Livinglies's Weblog

THIS IS ABOUT TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE SOLD AS REFINANCING BUT WHICH DO NOT PAY OFF ANY PRECEDING OBLIGATION OR DEBT.

*******************************

As frequently happens my clients only half way understand the nature of the defense that will set them free — if the odds are with them and they employ the strategies and tactics I have suggested at an early stage and do so very aggressively.

*

I offer the following edited version of a response I wrote to one such client.

*

As otherwise stated, the satisfaction of the preceding lien was forged, perhaps with permission, by parties unrelated to ABC. The note has never been returned to you and probably does not exist. The preceding “obligation,” if it exists, was never paid by XYZ. The reason is simple: ABC was not demanding any money and had no expectation of receiving a payoff of a note and lien that it did not own.

*

I am referring to our argument that establishes the fact that the party named in the foreclosure has no interest in any loan account, even if it exists. That means they do not have a financial stake in the outcome of the foreclosure because there is no intent to get them paid, except for using their name in litigation. They have no real claim.

*

The point of confusion here for most people is that they start with the wrong premise, to wit: that there must be an unpaid debt. In doing so, they generally display their ignorance of investment banking and finance.

*

The investment bank is running the show. It is the investment bank that, using borrowed dollars, funded your transaction with UWM. and it was the same investment bank that received the benefit of a new tree of securitization issuance and sales without retiring the old one. Those “borrowed dollars” were repaid by the first tree (ABC) of securities and the second tree (XYZ) was pure profit.

*

So they fabricated documents that make it appear as though there is an underlying claim that has been transferred. But underneath, there is no such claim.

*

The fact that you have not made a scheduled payment is not a default if you were paying the wrong party or paying on an account that no longer exists.

*

The default only exists only upon the declaration of a party who owns the unpaid loan account that is claimed to exist.

*

The bottom line problem for the foreclosure mill is that while they might escape liability for making false claims under the doctrine fo litigation immunity, they cannot save a case that si revealed not to exist.

*

The lawyer has received electronic instructions to initiate foreclosure proceedings. But he/she does not know the source of those instructions. He only knows the information that has been supplied to him/her, which is that there exists documentation of a lien on the property arising from the presumption that the lien is collateral to assure the faithful performance of an underlying obligation on the terms outlined in the promissory note.

*

That underlying obligation ONLY exists if you were involved in a business transaction in the real world in which you received money as a loan from a known lender who had a risk of loss and claimed ownership of the presumed loan account. This is a “Lender” who is required to conform with lending and servicing laws.

*

The trick played on you and which is being played on the court is that there is no lender or successor lender — if the court accepts the premise that a lender is one who owns the unpaid loan account and maintains that account on its books and records. There is no such party or account. And by law, it is up to the claimant to show there is one, not for you to show that there isn’t.

*

The foreclosure mill lawyers bridge that problem by simply fabricating forged documents with false information recited on those documents. The documents are not “instruments” because they do not legally do anything because there is no qualified grantor (one who owns the right being granted) nor any qualified grantee (one who paid value for the implied ownership of the unpaid loan account). But they pretend to be instruments.

*

If those documents appear to be facially valid, however, then it is up to the homeowner to rebut the presumption raised by those documents or to prevent the foreclosure mill lawyer from using those presumptions.

*

The strategy that I successfully employ is to remove the validity or viability of the presumption simply by asking for corroboration of the truth of the matter asserted — i.e., that there is an unpaid loan account, that the claimant owns it, and that the claimant has suffered a default arising from nonpayment. This is done in the administrative strategy and discovery.

*

Once it is apparent that the lawyer has been unable or unwilling to produce the corroboration, he/she is no longer entitled to the presumption. Thus the foreclosure mill is unable to rely on any evidence at all and the claim fails for insufficient evidence.

*

By having a lawyer initiate the claim, third-party FINTECH servicers and investment banks that control the paper trail and the money trail (without owning anything) can present a nonexistent claim under the cloak of litigation immunity enjoyed by lawyers who are weaponizing the information about the “loan account” and converting it into a claim even though they do not represent a creditor or a servicer performing servicing functions.

*

In fact, generally speaking, the lawyer has and no contract, contact or relationship with the named claimant. This prevents the lawyer from definitely knowing that he presenting an empty claim. The third-party FINTECH servicers are unknown to the lawyer as is the investment bank that creates the AI instruction models. They thus manipulate knowledge about the closing in which you signed papers into a claim for themselves. 

=============================

*
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.

But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: foreclosure |