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.
NOTE; THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW WILL RESUME ON THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 6PM EDT
===========================
I’m in trial mode so I just wanted to post some articles that I found interesting. My own opinion is exactly what is expressed in this article about when consummation has occurred. And that is a question of fact that is neither obvious nor a closed matter when the true creditor’s identity has never been revealed and continues to be withheld. The banks seem to want to say that the borrower has no right to learn the identity of his or her creditor, on the one hand, but that the court must assume that a valid contract exists — even without any evidence as to who the party is on the lender side.
The banks are using the argument that it is obvious that a loan from 2004 can’t possible be subject to rescission because of the three year limitations. Being obvious is not a legal theory or procedure. If they want to say that consummation occurred on a certain date then they need to prove it. The contract must be complete for the loan contract to be enforceable. That is black letter law. If I somehow trick you into signing a note and mortgage that does not create a loan contract — unless I loan you money. “it’s obvious” is no defense.
They must show not that it is obvious but that it is true. AND they can’t do that because their paperwork talks about transactions that never existed nor were consummated starting with origination and continuing up the so-called chain of claims.They will fight for the “obvious defense” simply because they don;t have a creditor and therefore they don’t have standing to even raise the issue, which is why they regularly blow the 20 day limitation on either complying with TILA statutes or vacating the rescission which is the equivalent of a court order because it is effective by operation of law according to TILA, Scalia, and everyone else.
On equitable tolling, I think that is a trap. Technically I think it ought to apply but it seems fairly clear to me that arguments about equitable tolling will probably result in decisions for the lender side. I think that is wrong. But it is reality. Concentrating on equitable tolling is going to be tough going.
But challenging whether the loan was ever consummated is much easier because ultimately the only defense they have is to show the actual transactions in which the money was loaned, who loaned it, who sold it, who bought it along with proof of payment. This challenge reflects one of the main purposes of national policy as set forth in Federal Truth In Lending Act.
What the author is saying and I agree with him is that we can stick with industry standards on when the consummation occurred and challenge whether consummation ever occurred. Either way the remedies are virtually identical. Either it is rescinded or never happened.
That is application of the same industry standards in lending as applied to borrowers — if a borrower goes into a bank and wants to borrow money based upon receivables, notes, mortgages or anything else, the prospective lender is going to want to confirm the existence or nonexistence of the receivables or loan or note and whether the borrower asserts any defenses. It is called estoppel information. If the same bank wouldn’t accept partial information, (like “business records”) from us applying for a loan why should we accept anything less from them in enforcing the loan? They set the rules. Let them live or die with the standards they invented.
I like this one from a California lawyer 4 years ago:
It seems fair to say that the Courts are not willing to find a contractual obligation exists under State Law until a true and actual lender is identified. “Pretender lenders” – as Neil Garfield calls them – and intermediary “originators” who make false representations to the effect that they are “lending money”and are your “lender” should not be sufficient to set the three year TILA rescission clock in motion. Until the real Wall Street entity, or Wall Street Investor, or true source of the table funded loan is identified, the loan should not be deemed “consummated” under TILA and the three year right to rescind should remain open until such disclosure is made. That is TRUTH IN LENDING WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF TILA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: consumamtion of loan transaction, equitable tolling, identity of creditor, identity of lender, three year statute of limitations |
Just consider that each case is unique, the rescission is only a part of it ( in my case) though Should have been the final word ( operation of law) when it was not because Jesinoski was not ruled upon, the rest of the case claims and facts submitted into evidence and on the record – in the courts face, can not be ignored, the plaintiff has met their burden because the pattern is revealed showing unclean hands from the beginning ( being why recession was sent in the first place)
In dealing with rescission, it is not supposed to be conditional that the
borrower must be able to prove it can return funds to the “lender.”
Courts will find a way to weaken borrower rights more favorably
toward “lenders.” The following excerpt from Williams v Homestake
Mortgage, 968 F 2d 1137, 1142 [1992] reflects how courts will bend
what Congress says to accomplish that purpose.
The court opens the paragraph stating how unambiguous expression
must be imposed by the court, then finds a way to alter the clarity of
what Congress expressed with the court’s rationalized reading of how
the court wants to help protect a “lender’s” interests by making it more
conditional for a borrower’s situation.
It is here that one must rebut such an argument by casting their own pleading to reinforce the conditional precedent upon which other courts
have relied, including Scalia in Jesinowski. It is a way of taking control
of your way of directing the procedure as you determine, and not wait to
react to how the court and/or plaintiff wants your case framed.
Excerpt…
Where “the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). In this instance, Congress, through its legislative history, has made it quite clear that “the courts, at any time during the rescission process, may impose equitable conditions to insure that the consumer meets his obligations after the creditor has performed his obligations as required by the act.” S.Rep. No. 368, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 29 (1980) (emphasis added), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 236, 265. Furthermore, the plain language of § 1635(b) leaves little room for narrowing the court’s ability to modify the process of effecting rescission, as Congress’ grant of authority covers all “procedures prescribed by [the] subsection.” Thus, we hold that a court may impose conditions that run with the voiding of a creditor’s security interest upon terms that would be equitable and just to the parties in view of all surrounding circumstances.8 By relying on the holdings of Harris and Gerasta, it appears that the district court mistakenly believed that such modification was outside the scope of its authority. We, therefore, vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for consideration of the propriety of conditioning the voiding of Homestake’s security interest.9
In deciding whether or not to impose conditions upon Williams, the district court should consider traditional equitable notions, including such factors as the severity of Homestake’s TILA violations and whether Williams has the ability to repay the principal amount.10 While the goal should always be to “restor[e] the parties to the status quo ante,” Harris, 609 F.2d at 123; Gerasta, 575 F.2d at 584, rescission must also maintain its vitality as an enforcement tool.
WHEN DOES THE 3 YEAR RIGHT TO BEGING START? WHEN IS A LOAN “CONSUMMATED”? IS THERE EQUITABLE TOLLING OF THE TILA RIGHT TO RESCIND?
Posted by Vondran Real Estate Litigation+ on January 11, 2011 · 1 Comment
The following is an overview of a few cases I was looking at in the area of Truth in Lending (“TILA”) law. We get a lot of questions about when TILA three years begins to run. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. RATHER THESE ARE A FEW CASES THAT DISCUSS TILA RESCISSION, AND GIVE YOU SOME IDEAS OF SOME OF THE CASES OUT THERE. PLEASE CONSULT A LITIGATION ATTORNEY BEFORE FILING A CIVIL LAWSUIT FOR TRO OR INJUNCTION.
CAN TILA THREE YEAR RIGHT TO RESCIND BE EXERCISED BEYOND THREE YEARS?
The general rule you will normally see in regard to TILA 3 year right of rescission is the following:
“Section 1635 of TILA allows consumers to rescind “any consumer credit transaction . . . in which a security interest . . .is or will be retained or acquired in any property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom credit is extended,” so long as such rescission takes place within three days of the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of required disclosures under TILA, whichever occurs later. 15 U.S.C. § 1635. If the lender never submits the required disclosures, the borrower’s right to rescission expires three years after the consummation of the transaction. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f).” In the seminal case of Beach v., Ocwen, 523 U.S. 410, the United State Supreme Court held: “the right of rescission is completely extinguished after three years from the date of the loan’s consummation.” See also 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f). Equitable tolling does not apply to an action for rescission under TILA. See Mays v. U.S. Bank National Association, 2010 WL 318537 (E.D. Cal.2010).
This then begs the question, when is a loan “consummated” under TILA. According to the FDIC on this website, consummation means when a consumer becomes obligated on a loan.” See also 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(a)(13).
Under Regulation Z, which specifies a lender’s disclosure obligations, “consummation” of the loan occurs when the borrower is “contractually obligated.” 12 C.F.R, §226.2(a)(13). The point at which a “contractual obligation … is created” is a matter of state law. 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, Supp. 1 (Official Staff Interpretation), cmt. 2(a)(13). Under California law, a contract is formed when there are (1) parties capable of contracting, (2) mutual consent, (3) a lawful object, and (4) sufficient cause or consideration. See California Civil Code Section 1550 and Grimes v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 340 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2003).
Under TILA, the Courts must look to state law in determining when a borrower becomes contractually obligated on a loan. At the very least, before you can have a contract, there must be specifically identified parties to the contract (meaning an identified lender and a identified borrower) – “parties capable of contracting” as set forth above and sufficient consideration.
Now, in the god old days a borrower and a bank would contract to lend money. The borrower would borrow the money and offer a security interest in its property, and the bank would lend money off its balance sheet and hold both the note and mortgage (deed of trust) in the event you failed to pay. Those days are gone for a lawrge number of “securitized loans” (loans that are bundled into pools and sold off on Wall Street). Nowadays, you have a loan “originator” posing as a “lender” and the loan originator is not loaning you a dime (rather, someone else or some other entity is funding, lending, or table funding the loan). In this scenario, the originating lender, purporting to contract to “lend” you money, is not actually lending you any money. In reality, they are doing nothing more than earning a commission on the money SOMEONE ELSE IS LENDING YOU (i.e. some Wall Street investor in your loan pool who is funding the loan, who is NOT IDENTIFIED AT ANY STAGE OF THE LOAN PROCESS, and who expects a return on their investment). These hidden investors are the true “lender” who is the source of funds for you loan. Strange, but true.
So, when you contract with the “originator” of the loan (as opposed to the lender), has the true lender ever been identified? No, they have not. So shouldn’t the promissory note be between you and the real lender? After all, the “lender” on the note and deed of trust never lent you any money, and this can be verified by looking at their balance sheet. Do you have an enforceable contract to lend money under state law in this scenario? That is an issue to litigate under TILA – in my opinion. The originator is representing that they are lending you money,, when in fact they are not. They are serving as an intermediary for someone else to lend you money. Is there a meeting of the minds under this scenario?
There are a few other cases I have come across in my research that indicate, that under this scenario (usually involving MERS securitized loans, and other hard money loans where undisclosed entities are table funding the loan), the LENDER MUST BE IDENTIFIED BEFORE THE THREE YEARS BEGINS TO RUN, WHICH MEANS, IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO THE REAL “LENDER” IS, OR THE TRUE “SOURCE OF FUNDS” FOR YOUR LOAN, THE THREE YEAR CLOCK TO EXERCISE YOUR RESCISSION RIGHTS MAY NOT BEGIN TO RUN.
(1) Ramsey v. Vista Mortgage Corp, 176 BR 183 (TILA RESCISSION IN BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 13 CASE). In this case, the court laid down the test of when the three year right to rescind begins to run and specifically tackles the concept of when a loan is “consummated.” Several internal citiations also help clarify this point. Here is what the Ramsey Court said:
“When Ramsey signed the loan documents on September 13, 1989, he knew who was going to provide the financing. Courts recognize the date of signing a binding loan contract as the date of consummation when the lender is identifiable.”
The Court also cited to the Jackson v. Grant, 890 F.2d case (9th Circuit 1989), a NON-BANKRUPTCY CASE, and said: “the Ninth Circuit held that under California law a loan contract was not consummated when the borrower signed the promissory note and deed of trust because the actual lender was not known at that time.Under these circumstances,
the loan is not “consummated” until the actual lender is identified, because until that point there is no legally enforceable contract.”
ANALYSIS: It seems fair to say that the Courts are not willing to find a contractual obligation exists under State Law until a true and actual lender is identified. “Pretender lenders” – as Neil Garfield calls them – and intermediary “originators” who make false representations to the effect that they are “lending money”and are your “lender” should not be sufficient to set the three year TILA rescission clock in motion. Until the real Wall Street entity, or Wall Street Investor, or true source of the table funded loan is identified, the loan should not be deemed “consummated” under TILA and the three year right to rescind should remain open until such disclosure is made. That is TRUTH IN LENDING WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF TILA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THIS MEANS, IF YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW WHO YOUR LENDER IS AFTER DUE DILIGENCE (AND BELIEVE ME WE TRY WITH DEBT VALIDATION LETTERS, CHAIN OF TITLE REVIEWS, FANNIE AND FREDDIE LOAN LOOKUPS, QUALIFIED WRITTEN REQUESTS, 15 US.C. 1641 LETTERS, UCC PRESENTMENT LETTERS, ETC.) AND IF THE ORIGINATING “LENDER” TRULY NEVER LENT YOU A SINGLE PENNY, PERHAPS THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE, USING THE LAW CITED ABOVE, THAT THE THREE YEARS HAS NOT YET BEGUN TO RUN. NOW, THIS IS A NOVEL THEORY OF LAW THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYONE PUT FORTH AS OF YET. BUT REVIEWING THE CASE LAW, IT SEEMS TO OFFER SOME HOPE TO 4,5 OR EVEN 10 YEAR OLD LOANS. OF COURSE, YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH FORECLOSURE AND TILA LAWYER BEFORE PROCEEDING ON SUCH A THEORY, BUT WHERE THE BANKS ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE “HIDE THE EIGHTBALL” GAME WHERE THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW WHO OWNS YOUR LOAN, AND THEY NORMALLY CANNOT EVEN LEGALLY PROVE WHO OWNS YOUR LOAN, IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS THIS MAY BE A THEORY TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF YOUR FORECLOSURE, BANKRUPTCY OR LITIGATION COUNSEL. THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS USE EVERY LAW IN THE BOOKS TO TAKE YOUR HOME, THIS MAY BE A POTENTIAL ARGUMENT TO FIGHT BACK.
ALSO NOTE – THERE ARE A STRING OF CASES THAT SAY YOU MUST FILE YOUR TILA LAWSUIT WITHIN 3 YEARS OF CONSUMMATION. SO CONSULT A TRUTH IN LENDING LAWYER IMMEDIATELY TO DISCUSS YOUR CASE.
We have talked about the consequences of TILA rescission in many other posts. Google “Vondran TILA lawyer” (or got or and you will see more articles. AS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN FORECLOSURE DEFENSE, DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE BEFORE SEEKING A FORECLOSURE LAWYER. IF YOU GET A NOTICE OF DEFAULT OR NOTICE OF SALE, DO NOT WAIT, CONTACT A FORECLOSURE AND BANKRUPTCY, TILA LAWYER TO PUT TOGETHER A SOUND LITIGATION PLAN.
PLEASE NOTE, EVEN IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING FILING BANKRUPTCY, YOU CAN RESCIND YOUR LOAN IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING IN BANKRUPTCY COURT AND THIS CAN HAVE POTENTIALLY DRAMATIC IMPLICATIONS AS ONCE YOU RESCIND YOUR LOAN UNDER TILA, THE SECURITY INSTRUMENT IS VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND THE LOAN IS ESSENTIALLY AN UNSECURED DEBT. THESE ARE THINGS YOU WILL OFTEN FIND GO UNNOTICED AND UNCHALLENGED TO THE DEBTORS DETRIMENT
Wednesday 2 September 2015
Cheers Trespass…
What you said in how you say what you said carries much pragmatic truth about confronting courts…and life.
>True learning and wisdom does not come from discarding information >as helpful or uselss; its from learning as much as you can and >choosing the information you will use an any given situation.
That is especially true…
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/1999/07/ftc.gov-9323074fleetfinancecomplaint.htm
oops. “home” of my last comment
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
In The Matter of
FLEET FINANCE, INC., a corporation
“…..5. Respondent Fleet Finance, in the course and conduct of its business, has, on numerous occasions, extended consumer credit transactions in which Fleet Finance acquired or retained a security interest in the consumers’ principal dwellings and failed to provide these consumers with the right to rescind the credit transactions by:
a) failing to provide consumers with notices of the right to rescind;
(b) waiving consumers’ right to rescind, and disbursing funds, pursuant to rescission waivers that: (i) failed to describe, in writing, a bona fide personal financial emergency of the consumers; (ii) failed to modify or waive consumers’ right to rescind in writing; and/or (iii) involved verbal waivers; and
(c) failing to take actions terminating the security interest and returning any money and property given by consumers in connection with the credit transactions when consumers exercise their right to rescind.
6. Respondent Fleet Finance’s aforesaid acts and practices violate Sections 125(a), (b) and (d) of the TILA, 15 U.S.C. �� 1635(a), (b) and (d) and Sections 226.23(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. �� 226.23(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), and constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. � 45(a)…..
Count VIII: Failure to Retain Documents in Purchased Transactions
19. Respondent Fleet Finance, in the course and conduct of its business, has, on numerous occasions, purchased consumer credit transactions through assignments that failed to retain TILA disclosures, TILA notices of the right to rescind, promissory notes and/or other evidence of the terms and conditions of consumer credit transactions for two years after the date disclosures are required to be made or action is required to be taken concerning the transaction.
20. Respondent Fleet Finance’s aforesaid acts and practices, based on its assignee liability in Section 131 of the TILA, 15 U.S.C. � 1641, violate Section 226.25(a) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. � 226.25(a).
THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this ____ day of ____, 1999, has issued this complaint against respondent.
Regulation Z 226.32 (e) forbids certain acts and practices in connection with high rate mortgages…..
The forbidden acts and practices are:
1. Engaging in a pattern or practice of extending credit to consumers based on the value of the consumer’s equity (“equity skimming”) where the consumer’s income is insufficient to repay the loan.
jg: this is just reg Z. State laws also prohibit this type predatory lending. (This wording strikes me as odd. Must a consumer who falls in this category prove a pattern?! Surely a victim needn’t find others…?)
2. Paying a home improvement contract directly from the loan proceeds (the lender is permitted to issue a check payable jointly to the consumer and contractor or the consumer alone or to a third party escrow agent).
jg: This one’s pretty interesting:
3. Selling or assigning a high rate mortgage without furnishing the following statement to the purchaser/assignee:
“Notice: This is a mortgage subject to special rules under the federal Truth in Lending Act. Purchasers or assignees of this mortgage could be liable for all claims and defenses with respect to the mortgage that the borrower could assert against creditor.”
Am I entitled to any extra protections under TILA if I recive a high cost home loan?
Yes, as noted above, in 1994, Congress passed the “Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994”, which amended TILA to protect consumers who could fall prey to “high cost” lenders. These high-cost mortgages (referred to as Section 32 mortgages by the Federal Reserve Board) require additional disclosures in mortgage transactions consummated after 10-1-95. A failure to provide these disclosures gives a new basis to rescind a Section 32 mortgage loan. Regulation Z 226.23(a)(3) and 226.32 (c).
When must additional disclosure in high-cost mortgages be given?
As noted above, traditional TILA disclosures must be given at the time the loan papers are signed. Borrowers then have three business days to rescind if their homes are pledged as collateral. For high cost mortgage loans, the disclosures must be given three days earlier, i.e., three days PRIOR to the signing of the loan documents.
What are the additional disclosures that must be made in high-cost mortgages?
Four additional disclosures are required. Regulation Z 226.32 (c). They are:
1.) The following statement must be included:
“You are not required to complete this agreement merely because you have received these disclosures or have signed a loan application. If you obtain this loan, the lender will have a mortgage on your home. You could lose your home, and any money you put into it, if you do not meet your obligations under the loan.”
see more ate disclosed
http://www.washoelegalservices.org/index.php/consumer-law/debt-collection/35-real-property-cont
my note: the a.p.r. must always be disclosed
I laid out statements, to some problems. I don’t have all answers and could not spiritually give all answers if I did; without violating the Law of One.
I surround the statements with ‘ I know nothing’.
The people that want to know everything they can; will learn from something, as well as, learn from nothing.
True learning and wisdom does not come from discarding information as helpful or uselss; its from learning as much as you can and choosing the information you will use an any given situation.
Seems you are frustrated because court has not treated you any different from the rest who have gone there; with or without knowledge to communicate with them.
First step is to lose a but of humanity and step back and see where you believe in what you are doing and why do you believe it is the way to do it?
I believed because someone told me it was how to do things. I gave my power away and used someone else’s belief as my own and worked within their belief system for my remedy.
I will always know nothing and people will ignore me and that’s by design. The system does not get mad at me for trespassing and I don’t violate universal law by trespassing.
It is improper to tell someone what they should know. All can seek and will find the answer that works best for their situation because all have done something different.
Someone with a mod cannot tailor their court case the same as someone who did not have a mod and think they will win too.
It’s that complicated.
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Lesson….. If you can’t beat them….join them…enforce the contract!
How much does KC owe?
ELEX….. What kept you quiet for so long?
The cat have your tongue?
September is Sure to be one Heck of a ride.
Why is there a question by the CA ‘Supreme’ Court over Glaski? The plain language of the statutes, as in Jesinoski, clearly spells out a borrower’s right to question the chain of title.
1203. Any person interested under an instrument entitled to be proved for record, may institute an action in the superior court against the proper parties to obtain a judgment proving such instrument.
1204. …
1213. Every conveyance of real property or an estate for years therein acknowledged or proved and certified and recorded as prescribed by law from the time it is filed with the recorder for record is constructive notice of the contents thereof to subsequent purchasers and mortgagees; and a certified copy of such a recorded conveyance may be recorded in any other county and when so recorded
the record thereof shall have the same force and effect as though it was of the original conveyance and where the original conveyance has been recorded in any county wherein the property therein mentioned is not situated a certified copy of the recorded conveyance may be recorded in the county where such property is situated with the same force and effect as if the original conveyance had been recorded in
that county.
1214. Every conveyance of real property or an estate for years therein, other than a lease for a term not exceeding one year, is void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee of the same
property, or any part thereof, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded, and as against any judgment affecting the title, unless the conveyance shall
have been duly recorded prior to the record of notice of action.
1215. The term “conveyance,” as used in Sections 1213 and 1214, embraces every instrument in writing by which any estate or interest in real property is created, aliened, mortgaged, or incumbered, or by which the title to any real property may be affected, except wills.
@DwightNJ – The judges declared judicial immunity for themselves and will funnel their decision regarding agency, identity, etc., into a single bad decision that will rely on that immunity.
Why isn’t it as simple as acknowledgment of the fact the seller of the property accepted the payment from the escrow without objection and therefore the title of the property was passed to the purchaser.
Tuesday 1 September 2015
No reliable answer[s] re rescission, but it would seem that federal court would be where to proceed, given that “lender” would have more stringent requirements to prove it is lender without being able to use the note/mortgage docs that are void, as the info in the last few articles suggest. It will also require some creative thinking to craft a pleading the presents hurdles difficult to overcome, using researched case law to back up arguments. Takes effort…the seeds are there…
ABS. .
Right TU!
Even upon full payment we will never get clear titles.
6×5=30
Every 5 years we face foreclosure whether in default or not.
Renters= Leases.
ok folks, so once again we’re left hanging.
Assume that you send your TILA rescission letter.
Assume that the bank tells you to kiss off.
And assume that the bank doesn’t bring a separate anti-rescission action within a year.
What are you supposed to do next? Make a motion to the foreclosure trial court to dismiss the action? And if the trial court denies your motion, then what are you supposed to do next?
And while your motions are being denied, the bankster isn’t going to be just sitting doing nothing. The bankster is going to be making a cross-motion for summary judgment.
So you can yell TILA statutes, TILA regs, and Jesinoski until you’re blue in the face, but unless you have answers to the above questions, you’re going to be shooting blanks and getting nowhere except tossed to the curb.
I’m posting this because I don’t have the answers to the above, but i sure as hell would like to have them.
If anybody here has them, then lay it out for us because NG isn’t providing them that i can tell. And please, stay on point in any response to my post. I’m all checked out on how corrupt the system is, the courts are, the lawyers are, the banksters are, etc., etc.
Thank you for your cooperation.
http://saveourfamilyandhome.com/
whistleblower
media page – Rogue Money hosted by “V” the Guerrilla Economist
Caravan to Midnight
Hagmann and Hagmann
Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, LIfe, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino
Sorry, got called away…
Anyway, once We Know where these judges live, We can begin to research their mortgages.
I feel We should begin to publish the home addresses of the judges.
Louise,
The “servicer” is a debt collectors ” collector -“dba”. Still difficult proving they are lender but still wearing those other hats not forgetting ifvthey are not the successor in interest then who is
They must be joined
DB, now it becomes obvious when you get your “documents” at the closing the note does not have your signature on it. After all, all they have is a copy because the notes are scanned into a computer system, and the so-called Note is shredded.
Hahahahaha DB!
Make that a certified copy of a copy of a certified original.
Or…you could just refer to the contract and just know….the investors did not get the notes..only the mortgages.
Neil…. I know nothing.
But I can prove things……
Things they have a want of knowledge for. They lack the knowledge they need to prove things…
Things like the original creditor and the amount owed.
Yet people do not ask….lack of denial.
What does KC owe?
Agree David … I’m just pointing out how the courts have been denying all of the defenses and arguments raised by the homeowners.
When homeowners deny that a legal, valid contract exists ..the judges still refuse to address it …the issue of whether a valid consummation ever took place is still being denied by most judges. They simply do not care ..and they are arrogant and defiant when you try to raise the issue of a valid contract ever being consummated.
The courts are still relying on all of the bad caselaw that was created during the height of the fraudulent Ponzi scheme .
But this is not to say we give up ..its just to point out how the courts still refuse to acknowledge contract law 101, what constitutes consummation of the loan, what constitutes a legal valid loan contract.
The battle at the lower court level is where they are killing most of the homeowners ..it is accomplished thru the intentional bias conduct of the judges in those lower courts ..intentionally destroying the chances for successful appeal by limiting discovery and limiting the record.
OH AND YOUR HONOR AM ALSO THE ONLY ONE WITH POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. MY PROPERTY. THAT COUNT FOR 2/3 OWNERSHIP. HAAHAHAHAHAHAHA AND 1/3 IS AM HOLDING THE MORTGAGE AND NOTE.
REALLY PEOPLE,
JST COPY A MORTGAGE NOTE, YOUR NOTE, NOW YOU ARE HOLDER OF YOUR NOTE.
SO WHEN BANK COMES IN SAYING WE ARE HOLDER OF THE NOTE, YOU CAN REALLY, HOW THAT. AM HOLDING MY NOTE ALSO, SO WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR COPY, THE SAME WAY I GOT MINE. OFF A COPY MACHINE.
SO YOUR HONOR, THEY HAVE A COPY AND I HAVE A COPY. WHAT NOW. HAHAHAHAHAHAAH
The judges work in collusion with the plaintiff banks …using “the holder of the note” doctrine to wipe out all defenses and assertions raised by the borrowers .. The judges argue that the law states that “holders” of the note can foreclose …period. End of discussion.
The judges and banks use this “holder” status and doctrine to overcome all of the arguments raised by defendants. A note stamped in blank is viewed as a carte blanch golden pass to foreclose.
And this takes us right back to the beginning, the failure of the courts
1)Contract Law 101 … Judges unjustly rely on presumptions
2)Failure by plaintiffs in foreclosure action to prove legal standing
3)Failure by courts to enforce proper scrutiny of chains of title
4)Courts allow fraud, fabricated Docs, MERS fraud, etc., etc.
5)Courts now have a proven track record of intentionally disregarding the above mentioned problems, thus creating years of bad caselaw.
It is clear that the judicial system has abused its discretion and shown a clear and convincing bias against defendants in foreclosure cases.
The unanimous Supreme Court of the United States has provided the proof that the judicial system has functioned in error for years, with the undeniable evidence of judges intentionally mis-applying the laws and statutes of TILA , misinterpreting and twisting the laws to rule against homeowners, distorting and perverting the very laws that were written to protect these borrowers from the very crimes that the foreclosing plaintiffs are promoting thru the courts.
Until we deal with the judges who are perpetuating the injustice .. we will continue to be stuck in the travesty of massive foreclosures that are based on faulty application of laws, disregard of laws, presumptions in favor of parties with no standing, judicial misinterpretation deliberately aimed at undermining borrower/ Defendants cases and defenses.
The banks/servicers do not have a creditor, because they have been stealing the money all along.
Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
Good blog post from Neil Garfield in which he argues that the three year statute of limitations governing the right to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) does not begin to run until the true source of the loan is identified. He makes a very persuasive argument that I agree with.