For more information please call 520-405-1688 or 954-495-9867
This is for general information only and is not a substitute for legal advice.
==================================
I had occasion to respond to some people who are still confused about rescission. My answer is that it is too simple to fathom because this is exactly what Congress wanted to do to banks who violate the law. It was intended as punishment to the banks who most everyone would agree deserve the punishments meted out by TILA. And anyone whose money was used in illegal transactions are subject to the same punishment. There is no way around it and Congress intended for it to be that way.
I would say that as to rescission the principal strategy is to stick with the extreme —- as per the statute, even a “wrongful” rescission is effective by operation of law and may not be ignored by the trial court. It remains effective by operation of law unless a court of competent jurisdiction vacates it. (same as a wrongful foreclosure judgment). We know this to be true because Justice Scalia gratuitously added to the opinion that the TILA rescission statute makes no distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions. Therefore the mailing of the rescission is the only thing required to cancel the loan contract and render the note and mortgage void by operation of law.
Perfection of the notice of rescission is accomplished by recording the instrument as an attachment to some form that complies with statute. But the rescission remains effective by operation of law and since under Dodd-Frank notice to one is notice to all, the recording is only necessary if a new new new servicer is brought in claiming to be a third party. Of course even in that case the servicer would be getting records of the prior servicer.
The last point is how and when can a court of competent jurisdiction vacate a rescission? The answer is the same as anything else that is brought to court — an INJURED party must bring an action seeking affirmative relief. And they must do so within 20 days of receipt of the rescission. Since the rescission is effective upon mailing and that means the note and mortgage are void upon mailing the notice, no party can invoke the jurisdiction of any court to vacate the rescission if they are relying upon the note and mortgage for standing. The logic is irrefutable — no court has jurisdiction to grant affirmative relief based upon standing claimed by a party who claims to be the “holder” of an instrument that is void. Thus the threshold issue of standing (injured party) can only be brought by a party would lose money by virtue of the rescission because they either funded the original loan or because they bought it.
To say they can bring that action anytime would defeat the words “by operation of law.” It would mean that the rescission really isn’t effective by operation of law upon mailing but only upon rendition of a court order which is directly opposite to the wording of the TILA rescission statute and the opinion in Jesinoski and Reg Z which declares the note and mortgage void upon mailing of the rescission. The time for filing the challenge therefore would ONLY be within the time limit prescribed by statute for compliance. After that the creditor is in violation of the three TILA rescission duties — return of canceled note, cancel lien, and pay money to “borrower.”
Ignoring the rescission or “ruling” that the rescission was outside the three year period or for any other reason without entering an order vacating the rescission is without any doubt procedurally incorrect. But that is the strategy of the banks. They wish to avoid the necessity of bringing an actual creditor to court who can prove they are an injured party and thus get relief to which they are not entitled based upon two void instruments — the note and mortgage — and the presumptions and assumptions the courts are making as they rule for servicers, trustees and banks.
This is and always has been the intention of Congress when they passed TILA 50 years ago. If a consumer finds that he was not given the correct disclosures and no longer wants the deal he need only send a letter which cancels the whole thing whether the bank likes it or not. Then the consumer may apply to a new bank for financing that will pay off the old “loan” without any finance charges or fees.
The parts about paying the borrower every cent he ever paid and every cent paid to third party as compensation or profit arising out of the origination of the loan was thought of as giving the consumer back the fees and other charges and the payments over a short time; it was never contemplated that the banks would stretch it out for years for their own reasons. And the reason for that was that the new bank would want their own fees etc.
People keep saying that this makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. Congress wanted to be able to penalize the banks for doing table-funded loans and other predatory practices. The principal point of TILA was that the consumer of loan products would have a choice as to WHO he did business with. Reg Z calls it “predatory per se.” That means it is against public policy. If it is against public policy the foreclosing party has unclean hands unless they are a holder in due course, which none of them can claim. If they have unclean hands, they have no right to demand anything in a court of equity. Since foreclosure is an equitable remedy (forced sale), a table funded loan that is part of a pattern and practice (0ver 5) is predatory per se. And Congress decided to punish the banks for violating that. Rescission is just one of those punishments.
Filed under: foreclosure |
This is all great discussion, but can you file a rescission if you are beyond the 3 years? jsmith5915@msn.com, 443 677 2799. James Smith
ivent
you know the racket
make sure you leave Lisa a back-door to save face and maybe she will step up to help – even indemnify her
i don’t care what you know or what you can prove…
if you put her in your sites, she has the control over many guns to make you disappear…
Therefore, unless the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY can prove these UNITED STATES is one vast OPEN AIR CATTLE DRIVE, & that OFFICE is head CATTLE HERDER, I cite CORPORATE BIAS is the claim every case should be dismissed under.
Because we never signed no contract under the FALSE PRETENSES of being CATTLE, HERDED by BIASED CORPORATE CATTLE HERDERS.
Furthermore , GEORGE W. BUSH said if you see something, say something in regards to TERRORISM.
What is more terrifying than my FC story for one thing?
For the other thing, what is it they’re unlawfully entering upon U.S. COURTS of LAW that makes them DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?
COPIES OF NOTES that do not legally support COPIES OF MORTGAGES.
COPIES do not legally sustain the theory of CORPUS JURIS or no other CORPORATE FRAUD biased LEGAL THEORY because COPIES can be ALTERED UNLAWFULLY & therefore have no LEGAL VALIDITY.
Therefore, these cases being brought upon the illegitimate theory of CORPORATE BIAS can only be considered to be WAR CRIMES.
Moreover, THE ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE incriminated itself when it refused to take my complaint over the phone in the beginning of this vast FC FIASCO.
Therefore, I consider the ILLINOS STATES ATTORNEY to be the unknown & unregistered THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF UTTERING FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS upon the FC COURT.
How do they TITLE SWAP upon PITCH BLACK TITLES?
To say the TITLE is cloudy & there’s COLOR OF TITLE ISSUES is the most criminal cover up for FRAUD RACKETEERING with COUNTERFEIT TITLES imaginable.
One ATTORNEY, JILLIAN COLE from ARONBERG, GOLGEHN, DAVIS & GARMISA said to me over the phone, they can sell properties with CLOUDY TITLES.
That was the day I told her there’s COLOR OF TITLE ISSUES on my business property because of the CROSS-COLATERALIZATION that FIRST MIDWEST BANK did behind my back with my PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.
She used to be the ASSISTANT to ATTORNEY GENERAL MADIGAN so what more proof is needed they’re in criminal cahoots with each other?
One FC ATTORNEY, who I talked to, DANIEL FISH said JILLIAN COLE has been in trouble before.
The closing ATTORNEY from my house closing, RICHARD CHISOLM said she needed to remove herself from the case because that’s conflict of issues.
Nice try, & of course she never did, so clearly their firm spies on their victims.
I was recently told those crooks “sold the notes’ behind my back they never held, & legally never left my possession because they’re FRAUD RACKETEERS.
Furthermore, the JUDGE from that case, JUDGE PRICE WALKER is clearly in on the ILLINOIS STATES ATTORNEYS FRAUD RACKETEERING SCAM under the guise of FC.
The reason why is, the case is so criminal, JUDGE WALKERS reputation reeks pf CRIMINALITY for not dismissing it for reasons too numerous to mention.
They’re the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN & their modus operandi is SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE (SRA).
They victimize the many by being every party to their own unlawful transgressions.
If you have ever read the TRANSCRIPTS of the DEPOS given by their own woefully unqualified employess they hire to cover up their crimes, there is no distinction between what they claim to have been party to & witnessed & the missing party.
In order to bring claim, they must have personal knowledge of the purported transaction but not have been party to it.
Therefore, the red flag is raised because that reeks of one vast criminal cover up by the so called PLAINTIFF who is sweaing they’re everybody by hiding their TRUE IDENTITY.
PROCTOR & GAMBLE for example donates to the CHURCH OF SATAN.
That is definitely conflicting in interest with my religious beliefs.
I would not fund no one who donates to that CRIME SYNDICATE.
They’re EXISTENTIALISTS who perceive their own reality.
They’re the evil they think is good so they think bad is good.
So they think good & evil is synonymous with each other.
They’re incongruent with the facts because their facts don’t exist in reaity.
That’s how they misrepresent they’re really criminals.
To them legal bias is their own satanic subculture they call political theory to escape being identified devil worshippers & occultists.
We may perceive FC is the theft of our PROPERTY RIGHTS by DESTRUCTION of our LEGAL RIGHTS.
Therefore, we look for the fraud they engaged in to defend our TITLES from TITLE FRAUD.
However, we can never seem to pinpoint the FRAUD on our TITLES that would render their unjust suits criminal because us thinking is criminal to them.
There is nothing that coud justify their own criminal wrongdoings because they’re the ANTITHESIS of evil AKA THE SYNOGAGUE OF SATAN.
Moreover, politics is used for nothing but motivational speaking to its own evil cloche of “INDUSTRY INSIDERS.”
Their main objective is to incite evil incantations & invoke evil on those who don’t worship & believe what they do.
They’re the reason crime doesn’t pay, it undermines to create injustice for whoever it wants to by lying.
Even those devout to it can never be devout enough because it is MILITARY EXTREMISM in subjogated form.
Its good guy/bad guy formulation, makes “it,” its own worst enemy by playing tag, you’re it with itself.
That’s why it can become every party to the same issue unlawfully because it is the issue.
It is RELIGIOUS SACRILEDGE in & of itself.
The entire east end boys/west end girls POLICE STATE threat is political mumbo jumbo because that has been going on since J.EDGAR HOOVER was in charge of “THE BUREAU.”
Lots of stuff has been kept secret from the mamy because that’s what cowards do when they want to control the population.
You think you can trust the public servants until you want justice from criminals who hve violated your legal rights.
Then you soon discover the mass corruption & ignorance to your legal rights is intentional & being made fun of by those you thought you could trust.
You may or may not realize the reason why is FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT of one vast criminal cover up by the upper crusties.
They don’t necessarily live posh lifestyles openly.
That is one deception that empowers them to hide their real motive is RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION of ROMAN CATHOLICS who reject SECRETIVE ORGANIZATIONS & TOTUS TU TEMPORALISM in general.
The entire KNIGHTS TEMPLAR psych war is just redundant & has become one vast CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE of SECRET SOCIETIES AKA THE PARTY OF ONE.
Their investment strategies have been used for nothing other than trying to criminalize & kill those who don’t worship or believe in their ONE WORLD/NWO evil DRUIDIC belief system.
That’s why they have secret identities to try & dictate their false belief system & hide it is steeped in NUMEROLOGY & other occilt practices
Foreign espionage is domestic terrorism no matter what the naysayers say.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT is extremely sneaky & very deceptive.
The skyrocketing costs of everything for example.
That is one way to steal peoples freedom.
Instilling fear by continuously lying to people regarding the true nature of crime.
It is FORCED COERCION. That’s not to say every criminal is forced to engage in wrongdoings.
There is the instigator who initiates the bribes & from there it becomes more & more secretve in how the originator carries out its cover up.
The motive is the cover up in every instance.
The big DRUG DEALERS don’t go to jail, they use others to hide their identity in every profession & every walk of life.
That’s how CRIME SYNDICATES operate.
Joe schmo could be PABLO ESCOBAR & you may or may not even know it.
When I say foreign interest, I mean the unknown third-party PLAINTIFF who wants their identity to be kept secret.
Of course I meant NEW _WORLD_ORDER in my previous comment.
I think the foreign interest went off the deep end Hammertime by FALSE IMPRISONING their victims to try to cover up their SECURITIES FRAUD crimes.
When people go off tge deep end though banksters and elites love it. We need to focus on fraud right in front of us.
NEW WORD ORDER BASICS:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/nwo_basics.htm
RUSSIAN ORGANIZED CRIME:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russian_organized_crime
Every road leads to one place AIG & their PRISM PROGRAM.
INSURANCE FRAUD is the real false claim in tort.
That’s not to say the banks were not in on that entire set up because of course INFRAGUARD is one vast SPY RING PROTECTION RACKET of GANGSTALKERS.
If they were decent human beings, they would have said how much can you pay per month & settled for that.
Instead, they chose to open up PANDORA’S BOX with their plethora of fraud du jour. Take your pick of which fraud they won’t try to cover up because there isn’t one.
CNBC reported WALL STREET made $60 TRILLION DOLLARS in 1999 just from the sales of MORTGAGE DERIVATIVES.
Certainly there was intent to harm based upon that one ARROGANT fact & they claim they’re broke & keep robbing us.
I went to the SBA in CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY with my BUSINESS PLAN for online car sales. They called some bank & turned me down flat & said they don’t loan to car people.
But congress bailed out GM & CHRYSLER.
What crooks.
Brick & mortar businesses involve lots of working capital & the exhorbitant property taxes ruin it for start up businessses.
Businesses can be started up from your own house in many cases until you start making profit.
The real problem is getting the business started because of closed minded people who underestimate our own creativity.
I had one lengthy conversation with CARLOS from the HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERS BIG SWINDLE.
He said “PEOPLE ARE MOVING INTO APARTMENTS.”
The criminal jerk.
He must be PABLO ESCOBAR’s reincarnation talking from cocaine mountain in BRAZIL if he thought I would fall for that GLOBALIST settlement for fraud bs.
That is the proper legal correction Hammertime for FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT.
What has been procured by these swindlers?
Innumerable sums of drug money that was fraudulently obtained.
Like MAX KEISER said, there’s nothing in the FRB but mountains of COCAINE & PABLO ESCOBAR.
Then the CRIME SYNDICATE stole $60+ trilliom in the unlawful bailouts since 2008 reported CNBC’S RICK SANTELLI.
He said someone needs to stop these maniacs.
Then they still had the cahones to FRAUDCLOSE without warrant or proper legal jurisdiction ujder COLOR OF LAW THEORIES based upon nothong legally factual.
That’s GRAND THEFT LARCENY by WAR CRIMINALS because it’s DOMESTIC TERRORISM what they’re doing with no notes.
Solution – not only jail but restitution. Force investment in us and real brick/mortar businesses. That will pop their bubble.
In criminal casino economies the criminals racketeer with their own fraud.
That’s why no one is safe when there’s FRAUD IN THE FACTUM because there is FRAUD IN THE ESSENCE of everything. When nothing is secured because the ESSENCE of the FRAUD is TITLE FRAUD the main objective of the PEPERPETRATORS is DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE to hide the COLOR OF TITLE issues.
When the WALL STREET BANK EXECS can hide the paper trail, they become dominatrixes over their own crime spree, & think they can own & control the free will of the people.
That’s the essence of PAY TO PLAY because it has no paper trail.
It’s like the PAYOLA that comes in little brown paper bags to gangsters from other gangsters.
You don’t know who is getting paid to screw you & by whom.
To say the money is backed by nothing is hyperbole & mind control bankster psyops because by saying that their portending everything & everyone is worthless.
That’s untrue unless we fail to produce things of value in these United States.
Paying unsubstantiated debt fraud claims made by unknown ASSAILANTS can only be considered to be cavorting with the enemy.
The electronic balance sheet is not legal because criminals can manipulate & fabricate the numbers by computer hacking.
That would let banks hide our deposits like the electronic bank statement does.
If the banks were to get examined by the FEDERAL BANKING REGULATORS they would discover the banks DAY BOOKS don’t exist.
The ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES don’t exist because we’re unlawfully considered to be DEBTORS.
That’s the RICO CLAIM I would submit by stating the claim the BANKS FRAUD RACKETEER FOR PROFIT by way of EBT’S.
Because there is no paper trail that proves the money ever existed.
That’s how the BANKS fee us exhorbitantly.
What’s hideous & morbid in debit based society is the money never gets printed in monetary terms.
So they’re credit exchange brokering on speculation & there is no paper trail of the issuance because the money was never legally coined & issued.
It’s mind games by the CREDIT BROKERS that is gangsterism to say it “bluntly” & fraud racketeering to say it honestly.
Debit is the essence of FRAUD FOR PROFIT scamming because no legal currency is ever issued.
To those who say they deposit the money before they debit don’t realize the banks supposed deficit when they deposit the money.
Therefore, reportedly, the legal money hasn’t been printed so the debits do nothing but ACCRUE INTEREST for the TREASURY DEPT, which is convenient for the banks.
They can unlawfully collect those “interest only” debits like store credits if they decide to fold up one day.
That will leave us with lots of questions & we won’t ever get our stolen wealth back.
So what we’re really depositing is store credits not literally, but in the evil minds of the debt creators.
That’s why paying with cash shuts them down.
Everything is kept in the dealers house Hammertime & nothing equitable ever leaves.
How they did that is they stacked the tables with derivatives that were valueless & used them up until the value of the original TITLE issuance was destroyed figuratively, not literally.
Because it’s done by sleight of hand.
Some DJ on the radio here in Chicago said “they communized credit.”
That’s not true, the WALL STREET CREDIT BROKERS destroyed the value of it.
The result of that is their electronic debit based society which hideous & morbid because it is set up only for the benefit of the moneyed elite.
They consider us the dead corporate interest who they used up.
Of course thats only true if you consider yourself to be their WALL STREET SLAVE.
I certainly don’t & no one should because someone elses labor is no one elses saleable commodity.
That’s why the 13th coin, the BITCOIN, should be outlawed & electronic transfers of debt creation should be considered war crimes.
Credit issued fraudulently is the communist ideal & ends in tyranny that oppresses the people because it employs criminal mind control tactics from its inception.
Now Lvent ur last 3 posts actually are borderline brilliant to describe the criminal, casino economy.
MERS fabricates lots of stuff for the PIRATES of BANKS & BANKING.
Hiding behind those so called “MIN NUMBERS” is oodles of FRAUDULENT TITLE SWAPS.
How can those be insured? They can’t, so they cover them up by trying to make fraud look legit.
They call TITLE FRAUD illegitimate names like COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS & try to make everyone believe that’s not some evil curse on us.
What else could those things be because I’ve never seen one of those CDO’s?
The wicked witch from CHASE, BLYTHE MASTERS supposedly conjured those up & they certainly were nothing good for 99% of us.
Let’s call it their PIRATE SHIP, the SS MERS, short for, SECRET SOCIETY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SERVICES.
The BIG NAKED SHORT.
As opposed to the SS MINNOW that had no FREE WILL.
When I said they’re like PIRATES LOAN SHARKING on their own CARIBBEAN CRUISE on U.S. SOVEREIGN SOIL, I should have included the word SHIP.
They think the U.S. is their own private GAMBLING VESSEL they can use to IN-HOUSE swap their own dirty delinquencies.
The only thing they did was swap their own inadequacies & try to re-swap the same junk AKA DERIVATIVES between their own PIRATE BUDDIES.
They were never LOANS given to us, they were CREDIT SWAPS that were PAYOLA by delinquents & faked upon their inception.
To cover that up they’re re-swapping not re-purchasing their own fraud because who would want to buy ther own ACTS OF RICO?
Who is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the KKK?
Because I’ve seen cops & the like wearing white sheets & it wasn’t HALLOWEEN.
Moreover, no doubt the connections could easily be made between the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK’S U.S. BANKING CHARTER/LICENSING AGREEMENT & the NAZI PARTY because they sure operate like the FOURTH REICH.
What specifically the law is they’re governing themselves under is non-existant because it’s HYPERBOLE.
They’re PIRATES LOAN SHARKING on their own CARRIBEAN CRUISE on U.S. SOVEREIGN SOIL.
BOB,
HOW COME THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SUIT AGAINST BANKS. COME UP WITH THIS,
MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,INC.
IS A COMPUTER.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SYSTEM FOR BANKS TO USE.
NOW GET IT. A COMPUTER SYSTEM.
SO TELL ME. HOW CAN A COMPUTER SYSTEM , BE HOLDER OF ANY KIND OF PROPERTY. LAND. OR BE HOLDER OF ANY SECURITIES
AGAIN IT IS A COMPUTER SYSTEM.
So did ur mom or u ever miss a payment? Again everybody else is a moron and Bob is the genius in his own mind. Ergo what a d!@k!
Is it possible both banksters and borrowers have committed fraud but the banksters systematically profit and destroy innocent victims?
mn, you disingenuous jerk. A pimp pushes an illicit service that clients crave but don’t need, available licitly at home in most cases, for profit. I recommend a valuable legal service that people desperately need but don’t crave and cannot get elsewhere. Do you see the huge difference?
Nauseating? The nutritious, life-giving truth? WHY would it make you sick unless you have subsisted on the candy of falsehoods so long that nutritious truth makes you feel woozy?
Hypocritically? In what way?
Deadbeat means breached the note, without regard to why. It is what it is, and I didn’t invent the word or the breach.
For all home loan borrowers, MORTGAGE ATTACK is the best route, in or out of foreclosure, before or after breaching the note or losing the house. People who don’t use that method, knowing they can RELIABLY WIN no other way, are virtual idiots.
Lawyers don’t promote it because those facing foreclosure whine about being broke, so lawyers have a way of cheating them out of money for years, pretending to defend against foreclosure while actually leading them step by inexorable step into its jaws. That is their business model. That is Neil Garfield’s law firm’s business model. Such lawyers cannot afford to finance the mortgage exam and litigation, and they desperately, jealously want the money that a competent mortgage examiner charges – the lawyers want it for themselves because even with a mortgage exam showing causes of action, now they have to launch an expensive attack, hire experts to prove damages, do depositions, etc., and the borrower facing foreclosure cannot pay for it.
To that I say bullshit. I have listened to HUNDREDS of deadbeat borrowers whine that they are broke, but they muddle by and give THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, sometimes TENS OF THOUSANDS to their foreclosure defense lawyers, securitization auditors, and other scammers. They will never convince me with their whining that they cannot come up with the money for a mortgage exam. They are just penny wise and pound foolish. And after all, they don’t make mortgage payments, so what the hell do they do with their money?
I don’t “PRETEND” to be mortgage victims’ friend. I am nearly their ONLY competent friend. I tell them the hard truth about their stupid decisions, and show them the path through the labyrinth, with the route painted in bright green paint to victory. I bring them the water of salvation and lift it to their lips. It is not MY fault if they are too stupid or self-indulgent or locked in their misery to start walking on that green stripe or sip that saving water.
My track record? Irrelevant. The methodology works for creditors. They find the injury, hire a lawyer, and ATTACK. The same methodology works for borrowers, and lender teams have injured 90% of them. All creditors have attacked borrowers who injured them. FEW borrowers attack creditors who injure them because pretense defense lawyers don’t tell them what they must do to find the injuries and base an attack on them. They tell them ridiculous nonsense like Garfield does, such as “buy my rescission package and send that notice of rescission right now because that will relieve you of the obligation to make mortgage payments.” I have shown court opinions proving that borrowers get lavishly compensated for suing and otherwise attacking the injurious members of the bank’s team. Nobody needs further proof of the Mortgage Attack methodology.
When you jump on me with criticism, you jump on the wrong person. And you show yourself up as a jerk and bozo.
Tuesday 27 October 2015
bobhurt:
>If the borrower doesn’t want the creditor to use the note in commerce
>for purposes other than providing evidence of debt, then the borrower
> must put terms into the note that impose that limit and provide a
>penalty, such as liquidated damages or a percentage of related profit,
> for violation.
>The borrower can add a provision requiring return of the note to the
>maker upon satisfaction, and impose a liquidated damages penalty for
>failure to return it. After all, what keeps the creditor from continuing to
>use the note in commerce, and profiting from it, after satisfaction?
>The borrower can add a provision requiring the creditor to share any
>related profits with the borrower through reduction of the loan balance,
> or cash payments.
>But, alas! the borrower never does that.
More kool-aid, Robert? Surely you jest!
How many times have you personally witnessed ANY borrower at a closing
say they want to add a few addendum’s, as you cavalierly suggest, and
the lender accedes to change/alter their carefully crafted documents?
How many times, Robert?
>Alas, the borrower never does that.
Right, bobbieboy, cast the blame on the moron borrower once again, and
then ask the moron to contact you for your “never fail” system, for how
much, you say? Are you in the same category as Rock, in the $5,000
arena that fails to back up all of your mortgage attack wooden stakes to
be driven through the hearts[less] of the plaintiffs?
One case. Just one case that has a cause/effect win that can be
directly tied in to the wonders of your mortgage attack scheme! Or is
that asking for too much? You have no problem asking that of NG.
Does the same shoe fit you?
Remind me, again, who the moron is…
Must have been Bob #2, 3?…
I didn’t enlist myself in this war on our LEGAL RIGHTS.
So who did because my OWNERS POLICY from CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST is supposed to protect me from fraud to my TITLE.
The judges willully & wantonly ignore that, which is scurillous to say the least.
Hammertime: HIDC? I don’t know what you’re writing about. Do you?
As MN says a deadbeat INTENTIONALLY misses payments. Just to shut the book on this nonsense I recently posted an article from ’08 where an FBI head was getting ready to put thousands of borrowers in jail due to the crisis. Now may be a couple of years back William Black showed the bankster was at fault even with a crooked broker. And borrowers/brokers have gone to jail. So those of u going along w Bob’s bankster script live in the same cave and if you CONFESS like he tells u to maybe we’ll write you in jail!
Tuesday 27 October 2015
bobhurt:
Your relentless and u forgiving attack on “deadbeat borrowers” becomes
more and more nauseating every time you post, which is endless and
so unnecessary, but you persist in pimping the service you hypocritically
claim not to sell.
There may be some deadbeat borrowers, but not all who find themselves
facing foreclosure intended to default or be in breach of their note. Why
don;t you back off from categorizing all in foreclosure as “deadbeats and
mind you own f’n business. Almost all of them have waived most of
the defenses that would help them. Mortgage foreclosure attack, as you
just as relentlessly choose to throw in everyone’s face is not the end all
and only/best solution. If that were true. there would be many more
smart people creating blogs and trying to get as much business as
possible, and there would be a sharp increase in the number of those in
foreclosure that have winning records against the banks who foreclose
based mostly upon deceit, false records, and courts more than willing to
bend the law to ensure banks win, regardless of their lack of legitimacy.
You then turn around and pretend you are everyone’s friend and just
trying to “help” by guiding them to the promised land If you are so right,
you should not have any time to be trolling for business on this site, and
who knows how many others, because people would be flocking to you
with your pristine track record of countless wins. What? No record?
You even have an excuse for that, too.
Most people in foreclosure are symptomatic of a dirty mortgage environment purposefully created by the banking system, BY DESIGN!
Think MERS, for one, and always think of the judicial system, first and
foremost more than protective of the corruption rampant in the banking
and mortgage industry.
You imply, to the nth degree that lenders/creditors are flawless in their
lending practices and it is only the “deadbeat morons/idiots” who are to
blame. If there were honesty in the banking system, and there never
has been since the private banking Rothschild Ponzi scheme created
the Federal Reserve that unlawfully took over this country’s banking
system, totally against the no longer effective organic Constitution, and
replaced by a corporate de fact UNITED STATES federal government.
You still have no clue what lawful money is/means, and I note you have
never provided an answer that justifies what you promote. For as
phoney as you portray Neil Garfield, for me, you are worse.
There are no known cures for people like you who keep pointing the
accusatory finger at everyone else who does not believe in your own
brand of kool-aid. Does it have merit? Yes. So do many other defenses.
You rely totally upon case law which has been created by the banking
system and fully abetted by the equally crooked judges who use their
own form of dogmatic sophistry to screw the public. Yes, there are
exceptions, but most have to deal with the prevailing rule.
It is apparent from many of your detractors who could not write a proper
pleading to save their ass, let alone their home, and I would challenge
all of them to post their own briefs that prevailed in court that reflect the
emotionally-driven “arguments” they think will fly in court.
Those who argue against you on this site do not make convincing
rebuttals against you, for the most part. I understand the vitriolic attacks by many toward you. In many ways, it is deserved by virtue of
your finger-pointing attacks and your endless pointing to existing but
questionable case law that favors the creditors you favor defending as
though they were flawless.
I read many, many cases, looking for pluses and minuses, and so many
have flawed arguments against questionable plaintiffs, but through
either procedures, where the ill-equipped borrower cannot defeat for
lack of knowledge, and too, too, many arguing from the “heart” and no
case law as backup, and more reasons, the losses are more the fault
of incompetent defenses and even some very competent ones were
simply trashed by the judge, forcing a loss agains the borrower. The”plaintiff/bankers clearly have the edge, and their overwhelming
wins against borrowers is not due to their intelligence, and most often,
not due to their bogus pleadings.
It is a stacked deck, and you do nothing to contribute in a positive
manner, yet you cannot believe it when people react so negatively
against you. You are the common denominator to those who post
against you, including me, and I have an appreciation for some of
what you post. In many ways, you are just like the creditors who
foreclose with faulty paperwork, which you defend by virtue of the
fact that the “deadbeat morons” breached their contracts.
You are your own worst enemy. Why you choose to be an ongoing
source of aggravation on this site remains a mystery, when you have
been told how unwanted your advice is, regardless of much “faith” you
have in it.
You call out Neil Garfield. You call out all the “deadbeat morons/idiots,”
yet when you are called you, all you care about is being “right” and
shoving your method down everyone’s throat.
Show a bit of character and walk away.
Bob when u presume we are all deadbeats and we will file rescission for no reason u are repeating the same lie banks started since day 1. You then claim to attack the banks which is pure manipulation just like the banksters. Again as has been repeated and proven , no contract, no breach. Those of fighting for years have mountains of damages that have been ignored. Now the tables are turned and bankster has to prove FIRST that they are entitled to a single penny. If u can read and comprehend Garfield’s post and acknowledge his legal expertise and our common sense experience u could break out of ur loop.
Again Bob ur own words contradict u. Holder in DUE COURSE.
Kalifornia, ….help break it down and explain it in layman terms for us blue-collar middle America working types out here .. Is it talking about when they use your “Note” = (property) for other purposes, such as mortgage backed security secondary market, without your consent , moving it around without your consent or knowledge, etc. ???
If so … Please explain or give an example of how they damage the property and/or return it in a damged condition, etc. ..making them liable for the damage of your property .. Or am I misunderstanding?
Is it saying they used the note for their own purposes and without our consent or authorization , as per the contract?
So when the “lender” took your Note and departed from the contract by selling it off to the secondary market MBS , they converted or transformed your property (note) , causing injury to you, because now you are being told you are not a party to the PSA and cannot defend generally as is stated in the mortgage contract …they tell you that you are not a party and lack standing to allege fraud against an Assignment of Mortgage that allegedly moves your mortgage around , etc.
They harmed you and caused injury because they used your property in a way you never authorized. And now that property (note) is outside your control and reach because they converted it and transformed your property ..damaging it .. The note / property is no longer in the same condition as when you gave it to them.
Is that what it’s saying ? In simple terms ?
123 **** PAY ATTENTION ****
§ 123. Unauthorized use of bailed property
A bailee who uses the bailed property in a manner not authorized by the bailment contract is liable for breach of contract.[1] Such a bailee also may be liable in a tort action for injury to the property which occurs while it is being used in a manner not expressly or impliedly authorized by the contract of bailment, even though the injury results from an accident rather than from negligence in using the property.[2]
The fact that the owner of the bailed property has given the bailee the right to use it for one purpose gives the bailee no right to use the property for another purpose, and the invasion of the owner’s right of property is as complete when the bailee goes beyond the licensed use as when control over the property is usurped without any bailment.[3] Consequently, if the property is used in a different manner than that intended by the parties,[4] or for a longer period,[5] or in a different place,[6] the bailee is responsible for all resulting damages, including thosecaused by inevitable casualties.[7]
8A Am. Jur. 2d Bailments § 123
If the bailee deviates from the bailment contract by keeping the bailed property at an unauthorized location, and a loss occurs that would not have occurred had the property been stored or kept in the place agreed upon, the bailee is liable for the loss even if he or she is not negligent.[1] Moreover, a bailee who misinforms the bailor as to the place where the bailed property is kept may be liable for any loss to the property that otherwise would not have occurred, even if the bailee is not otherwise culpable.[2]
In order to avoid liability, the bailee must ordinarily notify the bailor of, and obtain consent to, any change in the location of the bailed property.[3] In addition, the bailee is not liable if the bailor ratifies the change.[4] However, that there can be no waiver by the bailor of a contractual provision as to the place of storage of the bailed property unless the bailor has full knowledge of the facts.[5]
§ 122. Keeping property at improper location
A bailee who departs from the terms of the bailment contract,[1] or who disregards express or implied instructions from the bailor concerning the manner of dealing with the bailed property,[2] is liable to the bailor for any resulting loss or damage to the property, in the absence of any ratification by the bailor, regardless of any lack of due care on the bailee’s part. The fact that a bailee has exercised the degree of care imposed upon him or her by law is immaterial, where the issue is whether the bailee has breached a contractual obligation.[3] Thus, if a bailee elects to deal with the property entrusted to him or her in a way not authorized by the bailor, the bailee normally assumes the risk of any adverse consequences.[4] Moreover, a departure from the terms of the bailment contract may amount to a conversion.[5]
§ 120. Disregarding contract or instructions
In order for the bailee to be liable for loss of or damage to the bailed property resulting from negligence, the bailee’s actions must have been a proximate, direct, and immediate cause of the loss or damage.[1] The bailee cannot be deemed liable for a loss caused by the negligence of the bailor or the bailor’s agents,[2] and the bailor’s contributory negligence may prevent him or her from recovering damages from the bailee for loss or damage to the bailed property.[3]
Observation:
Issues concerning proximate cause and contributory negligence by the bailor are questions of fact to be decided by the jury[4] whenever reasonable, fair-minded, intelligent persons can draw different conclusions from the evidence.[5]
§ 119. Proximate cause; effect of bailor’s negligence
Liability for Injury or Loss
When a bailment is created, the bailee becomes liable for damage to the property for a failure to exercise the requisite care to safeguard it.[1] Ordinarily, bailments impose responsibility for damage on the bailee if the damage arose from the bailee’s negligence.[2] An increasing measure of care is required of the bailee, and a commensurate responsibility for negligence is imposed, in bailments for the benefit of the bailor, bailments for mutual benefit, and bailments for the benefit of the bailee, respectively.[3] Thus, while a bailee for hire may be liable for simple or ordinary negligence,[4] a gratuitous bailee is liable only for gross negligence,[5] bad faith[6] willful acts,[7] or fraud.[8]
8A Am. Jur. 2d Bailments § 115
In a bailment for mutual benefit, the bailor makes a prima facie or presumptive case of negligence by proving the failure of the bailee to return the bailed property or the return of the property in damaged condition.[1] A presumption thus arises that a bailee who has sole, actual, and exclusive possession of goods has been negligent if he or she cannot explain the loss or disappearance of the bailed property.[2] However, this presumption can be overcome by a
showing that the bailee used due care,[3] that the presumed fact did not exist and that the bailee was free from fault,[4] or that the loss of the property resulted from some other cause consistent with the exercise of due care by the bailee.[5]
Practice Tip:
For a bailor to create a prima facie case of negligence against a bailee, the bailor must offer evidence showing that property was delivered to the bailee, that the bailee accepted the property and thereafter had possession and control of it, and that the bailee returned the property in a damaged condition. Further, once a prima face case has been made, the bailor retains the burden of proof.[6]
Am. Jur. § 113. Presumption of negligence arising from loss
Duty to Care for Property
Once a bailment relationship has been established, the law imposes upon the bailee certain duties and obligations with respect to the bailed property in his or her possession.[1] The bailee has an obligation, arising from the relationship created by the bailment contract, to exercise due care to protect the bailed property from loss, damage, or destruction.[2]
8A Am. Jur. 2d Bailments § 106
Where a bailee expressly agrees to return the property which is the subject of the bailment in good condition, or in as good a condition as received, the extent of the bailee’s undertaking depends upon the intention of the parties as revealed by factors such as the wording of the contract, the circumstances of the case, and the nature of the bailed property.[1] The mere inclusion of language obligating the bailee to return the property in good condition does not indicate an intention to enlarge the common-law liability of the bailee,[2] and thus does not impose the responsibility of an insurer on the bailee.[3] The liability of a bailee of personal property likewise is not normally enlarged to that of an insurer by covenants to return the hired
property in as good condition as when received, loss by ordinary or usual wear and tear excepted, and to keep the property in good repair during the term of the contract.[4] However, the exercise of ordinary care by the bailee is no defense to an action by the bailor founded upon an absolute promise by the bailee to return the bailor’s property in substantially the same condition as received.[5] Moreover, an express agreement by the bailee not merely to return the subject of the bailment in good condition, but to repair all damages occasioned by accident or casualty,[6] or to be responsible for any loss or damage, barring ordinary wear and tear, creates an unconditional obligation, and where such language is used, the bailee is liable for any loss which is not excepted, regardless of negligence or fault.[7]
Am. Jur. § 95. Agreement to return property in certain condition
Exculpatory provisions which purport to limit or restrict liability for damage to bailed property must be expressed in clear and unambiguous language, since the liability of the bailee may not be restricted by words of doubtful meaning.[1] The liability which the law generally attaches to the bailment relationship will not be limited unless such is the intention of the parties as expressed in, or necessarily implied from, their contract.[2] Moreover, because the law does not favor exculpatory provisions, they will be strictly construed and will not be interpreted as creating an exemption from liability if any other meaning may reasonably be ascribed to the language employed.[3]
Am. Jur. § 87. Strict construction of exculpatory provisions
The parties to a bailment contract are not permitted to define their rights and obligations in contravention of the law or public policy.[1] Although parties to a bailment relationship are ordinarily free to contract to diminish the bailee’s common-law duty of care regarding the subject of the bailment,[2] they may not do so where such limitation of liability is unreasonable and therefore would violate public policy.[3] Thus, a contractual provision attempting to exempt
an ordinary bailee from liability for a loss occurring through his or her own fraud or want of good faith generally is void as against public policy.[4]
Am. Jur. § 86. Public policy restrictions on contractual limitations of liability
. . . the bailor has the right to have the property used with care and moderation and have it used only in the manner intended.[5]
Conversely, the bailee has no right to use,[6] and is under an implied obligation not to use,[7] the bailed property for any purpose other than that for which it has been obtained. Moreover, as a general rule, a bailee has no right to delegate the right to use the property to another person, unless there is some understanding or agreement to that effect.[8]
Am. Jur. § 84. Bailee’s right to use property
The loan of the NOTE to the BAILEE {THINK: “straw man”} created an undisclosed and concealed JOINT VENTURE/AD HOC PARTNERSHIP once/upon the NOTE becoming collateral for securitization transaction into a REMIC trust.
The law of BAILMENT indicates . . .
REMEMBER THIS:
The MAKER loaned his/her Promissory NOTE {THINK: the BAILOR loaned his/her PERSONALTY} as CONSIDERATION.
The lead on this line of thinking derives from Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed.):
BANKING A DEAL. Means making to one who
wishes to consummate a deal a loan of money on
collateral for a consideration which may consist of
interest, a fee, or a part of the securities or property
involved in the deal. Cray, McFawn & Co.
v. Hegarty, Conroy & Co., D.C.N.Y., 27 F.Supp. 93,
99.
PLEASE PICK THIS APART.
The first contractual layer:
1) At the inception/execution of the Putative Contract, did the “straw man” that created, and inserted itself onto, the disclosure documents and Real Property INSTRUMENTS as the purported “lender” fraudulently induce the MAKER of his/her Promissory NOTE to enter into what is in SUBSTANCE an undisclosed JOINT VENTURE/AD HOC PARTNERSHIP with THAT “straw man” as a matter of law . . . for the concealed purpose of that “partner’s” sole profit from engaging in concealed securitization transactions with/into REMIC trusts?
The second contractual layer:
2) If it is so that these Putative Contracts were in substance JOINT VENTURES/AD HOC PARTNERSHIPS with THAT “straw man”, then as a matter of law the deceived “silent partner” should have more than a third party interest in the concealed securitization transaction with/into REMIC trusts?
Got it. Still works! Will be in touch.
@ Hammertime
A message is awaiting over there.
Bob why don’t u get that the sequence is completely reversed from common law rescission and u have urself posted from Jesinoski that rescission is in effect on mailing. And if there are material violations of TILA it is not just about disclosures. TILA is about dishonest creditors why do u keep harping on us being the deadbeats when it’s been proven the banks are the deadbeats. You’re the lone voice in the wilderness defending these criminal banks. It’s nuts!
Dwight
your last post makes a lot of sense…
g
UKG – do you have that NY Fed case number or a link?
TILA does punish the lender for not complying or responding.
How? You ask?
The TILA statute tells the rescinding borrower to stop making payments. You don’t consider that a punishment Bob?
The lender stops receiving their monthly payments as per TILA
The 20 day clock begins to tick …
Bob advises the lender to “IGNORE the rescission, there is no punishment for ignoring the rescission”
The lender takes Bobs advice and ignores the borrowers rescission
The lender realises he has no money coming in …he calls Bob , but Bob tells the lender “don’t worry about it, there is nothing anyone can do to punish you for ignoring the rescission”
The lender fires Bob …and files a malpractice suit against Bob for giving bad legal advice.
Meanwhile back at the borrowers home … they are protected by the TILA statute that effectively rescinded the loan. They are not under any obligation to pay on the void mortgage.
The lender has a decision to make .. They are receiving no payments
The lender calls the servicer and tells them to fabricate a note and an Assignment …and to file a foreclosure alleging a Default
But the timeline shows that the borrower rescinded before the servicer had an Assignment fabricated to them
How does the servicer prove standing to foreclose? The loan was void before the assignment was fabricated and executed ..
The foreclosure complaint is based on a void mortgage …The mortgage that was already void .. was then assigned to a servicer to file a foreclosure complaint ??
This describes my case perfectly.
I rescinded in 2007
The Servicer Wells Fargo fabricated an Assignment to themselves over 3 months after the rescission … You can’t assign a void/rescinded mortgage …
They are here in 2014 filing a complaint to foreclose on a seven year old 2007 rescission …how can the servicer get the void mortgage assigned to them after the mortgage was rescinded?
How does the servicer with no standing allege a default when TILA said to stop making payments?
Based on the above stated facts and In the interest of justice, the servicers complaint should be dismissed with Prejudice.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d43d3f1c-56ac-4303-814a-91bd3ce0e3fe
Lender may be held vicariously liable for servicer’s violation of RESPA
Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers LLP
A federal court has denied a lender’s motion to dismiss, holding that a lender may be held vicariously liable for its servicer’s violation of RESPA. Rouleau v. US Bank, NA, C.A. No. 14-cv-568-JL, Op. No. 2014 DNH 084 (D.N.H. Apr. 17, 2015). The Rouleaus sought a mortgage modification from their lender. Before the lender took action on the loan modification, the loan was sold to US Bank and Nationstar Mortgage began servicing the loan. Shortly thereafter, Nationstar sent a letter to the Rouleaus indicating that if they were in the process of applying for or providing information related to a workout with the original lender, Nationstar anticipated receiving their information soon and encouraged the Rouleaus to contact Nationstar to make sure it had the information necessary. The Rouleaus made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Nationstar to discuss the modification. The Rouleaus heard nothing from either Nationstar or US Bank until receiving notice from US Bank of a foreclosure sale. The Rouleaus filed suit seeking to enjoin the foreclosure and seeking monetary damages against the original lender, US Bank, and Nationstar. The claims against US Bank include a claim that US Bank is vicariously liable for it servicer Nationstar’s violation of RESPA. US Bank moved to dismiss the RESPA claim asserting that it is not a servicer as said term is defined in Reg X and therefore not liable.
A New York federal judge has ruled that dozens of homeowners lack standing to bring racketeering claims against six major banks over allegedly fraudulent foreclosures.
The homeowners had sued Bank of New York Mellon, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, HSBC Bank USA, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo Bank in their capacity as trustees for the trusts holding the plaintiffs’ mortgages. The suit argued that the trusts did not validly hold the loans and therefore lacked the right to foreclose on them.
Just a blurb that leads me to Westlaw.
@ David Belanger, if I sell a mortgage note I own and service for a borrower that I lent money, but I do not sell the the mortgage service rights, and continue to service the loan – I need not disclose anything to the borrower.
You are mistaking transfer and sale of service rights with ownership interest in a debt instrument.
Stop calling folks nazi’s it makes you look cheap and weak. You are better then that, and you know it.
bobhurt, i was never not friends with anyone. When the good editor went on the ban-spree – I protested and stopped posting until his decision was reversed, most likely for monetary reason.
in any event, I agree with Neil’s perception of Jesinoski, but I am also wise enough to know that a lender could not state a cause of action unless a default occurred in contractual payments.
Right or wrong, 1 out of 1,000 decisions will not require tender, the lenders are definitely not shipping off the original note and mortgage because the borrower sent an NOR, and how decisions are interpreted are typically are far cry from the reality of pleading this horseshit in a court of law.
I love the open debate and hearing the opinions of all. Typically, somewhere smack in the middle of the argument we all find the solution.
I am still by far the smartest person on this blog by a shitload, and as of late, probably the most reasonable.
TSMIMITW
Another “can’t do anything” myth buster
“The Appellate Division upheld the grant of summary judgment to defendant, but it did so for different reasons than the trial court. After acknowledging that there were no reported New Jersey cases on this issue, the Arias Court opined that current case law suggests that an agreement that binds a debtor to make payments while leaving the mortgage company free to give nothing in return may violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”). In its analysis, the Court relied heavily on Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012), which held that, even though there was no private right of action for a borrower under HAMP, a borrower may still assert a common law contract claim for a lender’s failure to honor the terms of a HAMP TPP.”
http://consumerfinancewatch.com/category/loss-mitigation/
Under the U.C.C., the Notes Trustee has the burden of tracing funds to “identifiable cash proceeds” of collateral that would be automatically perfected under U.C.C. § 9-514(c). U.C.C. § 9-315. See also In re Milton Abeles, LLC, No. 812-70158-reg, 2013 WL 530414 at *2 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2013) (“[S]ection 9-315 provides that ‘proceeds’ of a secured creditor’s collateral must be ‘identifiable proceeds.’ Proceeds that are commingled with other property are ‘identifiable’ only if ‘the secured party identifies the proceeds by a method of tracing.’”); Matter of Guaranteed Muffler Supply Co., Inc., 1 B.R. 324, 330 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1979) (“secured parties bear the burden of identifying, or tracing, the proceeds obtained upon the sale of property in which they have an interest . . .”). But for a single account that the Plaintiffs concede contains proceeds of JSN Collateral, the Defendants have failed to provide sufficient evidence that any deposit accounts contain proceeds of JSN Collateral.
To perfect a lien on real property, a secured party must execute a mortgage or a deed of trust and duly record it against the title of such real property. See In re Churchill Mortg. Inv. Corp., 233 B.R. 61, 70 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“Under the New York Real Property Law § 291, a security interest in real property can be perfected only by filing written notice with the Clerk of the County where the property is located so that the lien may be publicly recorded, giving notice of the encumbrance to potential purchasers or future creditors.”). The Court finds that the JSNs do not have a perfected security interest in or lien on any of the Unencumbered Real Property because that property was not subject to an executed and filed mortgage or deed of trust. Accordingly, any JSN lien with respect to the Unencumbered Real Property is avoidable pursuant to sections 544(a)(1) and (2) of the Bankruptcy Code, and the property or the value of the property represented by the Unencumbered Real Property should be recovered and/or preserved for the benefit of the Debtors’ estates pursuant to sections 550(a) and 551 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The intent and purpose of the lawmakers who wrote TILA rescission was to allow the borrower to kill the deal and go find another bank to refinance with. This is why the law forces the lender to return the cancelled note and remove the mortgage lien from the land records.
TILA is written in favor of the borrowers. That was the intent.
All of the courts have gotten it wrong just as Jesinoski exposed.
The borrower does NOT have to tender to rescind.
The borrower does NOT have to file a lawsuit to rescind.
The borrowers unilateral step is completed with the mailing.
The rescission is final … Unless the creditor objects in 20 days.
Only then can a judge become involved and adjudicate the merits of the rescission because the lender filed an action, or the borrower filed an enforcement.
If the lender fails to comply or file a suit in 20 days, they should be time barred. They violated TILA by not complying with the statute.
When you violate a federal statute that was written for protecting borrowers ..then you pay the price for your violation. You missed the 20 days to comply. You are done. Its over. You missed the boat.
This is how the courts have always dealt with violators of the law who fail to comply with time issues correct ??
Well we don’t change the rules for lenders who violate laws and ignore statutory deadlines … You snooze, you lose.
All of the other bad caselaw being thrown around was created by a corrupt and bias judiciary …that’s why the bad caselaw exists .
It’s time to get back to the rule of law. The Supreme Court took the first step in Jesinoski.
@bobhurt – I read with great interest your recent post.
“The text you quoted in your blog article above contains a SHITload of bogus legal theories that the courts have repeatedly trounced SINCE the SCOTUS opinion on Jesinoski.
Kindly define SHITload for us before rebutting the editor’s comments.
What exactly is a shitload? Is it a pickup (also sporting a gun rack) with a bed filled with shit? Is it a dumpster type vehicle, filled to the rim with shit, or is an over the road Peterbilt with a trailer full of shit?
BOB BOB, OH MUST YOU ALWAYS BE FOR THE BANKS, COME ON TELL US, ARE YOU A NAZI? OR WHAT. BECAUSE YOU SURE SOUND LIKE ONE.
As to the question of damages, the typical TILA rescinder stops making loan payments, and lives “RENT FREE” in the home for YEARS. THAT constitutes a considerable benefit to the borrower, not an injury. It injures the creditor, who eventually forecloses.
It injures the creditor, ARE YOU THAT F-ING STUPID TO BELIEVE ANY BANK , SERVICER, LENDER, HAS LOST ANY MONEY. !!!!
NOT ONE BANK OR SERVICER LOST A PENNY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID LOST ABOUT 35 TRILLION TO THE BANKS IN 2008, THATS HOW MUCH MONEY WENT THROUGH THE FRONT DOORS OF FEDS AND TREASURY AND BACK DOOR OF AIG.
GO BACK TO SCHOOL , AND LEARN HOW TO INVESTIGATE.
Bob get a hold of yourself man! It’s 7 yrs later, Supremes have spoken, game over. You could apply w banksters to lobby for them to change the law!
Java does not include purchase loans, common law or other laws apply to purchase, commercial loans etc. By now you can’t trust lawyers, agencies advocates blindly. You need to look up and review the source.
READ EACH LINE. LINE FOR LINE. TELLS ALLOT.
Disclosures required under 12 CFR 1026.20(d) must also include these items, among others: 10 Creditors, assignees, and servicers are all subject to the requirements of this section (12 CFR 1026.20(d)).
Creditors, assignees, and servicers may decide among themselves which of them will provide the required disclosures. Establishing a business relationship when one party agrees to provide disclosures on behalf of the other parties does not absolve the other parties from their legal obligations
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,
Special Rules for Certain Home Mortgage Transactions Comptroller’s Handbook 64 Truth in Lending Act This notice of sale or transfer must be provided for any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer. Thus, it applies to both closed-end mortgage loans and open-end HELOCs. This notification is required of the covered person even if the loan servicer remains the same.
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). Introduction > Subpart E—Special Rules for Certain Home Mortgage Transactions Comptroller’s Handbook 64 Truth in Lending Act This notice of sale or transfer must be provided for any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer. Thus, it applies to both closed-end mortgage loans and open-end HELOCs. This notification is required of the covered person even if the loan servicer remains the same.
Regulation Z also establishes special rules regarding the delivery of the notice when there is more than one covered person. In a joint acquisition of a loan, the covered persons must provide a single disclosure that lists the contact information for all covered persons. If one of the covered persons is authorized to receive a notice of rescission and to resolve issues concerning the consumer’s payments, however
, the disclosure may state contact information only for that covered person. In addition, if the multiple covered persons each acquire a partial interest in the loan pursuant to separate and unrelated agreements, they may provide either a single notice or separate notices. Finally, if a covered person acquires a loan and subsequently transfers it to another covered person, a single notice may be provided on behalf of both of them, as long as the notice satisfies the timing and content requirements with respect to each of them
. In addition, there are three exceptions to the notice requirement to provide the notice of sale or transfer: • The covered person sells, assigns, or otherwise transfers legal title to the mortgage loan on or before the 30th calendar day following the date of transfer on which it acquired the mortgage loan. • The mortgage loan is transferred to the covered person in connection with a repurchase agreement that obligates the transferring party to repurchase the mortgage loan (unless the transferring party does not repurchase the mortgage loan). • The covered person acquires only a partial interest in the mortgage loan, and the agent or party authorized to receive the consumer’s rescission notice and resolve issues concerning the consumer’s payments on the mortgage loan does not change as a result of that transfer.
David .. can you give me a brief list of the important highlights in your opinion? And tell us why they are important? Thank you Brother
The first definition at the beginning of a “Creditor” is pretty vague and weak imo ..they could have done a better job of defining a creditor as the true party who funded the loan and who owns the loan with proof of proper transaction receipts and complete chain of title, transfers and purchase receipts .. you know? Why were they so lame defining a creditor? Because it was written 50 years ago before they could fathom the level of criminal schemes that would come?
Creditor
The CFPB broadly defines the lender as a creditor. Note: for the purpose of the new rules and to remain consistent with the current rules under the Truth-in-Lending Act, a person or entity that makes five or fewer mortgages in a calendar year is not considered a creditor.
READ EACH LINE. LINE FOR LINE. TELLS ALLOT.
Disclosures required under 12 CFR 1026.20(d) must also include these items, among others: 10 Creditors, assignees, and servicers are all subject to the requirements of this section (12 CFR 1026.20(d)). Creditors, assignees, and servicers may decide among themselves which of them will provide the required disclosures. Establishing a business relationship when one party agrees to provide disclosures on behalf of the other parties does not absolve the other parties from their legal obligations
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). Introduction > Subpart E—Special Rules for Certain Home Mortgage Transactions Comptroller’s Handbook 64 Truth in Lending Act This notice of sale or transfer must be provided for any consumer credit transaction that is secured by the principal dwelling of a consumer. Thus, it applies to both closed-end mortgage loans and open-end HELOCs. This notification is required of the covered person even if the loan servicer remains the same. Regulation Z also establishes special rules regarding the delivery of the notice when there is more than one covered person. In a joint acquisition of a loan, the covered persons must provide a single disclosure that lists the contact information for all covered persons. If one of the covered persons is authorized to receive a notice of rescission and to resolve issues concerning the consumer’s payments, however, the disclosure may state contact information only for that covered person. In addition, if the multiple covered persons each acquire a partial interest in the loan pursuant to separate and unrelated agreements, they may provide either a single notice or separate notices. Finally, if a covered person acquires a loan and subsequently transfers it to another covered person, a single notice may be provided on behalf of both of them, as long as the notice satisfies the timing and content requirements with respect to each of them. In addition, there are three exceptions to the notice requirement to provide the notice of sale or transfer: • The covered person sells, assigns, or otherwise transfers legal title to the mortgage loan on or before the 30th calendar day following the date of transfer on which it acquired the mortgage loan. • The mortgage loan is transferred to the covered person in connection with a repurchase agreement that obligates the transferring party to repurchase the mortgage loan (unless the transferring party does not repurchase the mortgage loan). • The covered person acquires only a partial interest in the mortgage loan, and the agent or party authorized to receive the consumer’s rescission notice and resolve issues concerning the consumer’s payments on the mortgage loan does not change as a result of that transfer.
does this include purchase mortgages and/or modifications. I keep getting conflicting information. I would just like to know the definitive answer !!!