The Truth about US Bank

Lawyers and pro se litigants continue to ignore the basics when mounting a challenge to foreclosures in which US Bank is asserted to be a trustee of a name that is then treated as though it was trust or REMIC Trust. If you look closely, the name is word salad, containing references or names to several named entities and other categories of entities.
*
 A typical presentation asserts no presence of US Bank in its individual capacity, so the institutional implication is false. It is appearing strictly in a representative capacity and an court award of costs against the “claimant” would not, according to US Bank, attach liability to US Bank but to rather whoever was being represented by US Bank “as trustee.” On that we have word salad presenting many options such as
  1. US Bank, as trustee
  2. as successor to Bank of America, as trustee
  3. as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, as trustee
  4. for the holders of certificates entitled
  5. XYZ Corp.
  6. Mortgage pass through Certificates series 200x-a1

If anyone can tell me  from that description who would be liable for costs I applaud them. But I can tell you who would pay the costs regardless of actual legal liability. It would be a company claiming to be an authorized servicer who in fact is getting the money from the investment bank through conduits.

The issue of what if anything was transferred between LaSalle Bank and Bank of AMerica and thus what if anything was transferred between Bank of America and US Bank has actually not been litigated.

My answer is that LaSalle Bank had no duties as trustee, was subjected to the impact of three mergers — ABN AMRO, Citi and Bank of America — and that a trustee only exists for a legally existing trust in which the subject matter (Loan) was entrusted to the trustee for administration of the active affairs of the “trust.” With none of those elements present, nothing could have been transferred.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
As to U.S. Bank, Deutsch, BONY etc. there are two categories that must be considered. If US Bank is named in a Pooling and Servicing agreement then the reasons for its non existence (or more specifically lack of legal presence in court or any other foreclosure proceeding) in fact and at law remain as previously stated in prior articles —- but exclude one central issue that has not been litigated.
*
If US Bank has been asserted as successor to another alleged trustee then all sorts of other issues pop up. The main one that has not been litigated is whether the position of trustee can be transferred or sold like a commodity without consent of the beneficiaries or some other authorized party.
*
In truth the only real “beneficiary” would be the investment bank — if only the trust legally existed. And in truth the investment bank indemnified US Bank from liability in exchange for the use of the US Bank name to create the illusion of institutional involvement.
*
And in truth the only real party in interest is the investment bank, and if the trust actually existed the investment bank would be the only real beneficiary in an arrangement in which the trust name is used as a shield or sham conduit to hold bare naked legal title to paper that fabricates the illusion of debt ownership, much like MERS.
*
And of course the whole use of the term “successor” is constantly used to distract lawyers, judges and homeowners from the fact that the previous party had no interest or right to administer, own, or enforce the subject debt, note or mortgage — unless they are able to produce authorization from the investment bank.
*
But the investment banks have been loath to even hint that they could or would issues such authorization because that would be an admission that they were or are the real party in interest — an admission which probably would subject them to many levels of liability for fraud and statutory violations.
*
It may well be that the pursuit of court costs and discovery available to do that might be the achilles heel of this house of imaginary cards. It would reveal the absence of any party to pay them, which would reveal the absence of a claimant, which would reveal the absence of a claim which would reveal the absence of a client, which would reveal false representations by the foreclosure mill.

Pump and Dump: When “Lenders” Have No Risk of Loss They Spend Millions Selling Defective Loan Products and Blame Borrowers

It’s easy to blame borrowers for loans that are in “default.” The American consensus is based upon “personal responsibility”; so when a loan fails the borrower simply failed. But this does not take into account the hundreds of millions of dollars spent every year peddling loans in the media and the billions of dollars paid as commissions and bonuses to those who sell defective loans to consumers.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/nyregion/nyc-taxi-medallion-loans-attorney-general.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

The current case in point, in addition to the ongoing crimes of residential foreclosures, is the last decade in the taxi industry where in New York the playbook that produced the mortgage meltdown produced a replay that is now on display in New York City, where select major owners of taxi medallions artificially propped up prices of medallions, and then lured low earning drivers to take loans of $1 million to buy the medallions from the City who was complicit in the scheme. Now the loans are all in “default” while the players all got rich.

This is a direct parallel with the mortgage meltdown. Developers artificially raised prices in their developments creating a basis on which to base false appraisals of home prices that went far above home values. Then the banks lured borrowers into loans that were doomed to fail, producing “defaults” that did not take into account all the money that was made by selling and reselling the loan data and attributes. Local government was complicit in allowing the false appraisals to stand and even used the absurdly high “values” for taxation of real property.

The “default” only exists if two conditions are present. The first condition is a party who actually has a financial loss arising from nonpayment. The second condition is that the party owning the debt and presumably suffering the “loss” is allowed to ignore the profits generated from selling the name, signature and reputation of the borrowers.

In my view the first condition is not met in nearly all current loans. There is only one party who ever had any actual money directly invested in the loan; that is the investment bank who was doing business under various names to protect itself from liability and to preserve anonymity.

A key point to remember in assessing blame for nonpayment is that where there is no actual risk of loss for nonpayment on loans, the lenders will lend any amount of money on any terms to anyone. We saw that in the NINJA, No Doc and other crazy loans. We saw that because the “lenders” didn’t care about anything other that getting your name, signature and evidence of your reputation from credit reporting agencies.

The truth is that they didn’t care if the borrower paid anything. But the borrower didn’t know that and thus reasonably relied on the supposition and the law that placed the responsibility for viability of the new loan on the lender, not the borrower.

The investment bank sold the risk of loss and sold the debt multiple times. Its financial investment in the loan frequently never happened at all because it was using investor money, or terminated in all events within 30 days after the loan was included in a supposed portfolio of loans.

Concurrently with the sale of certificates to investors who were seeking secure income, and who received nothing more than a disguised promise from the investment bank, the investment bank sold the debt, risk of loss and other attributes of the loan dozens of times to other investors in the form of “contracts” that hedge losses or movement in the value of the certificates that were issued to the pension fund investors who bought certificates.

In my view these sales were nothing more than the sale of the borrower’s name, signature and reputation, without which the sale could never have occurred. All sales derived their value from the promise of the investment bank to make regular payments to the owners of certificates who had disclaimed any interest in the debt, note or mortgage, leaving such ownership to the investment bank. All promises by the investment bank derived their value from the name, signature and reputation of the borrower. And all sales of debt or risk of loss to additional investors derived their value from the value of the promise contained in the certificates.

Each sale represented profits arising from the name, signature and reputation of the borrower used on loan documentation that originated the loan. Hence the profits represent undisclosed compensation that according to TILA and RESPA should have been disclosed at closing. Imagine a borrower being told that his $200,000 loan would be generating $2 million in profits for the bank. Negotiations over the loan would likely be different but in any event the Truth in Lending Act requires the real players (Investment bank) and the real compensation (all profits, fees and commissions) to be disclosed to the borrower.

I have suggested and I am still receiving comments on whether the borrower might be entitled to royalty income for each sale. If so, the royalty income due would substantially offset the amount due on the loan, but the catch is that the investment bank must be joined in such foreclosures as a real party in interest.

However, regardless of the success of that theory, the fact remains that there is no debt left on the books of any entity as an asset or which is subject to risk of loss. By definition then, the mortgage is not enforceable because there is no current party who has paid value for it.

The named foreclosing party, as it turns out, rarely receives any proceeds from a successful foreclosure sale. In many cases the “named party” cannot be identified.

When the check is issued as proceeds of the sale of the foreclosed property it is deposited into the account of the investment bank. It all goes to the investment bank despite the fact that the investment bank has no debt on its books against which to apply the receipt of such proceeds. That debt has long since been sold and is no longer on its books as a risk of loss.

AND NOTE THIS:

The current crisis amongst taxi drivers was caused by aiming at unsophisticated, and uneducated borrowers, some of whom had issues with understanding the English language in addition to lacking knowledge of American law.

This recent article (see link below) shows that the ravages of predatory and fraudulent practices in originating and trading in residential mortgages are still present 12 years after the crash started. Where? Of course it was in Latin communities or black communities where residents were deprived or otherwise had no ready access to information or education that would enable them to understand and evaluate the nature of the documents they were signing.

Most such people signed documents that contained either purely English words and /or specific legal jargon that is not generally known by anyone other than a lawyer. TILA requires that the borrower be informed. This was not done.

see https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/21/lingering-impact-foreclosure-crisis-felt-most-hispanic-black-communities-study-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.457379756595

What is the difference between the note and the debt? What difference does it make?

NOTE: This case reads like  law review article. It is well worth reading and studying, piece by piece. Judge Marx has taken a lot of time to research, analyze the documents, and write a very clear opinion on the truth about the documents that were used in this case, and by extension the documents that are used in most foreclosure cases.

Simple answer: if you had a debt to pay would you pay it to the owner of the debt or someone else who says that you should pay them instead? It’s obvious.

Second question: if the owner of the debt is really different than the party claiming to collect it, why hasn’t the owner shown up? This answer is not so obvious nor is it simple. The short version is that the owners of the risk of loss have contracted away their right to collect on the debt, note or mortgage.

Third question: why are the technical requirements of an indorsement, allonge etc so important? This is also simple: it is the only way to provide assurance that the holder of the note is the owner of the note. This is important if the note is going to be treated as evidence of ownership of the debt.

NY Slip Opinion: Judge Paul I Marx carefully analyzed the facts and the law and found that there was a failure to firmly affix the alleged allonge which means that the note possessor must prove, rather than presume, that the possessor is a holder with rights to enforce. U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee v Cannella April 15, 2019.

Now the lawyers who claim U.S. Bank, N.A. is their client must prove something that doesn’t exist in the real world. This a problem because U.S. Bank won’t and can’t cooperate and the investment bank won’t and can’t allow their name to be used in foreclosures.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
Words actually matter — in the world of of American Justice, under law, without words, nothing matters.
*
So it is especially important to presume nothing and actually read words without making any assumptions. Much of what we see in the language of what is presented as a conveyance is essentially the same as a quitclaim deed in which there is no warranty of title and which simply grants any interest that the grantor MIGHT have. It is this type of wording that the banks use to weaponize the justice system against homeowners.
*
There is no warranty of title and there is no specific grant of ownership in an assignment of mortgage that merely says the assignor/grantor conveys “all beneficial interest under a certain mortgage.” Banks want courts to assume that means the note and the debt as well. But that specific wording is double-speak.
*
It says it is granting rights to the mortgage; but the rest of wording  is making reference only to what is stated in the mortgage, which is not the note, the debt or any other rights. So in effect it is saying it is granting title to the mortgage and then saying the same thing again, without adding anything. That is the essence of double speak.
*
In the Cannela Case Judge Marx saw the attempt to mislead the court and dealt with it:

The language in RPAPL § 258, which this Court emphasized—”together with the bond or obligation described in said mortgage“—stands in sharp contrast to the language used here in the Assignment—”all beneficial interest under a certain Mortgage”. If such language is mere surplusage, as Plaintiff seems to believe, the drafters of RPAPL § 258 would not have included it in a statutory form promulgated for general use as best practice.

So here is the real problem. The whole discussion in Canella is about the note, the indorsement and the allonge. But notice the language in the opinion — “The Assignment did not go on to state that the referenced debt “…. So the Judge let it slip (pardon the pun) that when he refers to the note he means the debt.

*

The courts are using “the debt” and “the note” as being interchangeable words meaning the same thing. I would admit that before the era of false claims of securitization I used the words, debt, note and mortgage interchangeably because while there were technical  difference in the legal meaning of those terms, they all DID mean the same thing to me and everyone else.
*
While a note SHOULD be evidence of the debt and the possession of a note SHOULD be evidence of being a legal note holder and that SHOULD mean that the note holder probably has rights to enforce, and therefore that note “holder” should be the the owner of a debt claiming foreclosure rights under a duly assigned mortgage for which value was paid, none of that is true if the debt actually moved in one or more different directions — different that is from the paper trail fabricated by remote parties with no interest in the loan other than to collect their fees.
*
The precise issue is raised because the courts have almost uniformly assumed that the burden shifts to the homeowner to show that the debt moved differently than the paper. This case shows that might not be true. But it will be true if not properly presented and argued. In effect what we are dealing with here is that there is a presumption to use the presumption.
*
If Person A buys the debt (for real) for value (money) he is the owner of the debt. But that is only true if he bought it from Person B who also paid value for the debt (funded the origination or acquisition of the loan). If not, the debt obviously could not possibly have moved from B to A.
*
It is not legally possible to move the debt without payment of value. It IS possible to appoint agents to enforce it. But for those agents seeking to enforce it the debtor has a right to know why he should pay a stranger without proof that his debt is being collected for his creditor.
*
The precise issue identified by the investment banks back in 1983 (when securitization started) is that even debts are made up of component parts. The investment banks saw they could enter into “private contracts” in which the risk of loss and other bets could be made totalling far more than the loan itself. This converted the profit potential on loans from being a few points to several thousand percent of each loan.
*
The banks knew that only people with a strong background in accounting and investment banking would realize that the investment bank was a creditor for 30 days or less and that after that it was at most a servicer who was collecting “fees’ in addition to “trading profits” at the expense of everyone involved.
*
And by creating contracts in which the investors disclaimed any direct right, title or interest in the collection of the loan, even though the investor assumed the entire risk of loss, the investment banks could claim and did claim that they had not sold off the debt. Any accountant will tell you that selling the entire risk of loss means that you sold off the entire debt.
*
* Thus monthly payments, prepayments and foreclosure proceeds are absorbed by the investment bank and its affiliates under various guises but it never goes to reduce a debt owned by the people who have paid value for the debt. In this case, and all similar cases, U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee (or any trustee) never received nor expected to receive any money from monthly payments, prepayments or foreclosure proceeds; but that didn’t stop the investment banks from naming the claimant as U.S. Bank, N.A. as trustee.
*
**So then the note might be sold but the alleged transfer of a mortgage is a nullity because there was no actual transfer of the debt. Transfer of the debt ONLY occurs where value is paid. Transfer of notes occurs regardless of whether value was paid.
*
US laws in all 50 states all require that the enforcer of a mortgage be the same party who owns the debt or an agent who is actually authorized  by the owner of the debt to conduct the foreclosure. For that to be properly alleged and proven the identity of the owner of the debt must be disclosed.
*
That duty to disclose might need to be enforced in discovery, a QWR, a DVL or a subpoena for deposition, but in all events if the borrower asks there is no legal choice for not answering, notwithstanding arguments that the information is private or proprietary.
*
The only way that does not happen is if the borrower does not enforce the duty to disclose the principal. If the borrower does enforce but the court declines that is fertile grounds for appeal, as this case shows. Standing was denied to U.S. Bank, as Trustee, because it failed to prove it was the holder of the note prior to initiating foreclosure.
*
It failed because the fabricated allonge was not shown to be have been firmly attached so as to become part of the note itself.
*
Thus the facts behind the negotiation of the note came into doubt and the presumptions sought by attorneys for the named claimant were thrown out. Now they must prove through evidence of transactions in the real world that the debt moved, instead of presuming the movement from the movement of the note.
*
But if B then executes an indorsement to Person C you have a problem. Person A owns the debt but Person C owns the note. Both are true statements. Unless the indorsement occurred at the instruction of Person B, it creates an entirely new and separate liability under the UCC, since the note no longer serves as title to the debt but rather serves as presumptive liability of a maker under the UCC with its own set of rules.
*
And notwithstanding the terms of the mortgage to the contrary, the mortgage no longer secures the note, which is no longer evidence of the debt; hence the mortgage can only be enforced by the person who owns the debt, if at all. The note which can only be enforced pursuant to rules governing the enforcement of negotiable instruments, if that applies, is no longer secured by the mortgage because the law requires the mortgage to secure a debt and not just a promissory note. See UCC Article 9-203.
*
This is what the doctrine of merger is intended to avoid — double liability. But merger does not happen when the debt owner and the Payee are different parties and neither one is the acknowledged agent of a common principal.
*
Now if Person B never owned the debt to begin with but was still the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage you have yet another problem. The note and debt were split at closing. In law cases this is referred to as splitting the note and mortgage which is presumed not to occur unless there is a showing of intent to do so. In this case there was intent to do so. The source of lending did not get a note and mortgage and the broker did get a note and mortgage.
*
Normally that would be fine if there was an agency contract between the originator and the investment bank who funded the loan. But the investment bank doesn’t want to admit such agency as it would be liable for lending and disclosure violations at closing, and for servicing violations after closing.
*
***So when the paperwork is created that creates the illusion of transfer of the mortgage without any real transaction between the remote parties because it is the investment bank who is all times holding all the cards. No real transactions can occur without the investment bank. The mortgage and the note being transferred creates two separate legal events or consequences.
*
Transfer of the note even without the debt creates a potential asset to the transferee whether they paid for it or not. If they paid for it they might even be a holder in due course with more rights than the actual owner of the debt. See UCC Article 3, holder in due course.
*
Transfer of the note without the debt (i.e. transfer without payment of value) would simply transfer rights under the UCC and that would be independent of the debt and therefore the mortgage which, under existing law, can only be enforced by the owner of the debt notwithstanding language in the mortgage that refers to the note. The assignment of mortgage was not enough.
Some quotables from the Slip Opinion:

A plaintiff in an action to foreclose a mortgage “[g]enerally establishes its prima facie case through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default”. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v Sabloff, 153 AD3d 879, 880 [2nd Dept 2017] (citing Plaza Equities, LLC v Lamberti, 118 AD3d 688, 689see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton, 142 AD3d 683, 684). However, where a defendant has affirmatively pleaded standing in the Answer,[6] the plaintiff must prove standing in order to prevail. Bank of New York Mellon v Gordon, 2019 NY Slip Op. 02306, 2019 WL 1372075, at *3 [2nd Dept March 27, 2019] (citing HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, 130 AD3d 983, 983-984HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Calderon, 115 AD3d 708, 709Bank of NY v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279).

A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by showing that it was the holder of the underlying note at the time the action was commenced. Sabloff, supra at 880 (citing Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361U.S. Bank N.A. v Handler, 140 AD3d 948, 949). Where a plaintiff is not the original lender, it must show that the obligation was transferred to it either by a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note. Id. Because the mortgage automatically passes with the debt as an inseparable incident, a plaintiff must generally prove its standing to foreclose on the mortgage through either of these means, rather than by assignment of the mortgage. Id. (citing U.S. Bank, N.A. v Zwisler, 147 AD3d 804, 805U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754).

Turning to the substantive issue involving UCC § 3-202(2), Defendant contends that the provision requires that an allonge must be “permanently” affixed to the underlying note for the note to be negotiated by delivery. UCC § 3-202(1) states, in pertinent part, that if, as is the case here, “the instrument is payable to order it is negotiated by delivery with any necessary indorsement”. UCC § 3-202(1) (emphasis added). The pertinent language of UCC § 3-202(2) provides that when an indorsement is written on a separate piece of paper from a note, the paper must be “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.” UCC § 3-202(2) (emphasis added); Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Kelly, 166 AD3d 843 [2nd Dept 2018]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, supra at 985see also One Westbank FSB v Rodriguez, 161 AD3d 715, 716 [1st Dept 2018]; Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208, 212 [2nd Dept 1989] (“The note secured by the mortgage is a negotiable instrument (see, UCC 3-104) which requires indorsement on the instrument itself `or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof’ (UCC 3-202[2]) in order to effectuate a valid `assignment’ of the entire instrument (cf., UCC 3-202 [3], [4])”).

[Editor’s note: if it were any other way the free spinning allonge would become a tradable commodity in its own right. ]

The Assignment did not go on to state that the referenced debt was simultaneously being assigned to Plaintiff.

 

Stop Feeling Guilty — Be A Warrior

Shame is the reason why most borrowers don’t contest foreclosures. That shame turns to intense anger when they realize that they were used, screwed, abused and now they are targets in a continuing blitz to embezzle much needed money from their lives and from the financial system generally.

The genius behind companies like Citi is… Deception by Branding.  “Citi” is not a company, it’s a brand of a conglomerate of companies.  Even its subsidiary “Citibank N.A.” is deceptive.  First let’s dispel the myth that subsidiaries are equal to their parents.  Not true, not even when they are wholly-owned subsidiaries.  They are separate companies, albeit owned by a common parent. —- From Anonymous Writer
GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

Probably the biggest goof of the court system in foreclosure litigation (and in business litigation) is mistaking a brand for a company and not realizing that there is both a business and legal distinction between even a wholly owned subsidiary and another subsidiary or parent company.

The reason that is such a big goof is that the actual transaction is being ignored while a small part of the transaction is being treated as the entire matter. That is like taking the spark plug out of car and then selling it to someone as though it was the whole car. It doesn’t work that way.

In conglomerates like “Citi” the brand intentionally blurs the factual and legal distinctions. And these distinctions make a difference precisely because the debt, note and mortgage are split and transferred multiple times between subsidiaries wherein each one is either moved off the books entirely or each subsidiary is showing an “asset” that it sells into the shadow banking market.

These practices results in a ten-fold increase in the apparent size of the asset, which is then owned by dozens, perhaps hundreds of different unrelated investors. And that enabled the banks siphon literally trillions of dollars out of the US economy and trillions more out of the world economy.

Through the devices of branding and “off balance sheet transactions” this wealth is controlled by handful of people; but this wealth is directly derived from one simple plan — to market the signature, reputation and identity of borrowers who were led to believe that they were executing loan documents. In fact they were executing the foundation documents for a string of transactions and book entries that would result in profits far beyond the amount of the loan.

These unsuspecting consumers had become ISSUERS without ever knowing it and they still don’t know it or understand it. So they still believe that somehow the investment bank behind the scheme is actually entitled to collect on a debt that the bank sold multiple times through multiple affiliates and subsidiaries in transactions that were often “off balance sheet.” And the fact that in virtually all cases the proceeds of foreclosure sales are not applied to reduce the debt owed to the owner of the debt is completely overlooked.

The clear issue that investment banks have been avoiding is that every one of their originated loans is part of a larger intended transaction, and that the homeowner gets absolutely no clue or disclosure that the bulk of the transaction is actually very different from a loan and actually the antithesis of a loan. Clearly the two were both unrelated and related.

The borrower thought it was a loan and it was a loan but the loan was a part of a larger transaction in which the attributes of a loan were shredded. So the loan was essentially a sham entry to allow the investment banks to profit regardless of the performance of the loan. Hence the transaction was not really a loan anymore. This is true even for loans acquired after origination by an actual lender.

Risk underwriting, the most basic part of lending, was thrown to the winds because it was irrelevant. And legally required disclosures were also thrown to the winds because lending laws (TILA) clearly state that compensation received after the loan closing must be disclosed.

What would have happened if the borrowers knew their signatures, reputation and identity were the real subject of the transaction and that they would be sold in a myriad of way producing compensation far beyond the amount of the loan. How would bargaining have changed? It’s obvious.

Even the most unsophisticated homeowner would have gone shopping for someone who would offer a share of the bounty. And that is why the “free house” PR gimmick is a myth. If the investment banks had not concealed the major attributes of the transaction, the mortgage meltdown would never have occurred.

And if “securitization” had proceeded anyway then homeowners would have received immediate and possibly total reductions in the amount due. Yes I recognize that this is a contradiction because if there is no loan then there are no derivatives to be sold. But that is not a problem created by homeowners or borrowers or consumers. It is a problem created by fraud and deceit by the investment banks.

In the final analysis the investment banks used homeowners and investors to issue unregulated securities and instead of turning the proceeds over to the issuers they kept the money. In any world of law enforcement they should have been jailed for that.

The goal was to get the signature and then sell it. That is not a loan. And the failure to disclose it violated everything about Federal  and State lending laws that require disclosure of identities of the real parties in interest and the amount of money they are getting as compensation for their role in “the transaction.”

The investment banks chose to unilaterally define “the transaction” as just the part dealing with the origination of the debt, note and mortgage. That was a lie. It concealed the fact that the borrower was in fact a real party in interest in a much larger transaction in which at each step profits, fees, and other compensation would be distributed in amounts vastly exceeding the amount that was disclosed to the borrower as the value of the transaction. For each $1 “loaned” there was $20 in profit.

By concealing this information the investment banks took all of the profit, fees and compensation without allowing the homeowner to participate in what amounted to a monetization of their signature, reputation and identity.

Thus the most essential part of the Federal and State lending laws was thwarted: that the “borrower” must know the identity of the parties with whom he/she is dealing and the “borrower” must know the amount of compensation being earned as result of the “borrower” signing documents at loan closing.

Instead the homeowner had become the issuer of unregulated securities, the proceeds of which were largely concealed and withheld from the homeowner. No lawyer would have permitted their client to enter into such a scheme — if the facts were known.

Borrowers get lost in the weeds when they make these allegations because they can’t prove them. Truth be told, even the bank could not prove them because of the number of transactions that occur “off balance sheet.” Abraham Briloff (in his book Unaccountable Accounting) first observed over 50 years ago, the invention of this ploy of “off balance sheet” transactions was an open door to fraud that would likely occur but might never be proven.

We are a nation of laws not opinions. Our laws depend upon findings of fact, not opinions or political views. That is the only control we have to prevent fraud or at least bring fraudsters to justice, or at the very least prevent them from continuing to reap the rewards of their multiple violations of statutory laws, common law  and the duty of good faith, honesty and fair dealing.

So when the robowitness signs affidavits, certifications or other documents or testifies at deposition or in court, be aware that in nearly all cases, he/she is either an independent contractor with absolutely no knowledge or authority concerning the subject transaction (as a have defined it herein) or an employee of a subsidiary with no connection to any transaction involving the homeowner or both.

You can reveal the lack of actual personal knowledge and thus then lack of foundation for evidence proffered in a foreclosure by discovery, motions to enforce discovery, motions in limine and good cross examination which always depends upon one single attribute to be successful: follow-up.

And in many cases the robowitness is not nearly as stupid as his/her script makes him out to be. The  robowintess often knows everything that is contained in this article. Good cross examination can frequently reveal that — that is where the case turns from enforcement of a legitimate debt to a case in which both the claim and the claimant have not been proven by any standard.

That is all you need to win. You don’t need to prove how they did it. You only need to reveal the gaps that exist because the substance is not there — the claiming parties have all long since divested themselves, at a profit,of any interest in the debt, note or mortgage. There is no debt left to pay, at least not to them. Stop feeling guilty and be a warrior.

“Lost notes” and the Sudden Appearance of “Original Notes.”

Think of it this way: If someone wrote you a check for $100, which would you do? (1) make a digital copy of the check and then shred it or (2) take it to the bank? Starting with the era in which banks made what is abundantly clear as false claims of securitization the banks all chose option #1. And they collected incredible sums of money far exceeding the Madoff scam or anything like it.

Back in 2008 Katie Porter was a law professor and is now a member of the US House of  Representatives. For those of who don’t know her, you should follow her, even on C-Span. She nails it every time. She knows and other congressmen and women are following her lead. Back in 2008 she uncovered the fact that in her study of 1700 filings in US Bankruptcy court, 41% were missing even a copy of the note, much less the original note.

Around the same time, the Florida Bankers Association, dominated by the mega banks and who absorbed the Florida Community Bank Association, told the Florida Supreme Court that, after the purported “loan closing,” digital copies of the notes were made — and then the original notes were destroyed. FBA said it was “industry practice.” It wasn’t and it still isn’t — at least not for actual creditors who loan money. Out in the state of Washington on appeal, lawyers for the claimant in foreclosure admitted they had no clue as to the identity of the creditor. The state banned MERS foreclosures, along with Maine.

That admission, with full consent of the mega banks, raised the stakes from 41% to around 95% — a figure later confirmed in Senate Hearings by Elizabeth Warren. The other 5% are loans that were truly traditional — funded by the “lender” (no pretender lender) and still owned by the lender who had the original documents in their vault.

The law didn’t change. In order to enforce a note you needed the original. And in order to plead you “lost” the note, you had to allege and prove very specific things starting with the fact that it was lost and not destroyed. Then of course you had to prove that the original was delivered to you, which nobody could because the original was destroyed immediately after closing and a fax copy was the only thing used after that.

Typically destruction of the note means that the debt is discharged or forgiven — something that is actually a natural outgrowth of the same debt being sold dozens of times in varying pieces under various contracts, none of which give the buyer any direct right, title or interest in the “underlying” debt, note or mortgage. In short, neither the debt nor the note exist in most cases shortly after the alleged loan closing.

The representatives of the mega banks who started the illusion of securitization of mortgage debts could neither produce the original note (because it was destroyed) nor tell a credible story to explain its absence. So they did the next best thing. They recreated the note to make it appear like an original using advanced technology that could even mimic the use of a pen to sign it.

Some of us saw this early on when they failed to account for the color of the ink that was used at closing. Those were among the first cases involving a complete satisfaction of the alleged encumbrance, plus payment of damages and attorney fees, all papered over by a settlement agreement that was under seal of confidentiality.

While obviously presenting moral hazard, the process of recreation could have been legal if they had simply followed the protocols of the UCC and state law to reestablish a lost note. But they didn’t. The reason they didn’t is that they still had to prove that the note was a legal representation of a debt owed by the borrower to a creditor that they had to identify. But they couldn’t do that.

If they identified the creditor(s) they would admitting that they had no claim because a person or entity possessing a right, title or interest in the debt did not include the named claimant in the foreclosure. Naming a claimant does not create a claim. A real claim must be owned by a real claimant. That is the very essence of legal standing.

If they had no claim they would be admitting that the securitization certificates, swaps and other contracts were all bogus. That would tank the $1 quadrillion shadow banking market. That is where we see the evidence that for every $1 loaned more than $20 in revenue was produced and never allocated to either the debt of the borrower or the investment of the investors. The banks took it all. $45 trillion in loans and refi’s turned into $1 quadrillion in “nominal” value. Nice work if you can get it.

So then they did the next next best best thing thing. They simply presented the recreation of the note as the actual original and hoped that they could push it through and that has worked in many, probably most cases.

It works because most borrowers and their lawyers fail to heed my advice: admit nothing — make them prove everything. By giving testimony regarding the “original” note the borrower provides the foundation and the rest of the foreclosure is preordained.

For some reason, lawyers who are usually suspicious, refuse to acknowledge the basic fact that the entire process is a lie designed to take property, sell it and apply or allocate the sale proceeds to anyone except the owner(s) of the debt. They hear “free house” and get scared they will look foolish.

A free house to those persistent and enduring souls who finance the great fight is a small price to pay for the mountains of windfall profit of the banks and related parties. As for the banks, adding the proceeds of a house that should never have been sold is adding insult to injury not only to the homeowner but to the entire society.

If anyone wants to know why so many Americans are angry, look no further than the 40 million people were directly displaced by illegal foreclosure and the additional 70 million people who were affected by those dislocations. Voters know that if the many $trillions spent on bailouts had been used to level the playing field, 110 million Americans and millions more worldwide would have never faced the worst effects of the great recession.

And we will continue voting for disruptors until a level playing field re-emerges.

see Lost notes and Bad Servicing Practices and Incentives SSRN-id1027961

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================

 

Unworthy Trusts

The simple fact is that the REMIC trusts do not exist in the real world. The parties named as trustees — e.g. US Bank, Deutsch, BONY/Mellon — are trust names that are used by permission through what is essentially a royalty agreement. If you are dealing with a trust then you are dealing with a ghost.

Discovery is the way to reveal the absence of any knowledge, activity or reports ever conducted, issued or published by the named Trustee on behalf of the “trust” or the alleged “beneficiaries.” Take deposition of officers of the named Trustee. Your opposition will try to insert a representative of the servicer. Don’t accept that.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
*
For purposes of clarity I am using US Bank as an example. It is the most common.
*
US Bank has NO information about the trust, the servicer or the account for the borrower. Thus the purpose of any deposition of any officer of US Bank should be solely to establish the absence of events and data that should otherwise be present.
*
This is why as counsel for the lender, lawyers will not recommend going forward with the refinancing. Your opposition is asking you to accept their word for the “fact” that they represent a creditor who is entitled to payment not just because there is paperwork indicating that, but because they are really owed the money.
*
Knowing the truth is a basis for establishing gaps and revealing it to the trier of fact but should NOT be a basis of making allegations that you will be required to prove. It’s a thin line and the lawyer needs to be aware of this division, or else you will end up with a burden of proof you cannot sustain and unanswered questions that prevent the closing of refinancing — unless the “source” of refinancing is from another player in the world of securitization.
*
The fact that securitization players would accept the paperwork is only testament to the willingness of all securitization players to engage in such conduct as to maintain an illusion of legitimacy. Other lenders rely on such conduct at their peril. Other lenders do not receive the reward from multiple resales of the same debt.
*
So in your inquiries to officers of US Bank you want to establish the following, in order to force the true creditor to come forward (if there is one):
    1. US Bank has no duties normally attributed to a trustee.
    2. The “US Bank” name is basically a royalty arrangement in which the name can be used but there is no further substance to its “role” as trustee.
    3. There is no bank account established or maintained by US Bank for the alleged Trust.
    4. US Bank has never received any money through any means in connection with the subject debt. The borrower’s payments to the servicer have never been received by US Bank on its own behalf, as conduit or as trustee for any trust.
    5. In prior foreclosures involving the same trust, US Bank did not receive the proceeds of the foreclosure sale.
    6. US Bank has no reason to expect that it would receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale involving the subject debt.
    7. US Bank has no mechanism in place where the payment of money to satisfy the claimed debt would be actually deposited into a bank account for the trust that is controlled by US Bank.
    8. The beneficiaries of the trust do not receive any money from borrower payments, foreclosure sales, or prepayments, refinancing or any other monetary transactions. US Bank probably does not know if this is true or not. US Bank has nothing to do with what, if anything, the “beneficiaries” of the “trust” receive or don’t receive.
    9. US bank has no information regarding the identity of the beneficiaries of the “trust.”
    10. US Bank has no information regarding whether any party is a beneficiary of the “trust”.
    11. US Bank has no information regarding the existence of the trust other than the documents forwarded to it for purposes of the deposition.
    12. US Bank does not keep or maintain accounting records pertaining to the trust.
    13. US Bank does not keep or maintain any records or documents pertaining to the trust.
    14. US Bank does not issue reports to anyone regarding the trust or the subject debt, note or mortgage.
    15. US Bank does not include information relative to the business activity of the “trust” or the subject debt, note or mortgage in any report to any regulatory authority, Federal or State.
    16. Except for fee income, US Bank does not include information relative to the business activity of the “trust” or the subject debt, note or mortgage in any financial report published to the public or to any regulatory authority, Federal or State.
    17. There is no “trust officer” appointed by US Bank to actively manage the affairs of the “trust.”There is no “trust officer” appointed by US Bank to actively manage the affairs of the subject debt.
    18. US Bank neither accepts nor gives any instructions to anyone regarding the affairs of the “trust.”
    19. US Bank neither accepts not gives any instructions to anyone regarding the subject debt, note or mortgage.
    20. US Bank has no power to either accept or give instructions regarding the trust or the subject debt.


Keep in mind that there are experts who believe that the debt no longer exists, and that you are dealing with the ghost of a creditor and the ghost of a debt. This is because the debt was resold multiple times and redistributed to multiple parties (new investors) under the guise of different instruments in which the value of the instrument was ultimately derived not from the debt, in actuality, but from the marketplace where such isntruments are traded. This is an ornate interpretation that has the ring of truth when you examine what the banks did, but this theory will not likely be accepted by any court.

*
That theory explains why when appellate and trial courts asked the direct question of whether the creditor can be identified the answer was no. The response was that the courts stopped asking.
*
But the issue at hand is whether, pursuant to state law governing foreclosures, a creditor is before the court possessing a valid claim to collect on a debt. If there is, then that creditor is entitled to payment. If there is not, then the claimed “creditor” is not entitled to either payment or foreclosure. 

Is that Mortgage or Deed of Trust Void or Just Unenforceable?

Proving that an instrument is unenforceable does not void the instrument unless it is unenforceable by anyone. Better to prove that it should never have been written.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
The DOT could only be void if it was not facially or actually valid. That, in my opinion, means that the the DOT should never have been written, should never have been executed and should never have been recorded. It must the equivalent of uttering a false instrument and have the qualities of being a wild deed.
You need to look at your state statute that authorizes the use of a Deed of Trust. Look for the elements. If they are present, the DOT is not void on its face. If the elements are falsely presented then the  instrument can still be proven void. 
Proving that an instrument is not enforceable by the party trying to enforce it does NOT prove that nobody could enforce it. Hence it isn’t void until you can show that there is nobody who can or will enforce it. You must show that the DOT should never have been presented, signed and certainly not recorded.
That isn’t easy. And it is nearly impossible without investigation and discovery in which some party claiming to have an interest admits that there are fatal defects in the DOT. Defects in assignments or legal standing do not prove that the original instrument is void.
Put yourself in the shoes of a party whose money was used to give you the loan. Would you want your collateral wiped out because your servicer did something wrong in enforcement?
So in Washington DC the operative statute says as follows:

§ 42–801. Execution, acknowledgment, and recordation in same manner as deeds.

Mortgages and deeds of trust to secure debts, conveying any estate in land, shall be executed and may be acknowledged and recorded in the same manner as absolute deeds; and they shall take effect both as between the parties thereto and as to others, bona fide purchasers and mortgagees and creditors, in the same manner and under the same conditions as absolute deeds.

So then we are referred to the execution of absolute deeds. That statute says as follows:

§ 42–401. Effective date of deeds; exception.

Any deed conveying real property in the District, or interest therein, or declaring or limiting any use or trust thereof, executed and acknowledged and certified as provided in §§ 42-10142-121 to 42-123 [repealed], 42-306, and 42-602 and delivered to the person in whose favor the same is executed, shall be held to take effect from the date of the delivery thereof, except that as to creditors and subsequent bona fide purchasers and mortgagees without notice of said deed, and others interested in said property, it shall only take effect from the time of its delivery to the Recorder of Deeds for record.

And you may have trouble with this one:

§ 42–403. Defective grants recorded on or after April 27, 1994.

Any instrument recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds on or after April 27, 1994, shall be effective notwithstanding the existence of 1 or more of the failures in the formal requisites listed in § 42-404, unless the failure is challenged in a judicial proceeding commenced within 6 months after the instrument is recorded.

But look at this —-

§ 42–404. Failures in formal requisites of an instrument.

(a) The failures in the formal requisites of an instrument that may be cured by this act are:

(1) An omission of an acknowledgment or a defective or improper acknowledgment;

(2) A failure to attach a clerk’s certificate;

(3) An omission of a notary seal or other seal; or

(4) An omission of an attestation.

(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed to eliminate the requirement that a deed be under seal. Any deed accepted for recordation without a seal but made effective by operation of this act shall be deemed a sealed instrument.

(c) Nothing in this act shall be construed to validate any instrument with respect to which there was any misrepresentation, fraudulent act, or illegal provision in connection with its execution or acknowledgment.

(d) Any person convicted of a fraudulent act, in connection with the validation of any instrument under §§ 42-10142-40242-403, and 42-602 shall be subject to the penalties set forth in § 22-3222.


So putting it all together you probably cannot prove that the instrument is facially invalid but you can prove that it is invalid for misrepresentation of the lender and the terms of the loan referenced by the DOT by its reference to the promissory note. The actual terms were that a remote undisclosed party would sell the borrower’s signature multiple times reaping huge rewards without any application of sale proceeds to the borrower’s account. 
*
The part about the wrong name being inserted as the lender is a good one. But that could be theoretically corrected by an affidavit of scrivener’s error, although supporting such an affidavit would be nearly impossible. 
*
But since the statute speaks to the commission of a fraudulent act you might be able to invalidate the the DOT without appearing to invalidate the debt. Or you could attempt to reform the DOT to name the actual lender, which I think might be a more productive tack, since it completely avoids the appearance of seeking a free house. 
Remember thought that fraud must be specific: You need a representation that was false, which the party knew was false, for the purpose of getting you to reasonably rely on the representation to your detriment and to their advantage. I think you have that here.
*
And remember that once you prove by clear and convincing evidence that the DOT was void for being part of a fraudulent scheme, any assignments of the mortgage or assignments of the beneficial interest in the void deed of trust are equally void because assignments convey only the interest possessed — they do not create interests. 

 

Facially Invalid Recorded Documents

The view proffered by the banks would require them to accept declarations of fact from potential borrowers without any indicia of truth or reliability. It is opposite to the manner in which they do business. Currently they have it both ways, to wit: for purposes of borrowing you must submit documents that are facially valid without reference to external evidence and which can be easily confirmed but for purposes of foreclosure, none of those conditions apply. 

As part of the the scheme of “securitization fail” (see Adam Levitin) banks, servicers and third party vendors have been creating, fabricating and executing documents that are not facially valid nor do they comply with industry standards or even common sense. But once recorded judges take them “at face value” by assuming that somehow the document makes sense, when it clearly does not comport with law or logic. Defenders of foreclosure act at their peril when they fail to attack the facial validity of the documents upon which the foreclosure claims rely.

In a recent article written by Dale Whitman for the ABA he states the following “Conclusion. The recording system is archaic and fraught with the potential for yielding wrong conclusions. Conversion by many recording jurisdictions to computer-based electronic indexes has been helpful, but most of the legally problematic flaws continue to exist. Title insurance has been invaluable in making the weight of the recording system bearable, but it adds a further layer of complexity as buyers try to understand the limitations of their title policies. It seems unlikely that major changes will occur, so it is essential that real estate lawyers understand the peculiarities and limitations of our present system.” (e.s.)

As he points out recording is not required to make a document valid, but once it is recorded the document takes on a life of its own. It also presents numerous trapdoors and pitfalls that should be analyzed before answering the initiation of a foreclosure proceeding with any action on behalf of the homeowner including the motion to dismiss in judicial states, the answer, affirmative defenses and the Petition for TRO or lawsuit for wrongful foreclosure.

see what you didn_t know about recording acts_whitman (2).authcheckdam

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

Common sense tells you that for a document to mean anything it must say enough that a reasonable person would be able to confidently draw meaning from it. Analyzing the facial validity of documents used in foreclosure reveals a pattern of misrepresenting the facial validity and misdirecting judges into NOT looking closely at the documents from which they are making assumptions and thence to legal conclusions that bind homeowners into proving matters beyond their control.

I proffer here an analysis that I just completed (our TERA report) as an example.

  1. We have already seen documentary proof that BONY Mellon does not receive the proceeds of the sale of property subject to the power of sale in a nonjudicial state or the forced sale in a judicial state. There are many reasons for this.
  2. Analysis of the facial validity of the use of various names and descriptions reveals the absence of an actual party, unless extrinsic “parole) evidence is added. Hence the documents upon which the above language relies does not support facial validity.
  3. BONY Mellon is said to be the “successor to JP Morgan Chase.” It is not and never has been a successor to JPMorgan Chase. There is nothing in the public domain to support that assertion. There is no instrument attached and no description of any transaction in which, as to this subject property and loan, we can ascertain how BONY Mellon became the successor to JPM Morgan Chase. Hence the documents in which BONY Mellon appears are not facially valid and are defective in terms of proof of title. This could be corrected by affidavit or any process that is allowed in the state where the property is located but it hasn’t been done on record, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has been done but is not recorded. The usual and acceptable manner of phrasing such a succession, if it were true, would be “as successor to JP Morgan Chase pursuant to that certain agreement of transfer by and between JPMorgan Chase (and /or other parties) and BONY Mellon dated July 6, 200X.” The absence of such description leaves the reader to pursue extrinsic or parole evidence to determine if the succession is documented and if so whether that documentation is facially valid. This is all absent.
  4. The succession suggests that it is in the role of trustee. There is no instrument attached and no description of any transaction in which, as to this subject property and loan, we can ascertain how BONY Mellon became the successor Trustee to JPM Morgan Chase. Hence the documents in which BONY Mellon appears as trustee are not facially valid and are defective in terms of proof of title. This could be corrected by affidavit or any process that is allowed in the state where the property is located but it hasn’t been done on record, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has been done but is not recorded. The usual and acceptable manner of phrasing such a succession, if it were true, would be “as successor to JP Morgan Chase, trustee pursuant to that certain agreement of transfer by and between JPMorgan Chase (and /or other parties) and BONY Mellon dated July 6, 200X.” The absence of such description leaves the reader to pursue extrinsic or parole evidence to determine if the succession is documented and if so whether the documentation is facially valid. This is all absent. The absence of a description of a specific trust and trust instrument is yet another factor that renders the instrument facially invalid, but theoretically correctible.
  5. This leads to a further question of extrinsic evidence being required. Other than by the use of parole evidence (outside the information contained on the document itself) the reader cannot ascertain the existence or description of a specific trust organized and existing under the laws of any jurisdiction. In addition, the issue of a transfer or change of trustees of a trust, if one can be found, is not supported by language such as “pursuant to the provisions of the trust agreement dated the 3rd day of May, 200Y in which the trust named ‘Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II, Inc. Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust’ was created under the laws of the State of New York”. Without such reference the facial validity of the instruments remains invalid although theoretically correctible. Without the knowledge of the legal existence of the trust being confirmable by public record, there is no support for the implied trust. Without support for the implied trust and the trust agreement creating it, there is no obvious support for how trustees could exist or be changed. Without support on the face of the instruments for how trustees of a trust could be changed, the description of the change of trustees is merely a declaration that is not supported by anything on the face of the document.
  6. JPMorgan is implied to have been the trustee of the potentially nonexistent trust. Once again the implied assertion leaves the reader to determine if the trust was created pursuant to the laws of any jurisdiction, and if JPMorgan was named as trustee for the trust.
  7. In either event both BONY Mellon and JPMorgan are described to be acting in a representative capacity on behalf of “holders… of pass through certificates” and not as “trustees” of any “trust.” The certificates are identified as Mortgage Pass Through Certificates Series 2004-12. The reference to being a “trustee” and the implied representation of the holders of certificates would be acceptable if the “holders” were described as beneficiaries. The extrinsic evidence often shows that such holders are not beneficiaries. This leads to the question of how and why there is representation of the holders, apart from the alleged trust, Is the representation implied from the trust agreement that is not described? Is the representation the result of some other trust or agency agreement? It is not possible to ascertain the answers to these vital questions without resort to extrinsic evidence, thus making the instruments relying upon such language, facially invalid.

Every state has statutory requirements for an instrument to be facially valid. A deed between Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse as Grantor and Grantee respectively would not be facially valid because both the grantor nor the grantee are fictitious names of cartoon characters and unless used as a egla fictitious name for an actual entity doing business under that name the document could not be corrected to become a valid document suitable for recording.

Yet county recorders are allowing the recordation of millions of documents across the country with exactly that defect. By allowing such documents to be recorded they are lending support to the legal presumption that Donald and Mickey are real people with rights to transfer interests in real property and even foreclose on real property. At the end of the chain of written documents someone holds paper that is recorded but based upon a chain of title with two large gaps in it — Donald and Mickey, and by the time the foreclosure occurs probably Minnie Mouse as well (or maybe Fannie or Freddie whose names are being used, just like the “REMIC trustees”, but who have no part in any transaction involving the subject loan).

Back to Real Property 101.

  1. Who is the grantor? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid.
  2. Who is the grantee? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid.
  3. What is the effective date of transfer? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid.
  4. What is being transferred? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid — or, in the case of a mortgage or beneficial interest in a deed of trust if the instrument declares a transfer but without the underlying debt, the instrument is facially invalid and unenforceable both because of state statutes regarding facial validity and the UCC Article 9 requiring value to be paid (see above linked article).
  5. What is the legal description of the property affected? If that cannot be readily determined from the face of the instrument the instrument is facially invalid.

An instrument that is not facially valid should be returned by the recording office with notes specifying what needs to be corrected. This vital step is being overlooked on all documents relating to foreclosures. If rules, laws and procedures were followed with regard to such documents there would not be any foreclosure or, if the corrections could actually be made, there would be no defense. It is in the valley between those two notions that all foreclosures based on “successors” are based.

By overlooking the obvious lack of clarity on the face of the documents county recorders keep creating a vacuum that the banks are only too happy to fill with MERS — an IT platform that is the opposite of tamper-proof allowing virtually anyone with a login and password to create the illusion of authority where none existed before. Hence the use of MERS and other systems to give depth to the illusion of facial validity.

The conclusion is that documents containing the language described above should not have been recorded.  The county recorder should have rejected such documents as being facially invalid, requiring additional documents to be attached, if they existed.

Such language is a substantial deviation from custom and practice as well as common sense and logic.  Custom and practice of the same banks that are listed in the language described above requires that they not accept such language without the additional documentation and confirmation of facts that are declared on the face of the instrument.  Common sense dictates that the reason why such custom and practice exists is that most fraudulent schemes involve written instruments in which various declarations are made that are untrue or lack support.  For purposes of recording, any declaration on the face of the instrument that requires the attachment or description of documents that are readily available in the public domain would be unacceptable, much as, for example, a deed without a signature.  The property must be described with precision (or later corrected by affidavit), the grantor must be described with precision (or later corrected) and the grantee must be described with precision (or later corrected).  Without the required corrections, the documents are facially invalid.

For purposes of case analysis, the absence of facially valid documents, even though they were improperly recorded, negates the potential use of legal presumptions arising from the facial validity of documents.  Therefore such documents should be rejected without proper foundation in connection with the use of such documents for any purpose, and the attempt to introduce such documents into evidence in any court or administrative proceeding.

In the case currently under analysis, this means that the proceedings in which the property was allegedly foreclosed, were themselves all improper and based upon invalid terms.  Whether this renders the proceedings void or voidable depends upon case law and interpretations of constitutional due process.

However it is safe to say that based upon the above analysis, it is obvious that all such documents including the deed upon foreclosure are defective in several material respects.  Therefore, our conclusion is that the current title chain in the county records regarding this property is at best clouded.  The procedures for correcting clouded title vary from state to state and are subject to both federal and state laws.  Individual research on each case in each state is required before taking any action.

The view proffered by the banks would require them to accept declarations of fact from potential borrowers without any indicia of truth or reliability. It is opposite to the manner in which they do business. Currently they have it both ways, to wit: for purposes of borrowing you must submit documents that are facially valid without reference to external evidence and which can be easily confirmed but for purposes of foreclosure, none of those conditions apply. 

 

Rogue REMICs? 2016 Study Reveals Lack of Standing

I read a lot. I came across this article today published in 2016. Nobody has paid attention to it but as far as I can tell on first skim, the author has both coined the name “rogue REMIC” and described it well enough to come to a conclusion, to wit: everything about them is a scam and no legal standing exists with respect to them. I would only add that the author is incorrectly assuming that any securitization took place or if it was, as Adam Levitin coined the phrase, “Securitization Fail.”

see campbell – capstone inquiry into rogue remics

Significant quote from the abstract of the article:

The business of privatized mortgage loan securitization (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits or “REMICS”) is so arcane and specialized that few people outside of that realm of investment knowledge understand, or even care to understand how loan securitization functions. However, if the difference between a legitimate REMIC and a Rogue REMIC is adequately explained, one can begin to understand why Rogue REMICs must be exposed as unlawful enterprises whose affiliates are not only able to disregard existing federal securities and tax laws, but are also able to circumvent state and local foreclosure laws at will. [e.s.] These ongoing violations result from the intentional and commonplace shortcutting of the proper mortgage loan securitization processes during the several years preceding the 2008 financial crisis. This Inquiry will not focus primarily on how and why Rogue REMICS violate federal tax and securities laws [e.s.]; although those aspects are part of the discussion by necessity. I will argue that all Rogues lack the perquisite legal standing to prosecute both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. I will present compelling evidence that, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, foreclosures by Rogues may have exceeded 10% of all foreclosures. I will further argue that county officials may be violating state laws by recording the documents that impart false legal standing to the Rogues. I will conclude with a suggestion to homeowners on how to proceed if a mortgage assignment to a Rogue turns up in the local County public records. [e.s.]

And then there is this:

federal government regulators have no will to criminally prosecute the Rogues for financial crimes against individual homeowners even though the crimes are being committed by nationally-chartered investment banks. And so individual homeowners are left to fend for themselves against these behemoths. As a result, a hodge-podge of civil cases in State courts have created such a plethora of conflicting decisions that, in the aggregate, only serve to obfuscate the overriding principle of standing.

and this:

If a borrower’s loan did not leave the “warehouse” timely (if ever) to be incorporated into any REMIC, which includes memorializing that transfer in the local county, the REMIC trustee cannot create standing years later by filing a bogus assignment. As Levitin (2010) explains that “Securitization is the legal apotheosis of form over substance, and if securitization is to work it must adhere to its proper, prescribed form punctiliously” (p. 3).

and finally diagrams of a Rogue REMIC which is an empty pool (something I have been railing about for 12 years). The author describes it as

“A REMIC in name only. A shell of financial instrument. It never had any mortgages assigned to it when it was created and, years later, it is now closed to the introduction of new loans.”

Reaching the conclusion

homeowners were unwitting participants in an elaborate pump and dump scheme to deceive and profit from unwitting REMIC investors. By failing to record assignments during the warehouse phase of REMIC creation, the big investment banks created REMICs that existed in name only; then sold shares of them to the public as if they were the real thing.

And then they foreclosed on homeowners using the fake trusts as the name of the claimant, never revealing the true parties in interest because that would expose them to investigation aid discovery in which their lies would be obvious.

Tolling the Statute of Limitations by Initiating Administrative Processes

A recent case brought to mind a possible argument for tolling the applicable statute of limitations (SOL) on certain claims. By submission of complaints to the CFPB (TILA, RESPA, FDCPA etc) you are starting an administrative process. It might even be true that by submitting a QWR (under RESPA) or DVL (under FDCPA) you are starting an administrative process. One could argue that while you were in that process the statute of limitations on certain claims should be tolled.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document. LendingLies provides forms and services regarding initiating administrative processes including Qualified Written request, Debt validation Letter, Complaint to State Attorney General and Complaint to Consumer Financial Protection Board.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth avoiding a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

The argument would be that you were exhausting your administrative remedies and that therefore the statute of limitations barring your claim should be tolled (extended). The argument against that position is usually that you didn’t need to exhaust your administrative remedies and therefore there should be no tolling of the statute. General doctrine and decisions weigh the balance of the goal of finality of claims and the desire to see all meritorious claims be litigated in pursuit of justice. The courts vary so do your legal research.

Your position is obviously strongest where you MUST exhaust administrative remedies BEFORE filing a claim, as provided by a statute. Your position is weakest where you didn’t need to exhaust administrative remedies. But equitable arguments often prevail.

Remember that if you are successful the statute of limitations will only be tolled during the period that you were pursuing administrative remedies so the filing of complaint with the CFPB and the AG office in your state is probably a good idea if it’s done sooner rather than later. The fact that administrative remedies were available for a time does not seem to advance your position unless you started some procedure invoking administrative action.

And remember that while you can’t bring a claim for remedies under a tort of statutory violation that is barred by the statute of limitations you CAN raise the same issues as an defense under the doctrine of recoupment. Procedurally recoupment only applies if you are sued. State laws and common law vary so again be careful to do your legal research.

If the foreclosure is contested I believe that under the US Constitution, this requires the foreclosure to become judicial — something that every judicial state has in fact made provision for.

As I have insisted for 12 years, the fact that nonjudicial foreclosure is available for uncontested foreclosures should not be an excuse for changing the burden of proof in contested foreclosures.

Hence the proper (constitutional) procedure would be realignment of the parties to where the claimant for foreclosure must judicially claim foreclosure and prove it while the homeowner merely defends with an answer and affirmative defenses and/or counterclaim.

As it stands, courts resist this approach and that gives the claimants in unlawful and wrongful foreclosures the ability to skip proof and go straight to foreclosure. In my opinion that reveals  an unconstitutional application of an otherwise valid statutory scheme for disposing of uncontested foreclosures.

Unlawful detainer or eviction is an attempt to eat fruit from a poisoned tree if in a nonjudicial foreclosure state a contested foreclosure did not require the claimant to assert and prove its claim for foreclosure.

 

MERS Is NOTHING — The Correct Translation of “MIN”

Without a contract in writing executed with the formalities required for transfer of interests in real property, it is highly probable that any instrument executed on behalf of MERS means nothing without the necessity of drilling into the authority or knowledge of the signor. In fact, it might just be that the execution of an assignment might be the utterance of a false instrument for purposes of recording, which in and of itself constitutes illegal activity.

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================
Upon close inspection, investigation and research of hundreds of cases we have found no evidence that MERS ever enters into any contract for agency or anything else with originators who are not lenders. So we conclude that in cases where the originator is named on the note as Payee and on the Mortgage as Mortgagee or on the Deed of Trust as beneficiary, no such written contract exists and no correspondence or other communication exists between the originator and MERS.
*
The current consensus is that MERS is a naked nominee, something I have repeated myself. But that appears to be true only in cases where the originator is a member of MERS and has therefore entered into an agency agreement with MERS.
*
Entities like Broker One and American Brokers Conduit, whose name tells the whole story, are not likely to have had any contract, email, correspondence directly with MERS and are probably not party to any agreement in which the originator, if it exists at all, has agreed to let MERS be its agent and if so, under what conditions and for how long.
*
I think the mistake we might have all made is in accepting the implied agency contract inferred from the face of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust. In many if not most courts the assignment by MERS of a Mortgage or Beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust is seen as the act of a “disclosed” naked nominee.
*
First, basic law dictates that any contract in which the transfer of title to real property is involved must be written not oral, inferred or implied. Second, each state varies but all require the recording of the instrument.
*
Third, there was no disclosure prior to closing which violates TILA disclosure requirements. This raises possibilities  of claims in a lawsuit by the homeowner or affirmative defenses of a homeowner if they are sued. As affirmative defenses they would claims of recoupment.
*
Nobody tells the prospective borrower that when they sign the Mortgage or Deed of Trust they will be handing over an interest in their new or existing home to an entity that might serve the interests of just anyone. But, in fact, that is what is happening which means that on the face of the Deed of Trust or Mortgage, the originating parties are violating the provisions of TILA that make table funded loans against public policy. And as any 1st year law student will tell you any contract that violates public policy is probably void.
*
At closing, if the borrowers are reading at all, MERS doesn’t show up until the day of closing and it is never pointed out by closing agents, originators or anyone else acting as mortgage broker or lender. Nor is the written agreement appointing MERS as “nominee” appear anywhere ever.
*
If the appointment of MERS is void it might void the Mortgage or Deed of Trust. Or, it might be surplusage which is more likely. That means the mention of MERS means nothing.
*
Hence the assignment of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust would be required to be executed by the named lender, who in turn probably could not assign the mortgage because at the time they are asked to sign such an instrument they (a) don’t exist and/or (b) don’t own the debt and probably never did. As such they would be uttering a false instrument for recording which amounts to two illegal acts probably constituting crimes.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: ASSIGNMENT OF A MORTGAGE WITHOUT TRANSFER OF THE DEBT IS A NULLITY. Lawyers for the foreclosure mills are often using MERS assignments as a substitute for transfer of the debt.

Tonight! Steamrolling Using Judicial Notice 6PM EST

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Charles Marshall, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

 

One of the things that irritates most homeowners and lawyers for foreclosure defense is how “evidence” is admitted that “proves” a fact that doesn’t exist. One of the tools for doing that is Judicial Notice or as we call it, “JN.” JN is used for documents that are inherently credible — not some document created by one of the litigants and uploaded to a quasi government site without any validation by any government entity. They are inherently credible because they were prepared by or taken from the records of a credible source — a party with not relationship to the parties in litigation and no stake in the outcome.

If you read the statute in your state you will see plenty of reasons why most documents proffered as being subject to Judicial Notice (JN) should be rejected as evidence without proper foundation and specific foundation for each issue addressed in the document. Foundation means testimony and maybe other documents for which there is a witness to provide the foundation.

In truth when the lawyers for the fictional claimant does this they are opening up the door as well as virtually admitting that they can’t prove the false fact without JN. By aggressively preserving and invoking objections and using motions to strike and motions in limine, as well as effective cross-examination, the truth of the matter asserted by the document can be eliminated.

Institutional litigants are misusing the court system throughout the dozens of state and Federal jurisdictions to get into evidence matters which are and should be barred from evidence or at least subject to dispute, and about which these same litigants often have no or little independent evidentiary support. One such major vehicle for advancing this practice is the use of Requests for Judicial Notice (RJN).

Documents uploaded to SEC.gov, for example, are proffered as subject to judicial notice, even though the SEC website acts merely as a platform for publication, and not a proper registry, and neither monitors nor validates any documents placed on their site.

In California, StorMedia,, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9, has long controlled among other Cal cases RJNs in California litigation.  This case holds that “When judicial notice is taken of a document…the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.”

Yet it is very common in California foreclosure litigation for courts to treat RJNs as if they do establish the truth of the matter asserted within the documents. This enables institutional defendants in Cal. borrower foreclosure litigation, to point as evidence to Plaintiff’s presenting recorded documents only to dispute their content, as if the documents so presented and disputed are not subject to dispute, because of the taking of judicial notice.

FLA S Ct Reverses Course on Homeowner’s Award of Attorney Fees and Raises Other Issues for Defense of Foreclosures

For those of us that have access to the data, we know that homeowners are winning foreclosure cases all the time. Nobody else knows because as soon as a homeowner wins or gets into a winning position they are offered money for their silence. The situation worsened when Florida and courts in other states turned down the homeowner’s demand for attorney fees after the homeowner had flat out won the case — especially where the case was dismissed for lack of standing.

Here the homeowner once again wins, having advanced several defense narratives. The homeowner applies for recovery of attorney fees and the demand is rejected because the loan contract no longer exists or because the party seeking to use it was shown not to be party to it, at least when suit was commenced. The Florida Supreme Court reversed that decision and rejected others like it.

Recognizing the danger of the erroneous rulings from the trial court and the district courts of appeal, the Court rejected arguments that a dismissal, voluntary or otherwise, based upon lack of standing meant that the loan contract no longer existed. While not completely abandoning the lower courts the Florida Supreme Court has narrowed the issues such that it is again almost always arguable and even inevitable that if the homeowner wins the foreclosure case an award of fees will follow.

fla s ct attny fees 1-4-19 sc17-1387 Glass v Nationwide

see also Follow Up Article to this Article

==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
==========================

This case opens a can of worms for the banks and servicers and corroborates much of what I have been writing for 12 years.

At issue was the homeowner’s right to prevail on an attorney fees award after winning the case in the trial court. This has previously been denied on the basis that cases dismissed for lack of standing meant that there was not contract. But the Florida Supreme Court says that the fact that just because the party involved had no right to enforce the contract doesn’t mean there was no contract.

The clear implication here is that the court did not want the erroneous rulings of trial courts and appellate district courts to be construed as completely canceling the loan contract. Any other ruling would be inherently ruling on the rights of unidentified third parties who DID have a right to collection of payment from the borrower’s debt and who did have a right to enforcement — without any notice to them because they are undisclosed and unknown.

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to allege or prove standing does not negate the fact that the homeowner is the prevailing party and entitled to fees under F.S. 57.105(7).

Citing its own decision in 1989, Katz v Van Der Noord 546 So 2d 1047, the Supreme Court held that even if the contract is rescinded or held to be unenforceable the prevailing party is still entitled to fees under the reciprocity provisions of F.S. 57.105(7).

This upends a basic strategy of the banks and servicers. Up until this decision they were virtually guaranteed an award of fees and costs if they won and immunity to fees if they lost. This reopens the fees issue and may give attorneys a reason to accept foreclosure defense cases — even on contingency or partial contingency.

But the court, perhaps in dicta, also mentions whether the note is negotiable, quoting from the homeowner’s arguments and pleadings.

Up until now the mere existence of the original note and in many cases a copy of the note, was sufficient to regard the note as a negotiable instrument. But the Florida Supreme Court is hinting at something here that the banks and servicers really don’t want to hear, to wit: it takes more that announcing the existence of a note to make it negotiable. This is not so.

Which brings me to my final point: read carefully the day the claimant is introduced and you will probably find that the note and assignment are not facially valid because they require reference to parole or extrinsic evidence. This bars legal presumptions, at least in the absence of a specific reference to the documents supporting the execution of the instrument as a substitution of trustee, an assignment or an endorsement.

The court was more than hinting at the idea that subsequent treatment of the note, which may have been a negotiable instrument at the time of execution (if the “lender” was in fact the lender). The question is whether the note is facially valid, to wit: whether the note specifically names a maker, payee and an unconditional promise to pay. If the originator was not the lender then extrinsic evidence would be required to prove the loan and the debt and the party who would have been appropriately named as payee on the note.

If subsequent indorsements or assignments for a note that WAS negotiable remove certainty from one or more of the elements of a facially valid instruments, then it is no longer a negotiable instrument. And THAT means that the all “reasonable” assumptions and legal preemptions are taken off the table.

The reason is simple. In order to be a negotiable instrument the assignee or successor must have certainty as to the parties and terms of the note. If extrinsic or parole evidence is required to provide that certainty the instrument is not negotiable and thus not entitled to any assumptions or presumptions.

So for example (taken from another case) when a Substitution of Trustee occurs in a nonjudicial state and it is executed by “U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, in trust for registered Holders of First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-FF I, by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as attorney-in-fact” then there are several points that require extrinsic or parole evidence, making the note non negotiable or at least arguably so.

In this scenario for an assignee to take a note from a party claiming rights to enforce in this instance one must know

  1. The name of the Trust, and the jurisdiction in which it was organized and is now existing.
  2. The instrument by which US Bank claims to be trustee
  3. Identification of “registered holders”
  4. The identification and content of the certificates
  5. The instrument by which SPS claims to be “attorney in fact”
  6. If you look closely you will also see that there is a question as to whom it is claimed that SPS is representing as attorney in fact. In any event “attorney in fact” means that a power of attorney exists but without specific reference to that power of attorney by date and parties, extrinsic or parole evidence is required meaning that no assumptions or legal presumptions may be made.

In other words the note cannot be accepted by anyone without extrinsic evidence. The fact that documents are apparently accepted by the assignees doesn’t change anything as to the facial validity of the document. Without facial validity there can be no negotiability under Article 3 of the UCC. Without negotiability there can be no assumptions or legal presumptions and thus the claimant must prove every element of its claim without presumptions.

And of course when the homeowner wins an award of attorney fees is now once again probable in addition to court costs.

Remember always: the point is not who can get away with enforcement. The point of the law is assuring that the owner of the debt is the one enforcing the debt and collecting the proceeds of enforcement. Before false claims of securitization this premise was almost universally true. Now it is rarely true that the true owner of the debt is represented.

And the apparent absence of such a party due to manipulation of the debt by intermediaries, does not legally create a vacuum into which anyone with knowledge and access to data may step in and claim rights of enforcement. As stated in California Ivanova decision the law does not allow the borrower’s debt to be owed to anyone whose premise is simply that they claim it.

9th Circuit Creeps Up the Ladder in Hoang TILA Rescission Breakthrough

This case comes the closest yet to the truth about TILA Rescission. And it requires that TILA Rescission be applied — if there is an action to enforce within the statute of limitations covering contract actions in the state in which the property is located.

The court’s conclusion that there must be a statute of limitations is derived from its erroneous assumption AGAIN that TILA rescission is a claim rather an event. Jill Smith has done an outstanding job of moving us toward the final step in TILA REscission, to wit: TILA Rescission is procedural and it is an event. Once delivered it has ended the loan, the note and the mortgage by operation of law, just as the statute says. There is no statute of limitations on an event because it is not a claim.

Only a claim for breach of TILA duties could be subject to a statute of limitations. Failure to file suit, as specifically and expressly pointed out by a unanimous SCOTUS decision in Jesinoski does not affect the effect of TILA rescission. Courts don’t like it but that is the law and now this court has moved up to the precipice of saying exactly that.

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

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
===========================

Hoang v Bank of America 12-6-18

See also ! Financial Freedom Acquisition LLC v. Standard Bank & Trust Co., 2015 IL 117950

! Financial Freedom Acquisition v Standard Bank -Analysis

! If You Own Your Home in a Land Trust

TILA Rescission is no more a claim than a warranty deed. It just exists. You don’t need to sue periodically because by operation of law (the exact wording of the TILA REscission statute) the deed exists and confirms title. In the same way TILA Rescission eliminated the lien encumbrance, the note and even the loan agreement and replaces it with a statutory “agreement” to unwind the debt.

The note and mortgage remain void throughout any time period after the notice of rescission is sent. This court gets close but veers off what they obviously believe is a radical end result — i.e., that the right to claim the debt expires if the creditor fails to comply with the duties imposed by TILA REscission and refuses to even acknowledge the existence of the rescission. That “radical result” is precisely what is mandated by the statute and the courts have no right to legislate it away. The legislature has that power but not the courts. Simple as that.

Contrary to what this court is saying a demand for injunction (as one would do under authority of a valid warranty deed) is NOT a lawsuit to enforce the rescission. The rescission is already in force. And the note and mortgage no longer exist. A Lawsuit to enforce the rescission would ONLY be a lawsuit that seeks to enforce the statutory duties during the time allowed by the statute of limitations in TILA which everyone agrees does not apply.

Ultimately the statute says that regardless of ANY defense a claimed creditor might have (including limitations which is an affirmative defense) the rescission is effective when delivered (mailed under USPS). Even the three years can only be raised by a party with standing and who can prove it WIThout reference to the note or mortgage. Real facts showing they paid for the debt . Those facts don’t exist and most people know it. But because of the “free house” myth they continue to flout the law and legislature from the bench.

But this case almost gets me over the hump where I can say “I told you so.”

Here are some notable quotes from this very important decision.

If a creditor fails to make required disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), borrowers are allowed three years from the loan’s consummation date to rescind certain loans.1 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f). Borrowers may effect that rescission simply by notifying the creditor of their intent to rescind within the three-year period. Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015). TILA does not include a statute of limitations outlining when an action to enforce such a rescission must be brought

On April 15, 2013 (within the three-year period), Hoang sent the Bank notice of intent to rescind the loan under TILA. The record reflects that the Bank took no action in response to receiving the notice.

Once a borrower rescinds a loan under TILA, the borrower “is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest given by the [borrower] . . . becomes void upon such a rescission.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b); see 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3). Within 20 days after the creditor receives a notice of rescission, the creditor must take steps to wind up the loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b). “Upon the performance of the creditor’s obligations under this section, the [borrower] shall tender the property to the creditor . . . [or] tender its reasonable value.” Id. Once both creditor and borrower have so acted, the loan has been wound up.

However, the Supreme Court altered that usual procedure in Jesinoski. It eliminated the need for a borrower to bring suit within the three-year window to exercise TILA rescission. Instead, “rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind.” Jesinoski, 135 S. Ct. at 792. “[S]o long as the borrower notifies within three years after the transaction is consummated, his rescission is timely. The statute does not also require him to sue within three years.”

A party may amend its pleading with the court’s leave, which “[t]he court should freely give . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “This policy is to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Id. at 1052. Leave to amend can and should generally be given, even in the absence of such a request by the party. See Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 963 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.”).

 

TILA RESCISSION: The Bottom Line for Now

Probably the main fallacy of the people who say that TILA Rescission is not possible or viable is that they project the outcome of a lawsuit to vacate rescission. Based upon their conjecture, they assume that Rescission is no more than a technicality. Congress, and SCOTUS beg to differ. It was enacted into law 50 years ago in an effort to prevent unscrupulous banks from screwing consumer borrowers.

Let us help you plan your TILA RESCISSION narrative and strategy: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

I keep getting emails from non lawyers who have a “legal opinion” that not only differs from mine, but also the opinion of hundreds of lawyers who represent the banks and servicers. They say that because disclosures were probably made that rescission is nothing more than a gimmick that will never succeed and they point to the many case decisions in which courts have ruled erroneously in favor of the banks despite a rescission that eliminated the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, since the loan contract, note and mortgage no longer exist. The debt, however, continues to exist even if it is unclear as to the identity of the party to whom it is owed.

First the courts ruled erroneously when they said that tender had to be made before rescission was effective. Then the courts said that no rescission could be effective without a court saying it was effective. That one put the burden on proving the figure to make proper disclosure on the homeowner. The Supreme Court of the United States, (SCOTUS — see Jesinoski v Countrywide) after thousands of decisions by trial and appellate courts, told them they were wrong. As of this date, no court has ever ruled that the rescission was vacated — the only thing that could stop it.

The lay naysayers keep harping on how wrong I am about rescission. Unfortunately many people believe what they read just because it is in writing. In my case I simply instruct the lawyers and homeowners to simply read the TILA Rescission statute and the unanimous SCOTUS decision in Jesinoski. What they will discover is that I am only repeating what they said — not making it up as some would have you believe.

To the naysayers and  all persons in doubt, i say the following:

As I have repeatedly said, in practice you are right, for the time being.
But the legal decision from SCOTUS will undoubtedly change the practice. The law is obvious and clear. SCOTUS already said that. So no interpretation is required or even permissible. SCOTUS said that too. TILA Rescission is mainly a procedural statute, not a substantive one. SCOTUS said that too. On the issue of when rescission is effective, it is upon mailing (USPS) or delivery. SCOTUS said that too. On the issue of what else a borrower needs to do to make TILA rescission effective, the answer is nothing. SCOTUS said that too.

Hence the current argument that you keep making is true “in practice” but only for the moment. SCOTUS will soon issue another scathing attack on the presumptuous courts who defied its ruling in Jesinoski. There can be no doubt that SCOTUS will rule that any “interpretation” that contradicts the following will be void, for lack of jurisdiction, because the loan contract is canceled and the note and mortgage are void:

  1. No court may change the meaning of the words of the TILA Rescission statute.
  2. Rescission is law when it is mailed or delivered.
  3. Other than delivery no action is required by the borrower. That means the loan contract is canceled and the note and mortgage are void. They do not exist by operation of law.
  4. Rescission remains effective even in the absence of a pleading filed by the borrower to enforce it.
  5. Due process is required to vacate the rescission. That means pleading standing and that proper disclosure was made, an opportunity for the borrower to respond, and then proof that the pleader has standing and that proper disclosures were made.
  6. Pleading against the rescission must be filed within 20 days or it is waived.
  7. At the end of one year both parties waive any remedies. That means the borrower can no longer enforce the duties imposed on the debt holder and the debt holder may no longer claim repayment.
  8. The only claim for repayment that exists after rescission is via the TILA Rescission statute — not the note and mortgage. This is based upon the actual debt, not the loan contract or closing documents.
  9. Any claim for repayment after rescission is predicated on full compliance with the three duties imposed by statute.
  10. A court may — upon proper notice, pleading and hearing — change the order of creditor compliance with the three duties imposed upon the debt holder. This does not mean that the court can remove any of the duties of the debt holder nor summarily ignore the rescission without issuing an order — upon proper notice, pleading and proof — that the rescission is vacated because the proper disclosures were made or for any other valid legal reason that does not change the wording of the statute.
  11. The three duties, which may not be ignored, include payment of money to the borrower, satisfaction of the lien (so that the borrower might have an opportunity to refinance), and delivery of the original canceled note.

Virtually 100% of lawyers for the banks and servicers agree with the above. They have advised their clients to file a lawsuit challenging the TILA Rescission because such a lawsuit could be easily won and would serve as a deterrent to people attempting to use TILA rescission as a defense to collection or foreclosure efforts. Yet their clients have failed to follow legal advice because they know that they have no debt holder to whom funds can be traced. If they did identify the debt holder(s) they would be showing that they played just as fast and loose with investor money as they have done with the paperwork in foreclosures.

Does this mean a free house to homeowners? Maybe. Considering how many times the loans were sold directly and indirectly, and how many times the banks received insurance, bailout and purchases from the Federal Reserve, that wouldn’t be a bad result. But the truth is that everyone knows that won’t happen unless the courts continue their decisions with blinders on.

In the end, the homeowners do owe money to the investors whose money was used too fund the loans, directly and indirectly. Whether it is secured or not may depend upon state law, but as a practical matter very few borrowers would withhold their signature from a valid mortgage and note based upon economic reality.

Even the Bank Attorneys Admit that NO Tender or lawsuit is Required in TILA Rescission. Burden is on the “lender” side.

It appears that I have struck a nerve with many of the people who seek to prove me wrong in my “theories.” They are facts, not theories. And as explained by yet another attorney writing an article for the banks and bank attorneys, it is up to the “bank” side of the equation to do anything about rescission. The borrower need do nothing except send the notice. If the “bank” side does nothing they do so at their own peril — not the homeowner’s peril. READ THE STATUTE and the unanimous decision by SCOTUS in Jesinoski v Countrywide.

Although trial judges treat the matter as unsettled or even settled opposite to the express wording of the statute and the only case that matters, the issues raised defensively by the “bank” side relative to TILA Rescission are plainly without merit and well-settled by statute and SCOTUS.

The article below seeks to point out that the TILA Rescission statute allows a court of competent jurisdiction to change the order of things — if petitioned to do so. She avoids the obvious problem: that nobody has filed such a suit because they (a) don’t have standing and (b) they are winning anyway by playing to the bias of judges.

“A borrower may effectuate rescission “by notifying the creditor.” 12 U.S.C. § 1635(a). The United States Supreme Court held in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. that a borrower need only send written notice to a lender “in order to exercise his right to rescind”; it is not necessary for the borrower to also sue for rescission to “exercise” the right of rescission. 574 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 790, 793 (2016).”

Let us help you plan your narrative and strategy: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

SeeLaw360: When to Consider Modifying TILA Rescission Procedures

Guide to understanding TILA Rescission.
  1. If someone is giving you advice or analysis and they don’t have a law degree and some experience practicing law, ignore them.
  2. READ THE STATUTE YOURSELF: 15 USC §1635.
  3. READ THE ONLY CASE THAT MATTERS: Jesinoski v Countrywide, decided by the highest court in the land — the Supreme Court of the United States. (SCOTUS)
  4. Be prepared for push back because that is working for the “bank side.” They are wrong and they know it but they are still convincing judges to ignore the wording of the statute and ignore the word of the boss of bosses (SCOTUS).
  5. A court decision that does not vacate the rescission is no decision at all. The courts have been careful to avoid this obvious issue. Since the rescission is effective when mailed (or delivered), that is the moment when the loan contract is canceled, and the note and mortgage rendered void. Any court that moves forward despite rescission is exceeding its jurisdictional authority as there is no longer subject matter jurisdiction.

There many shills and well intended people out there on the internet who have strong opinions about TILA Rescission. Nearly all of them have no law degree and no experience practicing law and lack any useful knowledge about court procedure. They should be ignored. Even the “bank” lawyers ignore them.

Their erroneous points come down to this:

  1. if the disclosures to the borrower were complete, then rescission doesn’t count
  2. it is up to the borrower to make TILA rescission effective.
  3. if the borrower cannot tender the principal back then the rescission is not effective.
  4. the TILA statute allows courts to change the order of duties of the “bank” side and the borrower side.

All four points are dead wrong because of due process. You can’t get relief unless you plead for it. So far the “bank” side has convinced judges they don’t need to file a pleading to get rid of an effective TILA Rescission. That is going to change.

The statute contains no presumptions that the disclosures are complete. In our legal system that means that a party with standing must bring an action that requests relief from rescission on the grounds that disclosure was complete. And they must bring such an action timely under the TILA Rescission Statute (i.e, within 20 days).

TILA rescission is effective at the moment of mailing or delivery by operation of law (i.e., the TILA Statute). The Supreme Court has already ruled unanimously that no lawsuit or other action is required by the borrower on the issue of rescission. Sending it means the loan contract is canceled and the note and mortgage are void.

No tender of money or property is required by the TILA statute in order to make rescission effective. This is not a theory. This is what the statute says and what the Supreme Court of the United States says. You can disagree with it all you want but the matter is legally settled.

The fact that the statute allows the court to reorder the statutory duties and obligations does not mean anyone asked the court to do so. If they did, the borrower would be entitled to due process — i.e., time to respond to the new order of things. Obviously that pleading is not going to submitted by the borrower. Just as obviously that pleading must be filed seeking relief from the rescission and allowing due process — i.e., litigation over whether the sending of the rescission was lawful but only in the context of a pleading filed by a party with standing.

And that is the point. There probably is no party with standing once you strip away the note and mortgage. The owner of the debt is most likely unknown. And that is where we are. Eventually SCOTUS will rule again on TILA Rescission. If the next ruling is consistent with their last ruling they will once again strike down the procedures and substance of court rulings that ignore the existence of the TILA rescission which was effective by operation of law, from the moment it was sent or delivered.

Here are some relevant quotes from the article cited above, written by an attorney working for a firm that represents banks:

Lenders at times find themselves assessing how to handle a claim by a borrower that he or she is entitled to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Rescission under TILA is distinct from common law rescission due to one main difference: unlike common law rescission, which requires the rescinding party to tender any benefits received under the contract back to the other party as a condition precedent, TILA allows a borrower to exercise the right of rescission before such tender must occur. This can result in putting a lender on its heels, seeking to defend against the merits of a TILA rescission claim before even knowing if the borrower can fully effectuate the rescission by ultimately tendering the proceeds of the loan back to the lender.

However, it is possible to avoid this situation, even when operating within the framework of TILA. A strategically useful but often under-utilized tool for lenders in litigation involving rescission under TILA is to seek an order altering the statutorily prescribed procedures for rescission.

Overview of Rescission under TILA

Ordinarily, under section 1635(a) of TILA, a borrower has the unconditional right to rescind a loan for three days after the consummation of the transaction, delivery of notice that the borrower has a right to rescind or delivery of all material disclosures – whichever comes later.[1] Thus, if the lender provides the borrower with the requisite material disclosures upon closing the loan, a borrower’s right of rescission under TILA is extinguished after three days.

Assuming, however, that a lender does not provide a borrower with all necessary “material disclosures,”[2] section 1635(f) of TILA extends a borrower’s right of rescission to three years after the consummation of the transaction.[3]

While common law rescission requires a rescinding party to tender the benefits received pursuant to an agreement back to the other party as a condition precedent, TILA prescribes otherwise. Section 1635(b) states that when a borrower “exercises his right to rescind under subsection (a), he is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest given by the obligor … becomes void upon such a rescission.”[4] Moreover, upon the exercise of rescission “under subsection (a)” of TILA, the lender is required to return any down payments provided by the borrower and “take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction” within 20 days of receiving a notice of rescission.[5] Only after a lender performs its obligations under subsection (b) is the borrower required to tender back any benefits received, such as loan proceeds.[6] Notably, however, both section 1635(b) and TILA’s implementing regulation, Regulation Z, provide that the procedures for rescission under TILA may be modified by court order.[7]

 

 

When and What is Consummation of Contract?

Like many other “Black letter law” situations, when it comes to foreclosures the courts are ignoring all precedent, statutes, rules and regulations when they consider a loan contract consummated when one party signs documents — without the other side showing it signed documents and performed its obligations. Without consideration passing both ways, there is no contract to enforce.

The argument that there is nothing for the lender to sign is without merit. The further argument that therefore the only signature that counts in a written contract is the signature of one side is equally ridiculous. It is true that lenders don’t sign the notes and mortgages. But for lenders, their part of the contract only comes alive when they comply with TILA and perform — i.e., they give the loan of money.

To view it any other way would be saying that performance by the “lender” is optional. And that would by all accounts be an executory contract that would be unenforceable until the optional performance was completed. Hence consummation can only be (a) when the money appears (b) from the “lender” identified on the disclosure documents.

The banks craftily spotted the loophole that lenders don’t sign the actual instruments that provide evidence of a written loan contract. But those instruments may not be used to sidestep mutuality and reciprocity that MUST be present in every situation where a party is relying upon paper instruments instead of proving the loan from scratch. If a third party performs the duties promised by the originator there is no enforceable contract even if there is a separate remedy for recovery of money.

Consummation and consideration should be treated as fair game in discovery instead of annoying protests from the homeowner. The Courts have the power to make legal decisions — not political ones.

Let us help you plan your discovery requests: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.
Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat tip to Greg (cement boots)

Consummation vs Closing

Seems like various state laws redefine “consummation” as not the actual consummation (the initial fulfillment of promises made by both parties to a contract – think marriage) but instead, make it apply to the moment that a written obligation of a debtor (the wife) is signed at a “closing” in a loan transaction… These definitions do not take into account the duty of the originator or alleged lender (the husband) to timely perform their duties, especially to provide a record of the funding in the purported debtor’s name toward the discharge of the contracted obligation. This occurs most often in “refinance” deals where there is no seller or buyer, simply a rearranging of computer entries between financial institutions. This leaves the alleged debtor (the wife) wanting for proof of fidelity, consideration and performance while operating under the presumed legal disability created by the state’s definition. As you can imagine, and we have seen, this can have a deleterious effect on a judge’s or debtor’s ability to accurately calculate the deadline to timely file a TILA rescission notice within the three year statute of repose.

I think this comment is correct. By defining consummation as the moment when one party signs documents without regard to when or even whether the other party signs and performs contractual duties, the courts are letting originators off the hook for fraud, TILA violations and more. Like the debt itself the obligation is not open ended to anyone who claims it. It is owed to the party that owns the debt or obligation.

In normal contract law there is some fuzziness about consummation and sometimes rules of estoppel apply. But the normal rule is simply that the transaction is consummated and the documents are effective when the documentation is completed and executed by both sides, and consideration has passed both ways.

By considering consummation to be when only one party signs the courts are ignoring a basic legal doctrine that has been solid for centuries — consideration must pass before the documents can be used for enforcement.

This is particularly important in the modern era where “lenders” have been replaced by “originators.” In many cases the originator is not the lender. Hence no enforceable contract can be said to exist unless there is proof that the originator was acting for a third party Lender.

If the third party was not disclosed they would be admitting to a TILA violation. If the third party is not a lender either but rather a conduit, then we have (a) no consideration and (b) nondisclosure at “closing” as to the identity of the lender.

By “no consideration” I don’t mean that the homeowner did not receive money or the benefits of a disbursement.  I mean that nobody in the chain starting with the originator has paid that consideration and thus nobody in that chain of command is party to an enforceable contract. Like the fabricated assignments, allonges and endorsements, the existence of a paper instrument even if signed does not mean that the provisions contained therein are enforceable. Under contract law it is the transaction that must have consummated between the parties to the written contract. THAT is something that does not occur, even in the c leanest of cases, until after the closing and sometimes months or even years after.

By revealing the absence of a payment by the originator, one accomplishes two things. (1) the written loan contract (note and mortgage or Deed of Trust) was never enforceable and thus cannot be enforced by successors. (2) clear violations of TILA disclosure requirements have been violated.

BUT none of this means that there is no debt — assuming that money appeared after closing. The debt exists. The homeowner does owe money. And while the homeowner does not owe just anyone, he/she owes money to the person or parties who are out of pocket for the loan. Their remedy is probably an action in equity seeking to claim the paperwork AFTER they have proven that they are the real parties in interest. Or, their remedy would be simply the equitable action for unjust enrichment. In the first case they MIGHT preserve the mortgage encumbrance. In the second, they have no collateral.

Rescission Precision Goes to U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Mandamus

10 years ago, seeing where the foreclosure wave was going and watching court cases, I said on these pages that the only solution to these foreclosures is Mandamus. First to stop judges from applying legal PRESUMPTIONS and second to stop judges from ignoring TILA rescission. Now someone has done it and others might follow suit, if you pardon the pun. Lawyers were not well versed in mandamus and pro se litigants had never heard of it. So for the most part everyone has been screaming and yelling about injustice, fabrication, forgery and perjury.

Ironically it is Dan Junk, pro se, who has done the best legal writing on the issue of TILA Rescission and has chosen, in my opinion, the best route to getting the Supreme Court to issue an order prohibiting judges from disregarding TILA Rescission and requiring judges to follow the law in 15 U.S.C. §1635. The irony is doubled because of Dan’s last name (Junk) and the fact that the securitization scheme arose partly out of the junk bond craze 30 years ago. Except of course that back then Wall Street pirates WERE sent to prison.

SCOTUS has the option of taking any case they want to review. They did take the Jesinoski v Countrywide case from which this Petition for Mandamus arises. And once they take it for review, they can still deny the writ leaving decisions on rescissions in limbo and creating case precedent where Judges have the option of disregarding the law as written in a statute in virtually any kind of case.

This one was filed, as I understand it, last Friday. It may or may not be considered timely. The reason I am publishing the Petition for the Writ of Mandamus is  that it attacks exactly on point what is happening in the courts — namely, “denying” the existence and effect of TILA rescission even after it has taken effect as a nonjudicial remedy.

NEED HELP PREPARING FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE? We can help you and your attorney with drafting Motions, Discovery and Compelling Responses to Discovery Requests with Our Paralegal Team that works directly with Neil Garfield! We provide services directly to attorneys and to pro se litigants.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT,

OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!

https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see

Junk SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Mandamus on TILA RESCISSION

Hiding in Plain Sight_ Jesinoski and the Consumer_s Right of Resc

Jesinoski decision

Dan Junk attended one of my first seminars back in the days when I was co-presenting with Brad Keiser. In litigation for around 9 years, he has followed this blog (and many others) and fought off the “inevitable” foreclosure as long as he could in Ohio. Besides clear evidence of substantive defenses Dan had sent a notice of rescission within the 3 years stated in the TILA Rescission statute.

Like thousands of judges across the country in State and Federal courts, the timely and effective rescission was ignored simply because the judges didn’t like the result. The ultimate decision was against him because the courts continue to allow legal presumptions to apply even though they create “alternate facts” in conflict with reality.

Blind justice supposedly requires courts to apply the law, as written by the Federal and State legislatures. The answer for Dan was not in some attempted appeal but rather to seek a sweeping ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States that specifically requires all judges, whoever situated, to follow the TILA Rescission law. There is adequate evidence to show that this is of great public importance inasmuch as virtually all judges are committing the same “error” to wit: not taking TILA rescission literally or seriously.

We’ll see what happens. But in the meanwhile do give a careful read of the Brief Dan filed. This could be a moment where everything changes.

NJ Appellate Court Decision Goes to Achilles Heel of “Securitizers”

“In order to have standing to foreclose a mortgage, a party ‘must own or control the underlying debt.'”

New Jersey litigants need look no further. In fact, in every other state of the U.S. you will find the same decisions each quoting from several other to the same effect. Courts across the country have usually confused the issue and accepted the allegation of ownership as proof of ownership. This court answers that as well:

To establish such ownership or control, Plaintiff must present properly authenticated evidence that it is the holder of the note or a non-holder in possession with rights of the holder.”

So what is a holder, such that the party has established “ownership or control of the underlying debt.” That is the issue that has been blurred by the banks.

The banks focus on the state statutes (UCC) enabling a holder to enforce without ever establishing that the party owns or controls the underlying debt. If you think about it that is nonsense. But that one thing, more than anything else, is responsible for millions of wrongful foreclosures. 

see NJ Decision On POA and MERS

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Here are some basic black letter rules, quoted in the NJ case, that have been followed for centuries:

  1. A holder must possess the original note.
  2. Transfer of possession must be “authenticated by an affidavit or certification based upon personal knowledge.”
  3. A party relying upon power of attorney or other document must produce the authenticated original of that document.
  4. Using the words “as attorney in fact” means nothing unless the party is able to produce a witness who, in their own personal knowledge, knows and states that the POA is in writing and has not been revoked.
  5. That witness must be able to lay the factual foundation and authentication for introduction of the Power of Attorney or any other such document.
  6. Without such foundation and authentication, any testimony or documents proffered by virtue of the POA cannot be admitted into evidence and for purposes of the case then, such statements or documents do not exist.
  7. A party who claims a legal relationship with another party and who relies upon it for proffering evidence must provide evidence of the legal relationship.
  8. A Power of Attorney must be in writing, duly signed and acknowledged as set forth in state statutes. Oral Powers of Attorney cannot be used to circumvent the requirement that interests in real property (including mortgages) must be in writing.
  9. A party seeking to enforce a note must be able to establish, though competent evidence, the location and the previous locations of the note in order to establish possession and the right to enforce, respectively.
  10. Certifications must be based upon personal knowledge and not general familiarity.
  11. If testimony is offered based upon a “review” of records, the records must be present or the witness must identify those records and how the witness acquired personal knowledge of their content.
  12. Assignments of mortgage must be authenticated by a person who has personal knowledge of the assignment (and the circumstances in which the assignment occurred). Otherwise the assignment is hearsay and must be excluded from evidence unless otherwise admitted for different reasons. Hearsay statements in assignments cannot be admitted into evidence and for purposes of the case then, such statements do not exist.
  13. The fact that an assignment or other document exists as an original or a copy does not mean that what is written on it can be admitted into evidence. But without a proper objection, the document can be admitted into evidence as proof of the matters asserted therein.
  14. A document signed by an agent or “nominee” like MERS after the demise of the principal is void because the power of attorney expires upon expiration of the principal. If the originator no longer exists, MERS is not authorized to act on behalf of the originator.

The Devil is in the Details — The Mortgage Cannot Be Enforced, Even If the Note Can Be Enforced

Cashmere v Department of Revenue

For more information on foreclosure offense, expert witness consultations and foreclosure defense please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. We offer litigation support in all 50 states to attorneys. We refer new clients without a referral fee or co-counsel fee unless we are retained for litigation support. Bankruptcy lawyers take note: Don’t be too quick admit the loan exists nor that a default occurred and especially don’t admit the loan is secured. FREE INFORMATION, ARTICLES AND FORMS CAN BE FOUND ON LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOG. Consultations available by appointment in person, by Skype and by phone.

————————————

Editor’s Introduction: The REAL truth behind securitization of so-called mortgage loans comes out in tax litigation. There a competent Judge who is familiar with the terms of art used in the world of finance makes judgements based upon real evidence and real comprehension of how each part affects another in the “securitization fail” (Adam Levitin) that took us by surprise. In the beginning (2007) I was saying the loans were securitized and the banks were saying there was no securitization and there was no trust.

Within a short period of time (2008) I deduced that there securitization had failed and that no Trust was getting the money from investors who thought they were buying mortgage backed securities and therefore the Trust could never be a holder in due course. I deduced this from the complete absence of claims that they were holders in due course. Whether they initiated foreclosure as servicer, trustee or trust there was no claim of holder in due course. This was peculiar because all the elements of a holder in due course appeared to be present because that is what was required in the securitization documents — at least in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and prospectus.

If the foreclosing party was a holder in due course they would merely have to show what the securitization required — a purchase in good faith of the loan documents for value without knowledge of any of borrower’s defenses.  This would bar virtually any defense by the borrower and allow them to get a judgment on the note and a foreclosure based upon the auxiliary contract for collateral — the mortgage. But they didn’t allege that for reasons that I have described in recent articles — they could not, as part of their prima facie case, prove that any party in their “chain” had funded or paid any money for the loan.

After analyzing this case, consider the possibility that there is no party in existence who has the power to foreclose. The Trust beneficiaries clearly don’t have that right. The Trust doesn’t either because they didn’t pay anything for it. The Trustee doesn’t have that right because it can only assert the rights of the Trust and Trust beneficiaries. The servicer doesn’t have that right because it derives its authority from the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which does not apply because the loan never made it into the Trust. The originator doesn’t have the right both because they never loaned the money and now disclaim any interest in the mortgage.

Then consider the fact that it is ONLY the investors who have their money at risk but that they failed to get any documentation securing their “involuntary loans.” They might have actions to recover money from the borrower, but those actions are far from secured, and certainly subject to numerous defenses. The investors are barred from enforcing either the note or the mortgage by the terms of the instruments, the terms of the PSA and the rule of law. They are left with an unsecured common law right of action to get what they can from a claim for unjust enrichment or some other type of claim that actually reflects the true facts of the original transaction in which the borrower did receive a loan, but not from anyone represented at the loan closing.

Now we have the Cashmere case. The only assumption that the Court seems to get wrong is that the investors were trust beneficiaries because the court was assuming that the Trust received the proceeds of sale of the bonds. This does not appear to be the case. But the case also explains why the investors wanted to take the position that they were trust beneficiaries in order to get the tax treatment they thought they were getting. So here we have the victims and perpetrators of the fraud taking the same side because of potentially catastrophic results in tax treatment — potentially treating principal payments as ordinary income. That would reduce the return on investment below zero. They lost.

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Cashmere-v-Dept-of-Revenue.pdf

I have changed fonts to emphasize certain portion of the following excerpts from the Case decision:

“Cashmere’s investments merely gave Cashmere the right to receive specific cash flows generated by the assets of the trust at specific times. But if the REMIC trustee failed to pay Cashmere according to the terms of the investment, Cashmere had no right to sell the mortgage loans or the residential property or any other asset of the trust to satisfy this obligation. Cf. Dep’t of Revenue v. Sec. Pac. Bank of Wash. Nat’/ Ass’n, 109 Wn. App. 795, 808, 38 P.3d 354 (2002) (deduction allowed because mortgage companies transferred ownership of loans to taxpayer who could sell the oans in event of default). Cashmere’s only recourse would be to sue the trustee for performance of the obligation or attempt to replace the trustee. The trustee’s successor would then take legal title to the underlying securities or other assets of the related trust. At no time could Cashmere take control of trust assets and reduce them to cash to satisfy a debt obligation. Thus, we hold that under the plain language of the statute, Cashmere’s investments in REMICs are not primarily secured by mortgages or deeds of trust.
12
“Cashmere argues that the investments are secure because the trustee is obligated to protect the investors’ interests and the trustee has the right to foreclose. But, this is not always the case. The underlying mortgages back all of the tranches, and a trustee must balance competing interests between investors of different tranches. Thus, a default in one tranche does not automatically give the holders of that tranche a right to force foreclosure. We hold that if the terms of the trust do not give beneficiaries an investment secured by trust assets, the trustee’s fiduciary obligations do not transform the investment into a secured investment.

“In a 1990 determination, DOR explained why interest earned from investments in REMICs does not qualify for the mortgage tax deduction. see Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, Determination No. 90-288, 10 Wash. Tax Dec. 314 (1990). A savings and loan association sought a refund of B&O taxes assessed on interest earned from investments in REMICs. The taxpayer argued that because interest received from investments in pass-through securities is deductible, interest received on REMICs
should be too. DOR rejected the deduction, explaining that with pass-through securities, the issuer holds the mortgages in trust for the investor. In the event of individual default, the issuer, as trustee, will foreclose on the property to satisfy the terms of the loan. In other words, the right to foreclose is directly related to homeowner defaults-in the event of default, the trustee can foreclose and the proceeds from foreclosure flow to investors who have a beneficial ownership interest in the underlying mortgage. Thus, investments in pass-through securities are “primarily secured by” first mortgages.

“By contrast, with REMICs, a trustee’s default may or may not coincide with an individual homeowner default. So, there may be no right of foreclosure in the event a trustee fails to make a payment. And if a trustee can and does foreclose, proceeds from the sale do not necessarily go to the investors. Foreclosure does not affect the trustee’s obligations vis-a-vis the investor. Indeed, the Washington Mutual REMIC here contains a commonly used form of guaranty: “For any month, if the master servicer receives a payment on a mortgage loan that is less than the full scheduled payment or if no payment is received at all, the master servicer will advance its own funds to cover the shortfall.” “The master servicer will not be required to make advances if it determines that those advances will not be recoverable” in the future. At foreclosure or liquidation, any proceeds will go “first to the servicer to pay back any advances it might have made in the past.” Similarly, agency REMICs, like the Fannie Mae REMIC Trust 2000-38, guarantee payments even if mortgage borrowers default, regardless of whether the issuer expects to recover those payments. Moreover, the assets held in a REMIC trust are often MBSs, not mortgages.

“So, if the trustee defaults, the investors may require the trustee to sell the MBS, but the investor cannot compel foreclosure of individual properties. DOR also noted that it has consistently allowed the owners of a qualifying mortgage to claim the deduction in RCW 82.04.4292. But the taxpayer who invests in REMICs does not have any ownership interest in the MBSs placed in trust as collateral, much less any ownership interest in the mortgage themselves. By contrast, a pass-through security represents a beneficial ownership of a fractional undivided interest in a pool of first lien residential mortgage loans. Thus, DOR concluded that while investments in pass-through securities qualify for the tax deduction, investments in REMICs do not. We should defer to DOR’s interpretation because it comports with the plain meaning of the statute.

“Moreover, this case is factually distinct. Borrowers making the payments that eventually end up in Cashmere’s REMIC investments do not pay Cashmere, nor do they borrow money from Cashmere. The borrowers do not owe Cashmere for use of borrowed money, and they do not have any existing contracts with Cashmere. Unlike HomeStreet, Cashmere did not have an ongoing and enforceable relationship with borrowers and security for payments did not rest directly on borrowers’ promises to repay the loans. Indeed, REMIC investors are far removed from the underlying mortgages. Interest received from investments in REMICs is often repackaged several times and no longer resembles payments that homeowners are making on their mortgages.

“We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that Cashmere’s REMIC investments are not “primarily secured by” first mortgages or deeds of trust on nontransient residential real properties. Cashmere has not shown that REMICs are secured-only that the underlying loans are primarily secured by first mortgages or deeds of trust. Although these investments gave Cashmere the right to receive specific cash flows generated by first mortgage loans, the borrowers on the original loans had no obligation to pay Cashmere. Relatedly, Cashmere has no direct or indirect legal recourse to the underlying mortgages as security for the investment. The mere fact that the trustee may be able to foreclose on behalf of trust beneficiaries does not mean the investment is “primarily secured” by first mortgages or deeds of trust.

Editor’s Note: The one thing that makes this case even more problematic is that it does not appear that the Trust ever paid for the acquisition or origination of loans. THAT implies that the Trust didn’t have the money to do so. Because the business of the trust was the acquisition or origination of loans. If the Trust didn’t have the money, THAT implies the Trust didn’t receive the proceeds of sale from their issuance of MBS. And THAT implies that the investors are not Trust beneficiaries in any substantive sense because even though the bonds were issued in the name of the securities broker as street name nominee (non objecting status) for the benefit of the investors, the bonds were issued in a transaction that was never completed.

Thus the investors become simply involuntary direct lenders through a conduit system to which they never agreed. The broker dealer controls all aspects of the actual money transfers and claims the amounts left over as fees or profits from proprietary trading. And THAT means that there is no valid mortgage because the Trust got an assignment without consideration, the Trustee has no interest in the mortgage and the investors who WERE the original source of funds were never given the protection they thought they were getting when they advanced the money. So the “lenders” (investors) knew nothing about the loan closing and neither did the borrower. The mortgage is not enforceable by the named “originator” because they were not the lender and they did not close as representative of the lenders.

There is no party who can enforce an unenforceable contract, which is what the mortgage is here. And the note is similarly defective — although if the note gets into the hands of a party who DID PAY value in good faith without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses and DID GET DELIVERY and ACCEPT DELIVERY of the loans then the note would be enforceable even if the mortgage is not. The borrower’s remedy would be to sue the people who put him into those loans, not the holder who is suing on the note because the legislature adopted the UCC and Article 3 says the risk of loss falls on the borrower even if there were defenses to the loan. The lack of consideration might be problematic but the likelihood is that the legislative imperative would be followed — allowing the holder in due course to collect from the borrower even in the absence of a loan by the so-called “originator.”

%d bloggers like this: