The problem here is the lack of information that is provided to victims of fraudulent foreclosure. You are perfectly correct that no economic or financial loss is attributed to a loss of value or a loss posted to an unpaid loan account.
*
There are two problems.
*
One is that if you examine the pleadings, correspondence notices, and statements, you will find that there is not one assertion that an economic loss has occurred. The economic loss is presumed to have occurred by virtue of the declaration of default, which of course, is issued in the name of an unauthorized entity by other unauthorized entities on behalf of investment banks that are pulling all the strings but who are also unauthorized. They are all unauthorized because none of them owns or represents the owner of an unpaid loan account.
*
NOBODY EVER ALLEGES THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL ECONOMIC LOSS NOR OWNERSHIP OF ANY LOAN ACCOUNT.
So the first problem is that homeowners willing to test the validity of the claim against them start by saying “no, you didn’t have a loss.” That ends up being the only allegation asserted. And since it came from the homeowner, the homeowner has inadvertently requested that the court allow the homeowner to prove that there was no financial loss. This inverts the normal due process procedures that are required. If someone has a claim should be required to prove it. Instead, homeowners anticipate the claim that should be filed rather than the one that was actually filed.
*
They end up with a burden of proof that they can never satisfy unless they get access to the books and records of the investment bank and all of the financial technology companies. Instead of testing whether or not the company that has been named as the “servicer” has actually received, processed or distributed any money received from homeowners, the homeowners who are seeking to contest the claim begin their argument with the presumption that the company who has received the designation of “servicer” was, in fact, providing servicing functions for an unpaid loan account due from the homeowner.
*
By doing that, the homeowner concedes the claim against him or her. This is usually followed by a complaint that the claim against them was fraudulent and a complaint that the court must’ve been corrupt. But in court and occasionally in private, judges who sit on the bench hearing these cases ask the following question: “if it was fraudulent, why did you admit the facts?”
*
This is not a case of blaming the victim. What is happening here is that in the initial documentation that is sent out to homeowners, the law has not kept up with the “innovations” on Wall Street. There is no requirement that is currently enforced, or even argued, to the effect that a party who makes a claim must allege and prove actual economic or financial damage arising from the failure to receive a scheduled payment from a specific homeowner. There is no requirement that the “certification” filed in connection with the initiation of foreclosure proceedings include a warranty executed by an officer of the party who is named as the alleged creditor – i.e., the party who is required to be the owner of the unpaid loan account that is implied (but never stated) to exist.
*
Homeowners, therefore, receive information that presumes that the claim against them is valid because it is implied. To wit, they are not told how they can test the truth of the matter asserted: that someone has paid for and currently owns an unpaid loan account due from the homeowner and they have not received a scheduled payment, as agreed on the promissory note. Many lawyers currently go down a rabbit hole by assuming that the note is the debt.
*
But a review of any treatise in most cases will reveal that the note is only evidence of the debt. Possession of the note may imply the right to enforce the debt, but the note itself is not the debt. The doctrine of merger covers this in all US jurisdictions. If that doctrine did not exist every borrower would owe the same debt twice – once for having received the money or the benefit of payments on their behalf and once for signing the note.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Filed under: foreclosure |
Neil , your almost daily sharing of your mindset to me / us
( your followers ) in this issue of “unpaid loan account” , “underlying loan obligation “ , “who suffered a financial
injury as a result of default by the homeowner “ etc ….
are so invaluable to me and my business . You’re always in my prayers ….. for continued good health . Hopefully, your other readers will do the same . Tnx agn !