’T YOU GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND ANSWER YOUR OWN (IRRELEVANT) QUESTIONS? It’s IRRELEVANT because it has no bearing on the 3-year limitation of notification or extinguishment. Especially since you admitted the transaction completed, and whether you got the TILA papers or not, the 3 years went into effect.
When you get around to addressing my specific points with statute and case law, you may earn my respect.
SORRY, ELEX, YOUR STILL ASSUMING THE THAT THE LENDER ON PAPER IS THE TRUE LENDER/CREDITOR. AS IN MANY CASES IS TOTALLY FALSE.
AND I DO HAVE THE WIRE TRANSFER FROM MY CLOSING TO PROVE THAT THE PRETENDER LENDER DIDN’T FUND THE MONEY FROM THERE ACCOUNTS.
YOU SEEM TO BE SMART SO LET SEE HOW YOU DO AT THIS QUESTION. OF WHO SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE MY REQUIRED DISCLOSURES.
1/ NOTE / MORTGAGE SIGN ON 8 NOV 2005, NOTE AND MORTGAGE SAY GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AS LENDER.
2/ NOTE SIGN OVER TO DAUSCHERBANK AMERICAS ON SAME DAY, 8 NOV 2005, THE NOTE IS SIGN OVER WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THEM, SIGN AND DATED. NOT A STAMP!
3/ IN CLOSING DOC’S , A WIRE TRANFER FUND RECEIPT TO CLOSING ATTORNEY, FROM DAUSCHERBANK AMERICA. FOR FULL AMOUNT OF MORTGAGE REFI.
SO WHO FUNDED DEAL, WHO SHOULD I GET THE TILA/RESPA DISCLOSURES FROM.
AND 8 DAY’S LATER WHEN I GOT FUNDS, IT WAS FROM ATTORNEYS ACCOUNT, AND THE CHECK WAS FROM ATTORNEY ACCOUNT. AND
THE MORTGAGE WAS RECORDED AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS IN THE NAME OF GMAC MORTGAGE CORP. EVEN AS WE KNOW THEY SOLD IT THE SAME DAY..
Specifically, where in TILA or Reg. Z is the “disclosure requirement” mandating the identity of a “real lender” (statutorially defined as a lender) who is using “own or corporate money” to fund mortgage financing?
@david b – date of consummation refers to the transaction. Period. Usually the TILA docs provide what that date is. I believe there is a court ruling that even if the documents were not provided, the 3-year term extinguishes the right for a borrower to claim a TILA rescission. That lends weight to the argument that whether parties to the transaction are ‘legitimate’ or not, the 3 years is effective from the date of transaction given on the TILA papers, if they exist. If they don’t exist, IANAL guessing that the date escrow closed would be a viable alternative date considered by any judge. It may be possible to niggle a few days later by arguing the recording date of the change of title of the property. Another perspective is to view the transaction through the eyes of the IRS.
Because some exclusions are defined in the statute but none of them apply to the 3-year effective life of the right, a court can infer that exclusions to the 3-years were considered and discarded by the legislators of the statute.
IANAL – I am not a lawyer, and if you can’t think for yourself, you should hire one. If you can think for yourself, make damned sure they are smarter than you.
D. Belanger…..
Specifically, where in TILA or Reg. Z is the “disclosure requirement” mandating the identity of a “real lender” (statutorially defined as a lender) who is using “own or corporate money” to fund mortgage financing?
(I was unable to see on my TILA Disclosure form in my closing papers a definitive assertion that the “pretender lender” was an actual financial institution lending their own funds.)
I know this question might seem strange when “intuitively” one would assume the existence of a representative of the “true lender” at the closing table… but as we now know, in legal matters it is imprudent, to say the least, to assume anything legal is intuitive.
And where specifically in the same documents does it say that “table funded loans” are predatory per se and therefore null and void as a matter of public policy?
I’m looking forward to you reply (or for anyone else’s response.)
elex-
date of transaction consummation. if the true creditor/lender was never told to you/anyone as we know happen. so meaning you/us have never gotten the right TILA INFO FROM TRUE CREDITOR OR LENDER.
then the 3 day and 3 yr statue has not even begun. so even if you did a mortgage 10 yrs ago, 15 yrs ago. you still have not consummated with true creditor or lender. AS TO THE TILA . REG Z.
GET IT KNOW. SIMPLE AS PIE.
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
Another Neil Garfield blog post on a notice of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act. He makes a very persuasive argument that the banks are painting themselves into a corner which they have. But the big banks have brought all of this down on themselves with their actions and will now have to deal with the consequences.
@ Deborah wynn,
Pigs and filth; suitable for hanging.
When the time comes they should be given a chance to volunteer for the Fukushima Re-education and Clean-Up Camps.
You know what sickens me ill tell you what sickens me the insiders will say 3 words
” its just business” and thats how they go to work – they call it ” business” thats what sickens me what exactly does that mean, its ok to call all this harm to families communities and the economic fate of the usa and around the world ” business”
@ dandiener1,
I believe the MERS was used to track multiple revenue streams on any given mortgage.
I also know the DTC and DTCC were created to track those revenue streams, entered as CDS and CDOs (derivatives).
This was never about a “free house” among those of US, now victims to this organized criminal deceit.
The pension plans are now de-funded because of this deliberate, criminal behavior; the American Dollar as “Sovereign Currency”… and the Sovereignty of the American People, now weigh, in the balance…
The derivatives must be made public; the multiple “bets” listed by multiple swindlers, while leveraged against the well-being of your family and countless, millions of others, must be reported and not allowed to “Go Poof”.
Private Bankers, part of an international, criminal cartel, are using American Mortgages to launder drug cartel and terrorist cartel money.
Once upon a time, it may have been that our politicians were never the wiser; those days are past.
Although I am paraphrasing, Thomas Paine, speaking in total disregard for a phony, self-anointed thuggery, masquerading as superior to the common man, said it best: “just because a thing may have been tolerated for quite some time, that does not mean it is legitimate”.
I would also add: “We The People are uniquely suited to end the illegitimate nature of those that presently sit athwart our currency system masquerading as our intellectual and Aristocratic Superiors”.
Having said as much, I can only suggest phony claims on phony debts should never be allowed to “Go Poof”; instead, those phony claims have now rendered themselves to “Go (as) Proof” to fraud and criminal malfeasance…
And the “sweetest revenge” will be found for those that uncover the multitudinous “bets” taken as multitudinous claims, lodged by multitudinous swindlers, on the multiple revenue streams currently existing as “bets you will lose your house”.
The narrative is the crisis is over they paid their dues more smoke and mirrors.
My understanding is TILA has a subsection on fraud. And you want to keep this in mind IF some chance somehow demand tender.
BTW D Wynn…. that was a great swat, well deserved!
Does the whole “mortgage-backed securities” issue just disappear in a “puff” of a well-deserved “I told you so!”?
Please answer a few questions from a fellow Pro Se….
For years we have relied on the facts that most of the documents in our local land records were “manufactured”, were riddled with forgeries of “robo-signers” and (via MERS) illegally violated the real estate land records laws of most, if not all, states.
This Ponzi scheme was created to bypass the land records offices and minimize recording fees.
Now my questions: Does the tacit “acceptance” of a TILA Rescission Letter by non-respondents to the TILA “demands” effectively erase the very recorded documents necessary to “prove” the existence of the massive Ponzi scheme that handsomely rewarded fraud by the TBTF banks?
Are we wielding a double-edged sword that will cut off and eleminate the prospects of prevailing in criminal and civil actions to hold the “rascals” accountable in any way for their “sins”?
Or is court-ordered disgorgement of all associated, ill-gotten gains (even exceeding by multiples the original “loan amount”) the “sweetest revenge”?
So, the servicer has to prove he paid for the loan/note and completely and accurately recorded the purchase and sale as well as properly securitizing it through the 3 entities finally into the Trust. Here is another observation, in the bankruptcies of the entities that allegedly made/funded the loan in the first place, how do those assets move to other entities? Are some of them–all of them extinguished in bankruptcy as in the creditors who do not get paid in legal bankruptcy proceedings? P.S. Are there records out there to prove that TARP paid off any of these banks/servicers/entities on Notes?
Parampum! Lol!
…And they dont have a leg to stand on
Sorry could not stop myself
El ur still reading it wrong imo. The timeliness is dependent on consummation and to contest they must have standing. I.e. shoe is on other foot.
Neil Garfields argument above is misleading.
“That means the rescission is effective even if the borrower was wrong in mailing it. It is up the the creditor to decide whether to accept the rescission under TILA or to contest it. If they contest it they must do it within 20 days of receipt. If they don’t do it within 20 days, they waive their potential objections or challenges.
How do we know that? Because the statute, Regulation Z and the Supreme Court have made it perfectly clear that the rescission is not contingent in any way —”
Yet the plain reading of the statute states the TILA right of rescission, even if NO papers were ever delivered to the borrower, is extinguished (is of NO EFFECT) after 3 years have passed from the date of transaction consummation. In other words, the right is contingent upon the passage of time. So on the flip side, after 3 years have passed, TILA rescission is not available. Because the statute defines the terms of the right, and the terms state the right is extinguished after 3 years, the terms relating to 20 days cease to exist as well.
The beauty of Neil’s argument is that a court is directed to consider the ‘date of consummation’ against the possibility the date has never been established, no matter how many payments a debtor has made. As Neil points out, this obviates the need for discovery of common business records showing purchase, sale, transfer of funds. And that is where the crap shoot comes in. Some percentage of loans were well-documented, and some were not. If they feel they have complied with TILA, and the 3 years have passed, they have no need to reply to a non-existent right claimed by the borrower. This is especially true after a 4th year has passed because the 1 year provided in the right by the borrower to prosecute a TILA rescission claim has passed as well.
And that leads into the possibility an alleged beneficiary may not have confidence in their TILA compliance. There have been a couple of stories where this resulted in a (non-}TILA rescission being accepted by an alleged beneficiary well after the 3-year life of the TILA right. And that points to the belief Neil holds regarding the ability of any alleged beneficiary to prove their standing as such.
Excellent. Exactly the playbook I’m seeing.
Suggesstion: look at your closing statements!
As neil said
either vacate the rescission or accept it — either way they get paid off — in fact with an easier claim if they accept the rescission. The only parties that will scream here are the ones who have been faking their interest int he loans — and that is exactly what the Truth in Lending Act was meant to prevent.”
And i think this gives rise to Why dare take the risk…
The return for taking it
I have it the asset purchase agreement
And i backs my arguments
Group 2 servicing rights
TECHAGREEMENTS.COM
Looking for an agreement? Search from over 1 million agreements now.
Submit
Sign in | Shopping Cart
Home > Browse by Company > Residential Asset Mortgage Products
Residential Asset Mortgage Products Inc.
Merger and Acquisition Agreements/Assumption Agreements (2)
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Assignment And Assumption Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Form of Assignment & Assumption Agreement
Other (18)
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – 2002-J4 Purchase Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – 2002-RZ2 Pooling & Servicing Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – 2002-SL1 Pooling & Servicing Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Certificate Guaranty Ins Policy
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Certificate Guaranty Insurance Policy
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Guaranty Insurance Policy
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Home Loan Purchase Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Insurance Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Material Contracts
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Note Guaranty Ins Policy
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Note Guaranty Insurance Policy
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Pooling & Servicing Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Pooling & Servicnig Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Pooling And Servicing Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Purchase Agreement
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Ramp Form of Mlpa
Residential Asset Mortgage Products – Ramp Winter 2006 Servicing Agreement
My question is a recorded trustee deed upon sale had a hand altered underlined word ” wAS” the lender and then issued on the SAME day as that trustee sale a irs document declaring ” lender” gave a loan to me for full amount well that entity WAS the SERVICER so now what
I had rescinded long before the trustee sale
We shall see