Most people really don’t completely understand our premise when we investigate, research, examine and analyze a case or case documents. We have several premises with which we start and check to to see if they apply. While the answer is short the work behind it is long and complicated.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 844.478.6774 Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report)


. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps). to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!



15 Assumptions we make that show up in all our reports and drafting.

  1. Rescission is an event that occurs upon mailing of the notice. It is not a claim for which the borrower must justify before it becomes effective. It is effective on mailing.
  2. The trusts are empty. They never took part in any transaction in which any loan was purchased. Therefore referring to the loan as being in a trust is erroneous.
  3. The Trusts don’t exist. The use of the Trustee’s name is an accommodation for a fee, and the use of the alleged trust name is the use of a fictitious name of the underwriter for certificates issued in the name of the trust. Hence the certificate owners own nothing (especially since they usually have disclaimed all interest in the debt, note or mortgage.)
  4. Since there is no trust in which the subject loan was entrusted to the named trustee, all claims to servicing rights arising from the written trust instrument (PSA) are also fictitious.
  5. None of the parties in the named trust have any right, title or interest in ownership or servicing the subject loan.
  6. In most cases the named payee on the note was neither a source nor a conduit for funds. All documents, especially mortgage documents, are construed against the drafter of those documents.
  7. The naming of a Payee who is not the source of funding prevents merger of the debt with the note, which can only occur when the payee and creditor are the same.
  8. In most cases the named Payee is different from the the creditor who funded the loan, intentionally or otherwise.
  9. In most cases the recorded mortgage names as creditor (“Lender”) a party (the named payee on the note) who is different from the creditor who funded the loan, intentionally or otherwise.
  10. In most cases (nearly all) the originator of the loan named as Payee on the note and “lender” on the mortgage was never in privity with the actual funding source.
  11. In nearly all cases referring to a lender or servicer as a lender or servicer is erroneous and admits a fact that is not true.
  12. In nearly all cases referring to a trustee as a REMIC Trustee is erroneous and admits a fact that is not true.
  13. In nearly all cases referring to a trustee as a DOT Trustee is erroneous and admits a fact that is not true.
  14. In virtually no case does equitable or legal ownership of the debt get transferred with documents of transfer.
  15. In virtually no case is there a real world transaction in which a loan is purchased and sold. It is the paper that is transferred, not the debt; hence there is no consideration.

7 Responses

  1. Great breakdown should keep people out of rabbit holes and legal traps. If we still lose we need to challenge the corrupt system of judges and whoever is putting them in office.

    Yes John we should take action but we can educate people first. No reason why people can’t force pretender lenders to verify the debt even if not in foreclosure. That’s where I’m focused to mobilize anyone w a toxic loan.

  2. Sounds good to me, John.

  3. I realize what I am about to say is pure fantasy but what if ???
    What if through social media or ? all the present and past victims of this bizarre entanglement just quit paying – I know , I know legal risk, but there is legal risk now, paying and having nothing at the end of the day…but just imagine if all the mortgagors / borrowers agreed that on a certain date they would just quit … the foreclosure mills, servicers, title cos. would not be able to handle the reported 60 million plus loans and add that to the increasing numbers of legitimate investors calling in their markers… what a day that would be ?

  4. Neil I would like you to include me in your research team

    I will be bringing an action against the State of California fairly soon

    thank you

  5. The Ponzi scheme goes all the way from filing out an app. where they steal your identity, through origination fraud and the loan is not really funded, you sign something that is not real, the note and mortgage, then servicer steals your payments, and the so-called creditor never gets paid, they sell the note multiple times and always pay if the homeowner does not pay because a Ponzi scheme has to keep paying so as not to be revealed.

  6. We tried all these valuable advises from this blog site and lost a case in Rhode Island

  7. It’s impossible to get a man to understand the problem when his salary depends on him not understanding the problem !!!!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: