Watch that modification agreement. You are being forced to accept a virtual creditor instead of a real one.

Posted on September 29, 2020 by Neil Garfield

“Morality is an existential threat to commerce and politics. Although we legislate morality we refuse to enforce it. It is OK to lie to consumers or borrowers but not OK to lie to a financial institution who by the way is lying to you.” Neil F Garfield, October 2009 speech to regional bankruptcy conference in Phoenix Arizona.

The proposed modification agreement is an attempt to force or coerce the borrower into accepting a NEW term of the loan agreement that any attorney would advise against, to wit: acceptance of a designated creditor instead of a real one.  

The transmission of a proposed Modification Agreement by a “servicer” like Ocwen, PHH, SPS. SLS, Bayview etc. would be mail fraud if it was sent via USPS. It seeks to extort a signature from the borrower that directly acknowledges and accepts the existence of a virtual creditor.

The obligation was funded by a third party (investment bank) who did not take ownership of the debt, note or mortgage.

The reason the investment banks didn’t want ownership is that they were in the business of lending money without being subject (at least on the surface) to long standing federal and state statutes and common law restricting the behavior of lenders and requiring full and fair disclosure of the terms of the transaction. 

I recently received another modification agreement to review. The true nature of the agreement only appears when you read it carefully. If you do that, it is obvious.

In any normal circumstance where the lender existed and owned the underlying obligation because it had paid value for the note and mortgage, the lender, or its successor would be identified as such. And the Lender or Successor would insist on being named for its own protection, lest some third party claiming to be servicer runs off with the money.

This is not only custom and practice in the commercial banking and investment banking industry, it is also the only way, without committing legal malpractice, to draft such an agreement to protect the creditor from any intervention or claims.

But if you look carefully you will not see any reference like this: “Whereas, ABC was the owner of the loan account, note and mortgage and was succeeded by XYZ who purchased and paid value for said debt, note and mortgage on the __ day of ___, 2020,

Here is my recent analysis:

The modification agreement is very helpful because it corroborates what I have been saying.
*
The agreement first states that the parties to the agreement are the debtor, xxxxx yyyyy, and then two other parties, to wit: New Residential Investment Corp., [NewRes] who is not identified as to its role or relationship to the yyyyyyy loan, and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, [Ocwen] who is identified as the servicer or or agent for NewRes.
*
NewRes asserts in the public domain that it is an REIT. But records show that it grew out of a loan servicing business, which I believe to still be the case. In any event there is no representation or warranty in the modification agreement that states or even implies that NewRes is a creditor or lender. That status is raised by implication for the benefit of Ocwen. And who Ocwen is really working for is left out of the agreement altogether.
*
The statement that Ocwen is servicer for NewRes does not make Ocwen a servicer for the loan account. Unless NewRes is or was the owner of the account who paid value for the underlying debt, Ocwen’s agency might exist but it had nothing to do with the subject loan. This is why homeowners need lawyers arguing these points which, for most people, dulls the brain. “Because I said so” may work in the house with children but it was never intended to be accepted in courts of law.
*
So far the banks have fooled courts, lawyers and homeowners into thinking that this type of legal gibberish can be used with impunity and  that this gives the lawyers free license to characterize it in any way that is convenient for the success of a false, illegal and fraudulent foreclosure case. And they can do so because the lawyers are protected by the overly broad doctrine of  litigation immunity.
*
Authority is not magic. It can only occur if the loan account is owned by a creditor who paid value and authorized Ocwen to act as loan servicer or agent in their stead. Such a creditor would have the legal right to grant servicing rights to Ocwen in a servicing agreement (not a Power of Attorney).
*
When challenged, Ocwen is obliged under law to answer simple questions: (1) from whom did you receive authority to administer, collect or enforce the debt, note or mortgage? Is the grantor of such authority a person or entity that has paid value for the underlying obligation? If not, is the grantor representing a person or entity that has paid value for the underlying obligation?
*
Absent from the agreement is any reference or assertion or even implied assertion that NewRes paid value for the debt, or even the assertion that NewRes is the owner of the debt, note or mortgage.
*
This absence, in my opinion, is evidence of absence, to wit: that NewRes is not the owner of the debt, note and mortgage and does not maintain any entry in its bookkeeping records reflecting a purchase of the subject loan or any loan — at least not from anyone who owned it.
*

No such transaction could have occurred because the obligation was funded by a third party (investment bank) who did not take ownership of the debt, note or mortgage. In other words, there was nobody to pay and so payment was not made.

*
Instead the agreement says that Ocwen will be called the “Lender/Servicer or agent for Lender/Servicer (Lender).”
*
This statement corroborates my conclusion and factual findings that there is no loan account in existence, and therefore no creditor who possesses a legal claim for equitable or legal remedies to pay for losses attributed to the loan account as a result of the action or inaction of a homeowner.
*

If there was a party who had the yyyyy loan on its bookkeeping or accounting ledgers as an asset receivable it would be there because that entity had paid value for the debt — the key element and condition precedent to both ownership of the debt and the authority to enforce the note or mortgage.

Without authority from the owner of the underlying debt there is no legal foundation supporting the allegation that the claimant is a holder with rights to enforce. The allegation may be enough for pleadings but it is not enough for trial. Further the court has no authority to apply any legal presumptions arising out of the possession of the note unless the creditor is identified.

*
The agreement is clearly an attempt to insert Ocwen as the lender for purposes of the agreement. But Ocwen is not the lender nor a creditor nor even an authorized servicer on behalf of any party who has paid value for the underlying debt. NewRes appears to be yet another nominee in a long list of nominees and designees to shelter the investment banks from liability, even while they pursue profit by weaponizing administration, collection and enforcement of loans. 
*

The modification agreement is an attempt to force or coerce the borrower into accepting a term of the loan agreement that any attorney would advise against, to wit: acceptance of a designated creditor instead of a real one.  

*
This is further evidence of deceptive servicing and lending practices. They are evading the responsibility imposed by law to identify the creditor and the authority to represent the creditor. They are evading the responsibility imposed by law to provide an accurate accounting for the establishment and current status of the alleged obligation.
*
The reason for this behavior is that there is no current obligation claimed by any company to be owed to them as a result of ownership of the loan account arising from a transaction in which value was paid for the underlying debt.
*
Accordingly there can be no authority to act as servicer, agent, or “acting lender”, nominee or designee.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Filed under: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, investment banking, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, Presumptions, prima facie case, Servicer, sham transactions, TILA, TILA rescission, TRIAL OBJECTIONS | 2 Comments »

Rescission and Burden of Proof

Posted on September 25, 2019 by Neil Garfield

There are winners and losers in every courtroom. When dealing with TILA Rescission under 15 USC §1635 you must go the extra mile in not merely showing the court why you should win, but also revealing that the opposition is not actually losing anything. The same logic applies to every foreclosure where securitization is either obvious or lurking in the background.

The bottom line is that no payment of value has ever been paid or retained as a financial interest in the debt by the named claimant nor anyone in privity with the named claimant. Once you can show the court the possibility or probability that the foreclosure is simply a ruse to generate revenue then it is easier for the court to side with you. Once you show the court that your opposition refuses to disclose simple basic questions about ownership of the debt then you have the upper hand. Use it or lose it.

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

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.
========================

Another analysis just completed for a client: The situation is that the homeowner sent a notice of rescission under the TILA REscission Statute 15 U.S.C. §1635 within days of having “consummated” the loan agreement. By statute that notice of rescission canceled the loan agreement and substituted in place of the loan agreement a statutory scheme for repayment of the debt which is NOT void. The notice of rescission only voids the written note and mortgage, it does not void the debt. The free house argument is pure myth.

The client goes on to ask how we can prove when the transactions occurred and who were the parties to those transactions and when they occurred. The answer is that you will never prove that. But you can raise an inference that the claimant is not the owner of the debt who has paid and retains value in the debt such that a successful foreclosure will not be used for restitution of an unpaid debt.

By undermining the presumptions arising from possession of facially valid and recorded documents you eliminate the ability of your opposition to use legal presumptions and thus require them to prove their case without those presumptions. The simple truth is that generally speaking they can never prove a case without legal presumptions. Once the presumptions are gone there is no case.

Here is my response:

It sounds like you are on solid ground. But as you probably know trial judges and even appellate judges and justices bend over backwards to either ignore or rule against the notice of rescission and its effect. For a long time, the bench has rebelled against the Truth in Lending Act generally. They rebelled against TILA rescission viscerally. Despite the unanimous SCOTUS decision in Jesinoski both the trial and lower appellate courts are unanimous in opposition to following the dictates of the statute and following the rule of law enunciated by SCOTUS.

You must be extremely aggressive and confrontative in standing your ground.
*
As for the “free house”  argument the answer is simple. There is no free house. unless you are seeking to quiet title, which I think is an unproductive strategy if you not on solid ground with TILA Rescission. You are only seeking to eliminate the current people from attempting to enforce the mortgage, collect on the note or enforce the note. The last point might be your weakest point (without rescission). Enforcement of the note under Article 3 of The Uniform Commercial Code is much more liberal the enforcement of the security instrument under Article 9.
*
It is actually possible that they could get a judgement on the note for monetary damages but not a judgment on the mortgage (without rescission in play). They can only get a judgment on the mortgage if the claimant has paid value for the debt. of course all of this should be irrelevant in view of the rescission which completely nullifies the note and mortgage.
Education of the court is extremely important. There is no free house in rescission. The obligation to repay remains the same. That obligation is not secured by the mortgage which has been rendered void nor is it payable pursuant to the terms of the promissory note which was also rendered void by the rescission. the obligation under contract (loan agreement)is simply replaced buy a statutory obligation to repay the debt.
They had ample opportunity to comply with the statute and get repaid. They didn’t. That is no fault of the homeowner.
*
If they want repayment of the debt they might be able to still get it. If they produce a claimant who has paid value for the debt and had no notice of the rescission and who regarded your current claimants as unlawful intervenors, the same as you, then it is possible but the court might allow the actual owner of the debt to comply with the statute and seek repayment of the debt.
*
At least that is what you will argue. You probably know that no such person exists. The ownership of the debt has been split from the party who paid value for it. So they probably don’t have anyone who qualifies.
*
As for your last question about discovering the actual dates on which the debt was purchased pursuant to Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as a condition precedent to enforcement of the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust), the answer is that neither the debt nor the note were ever purchased for value. The whole point is that they’re saying that these transactions occurred when in fact they did not.
*

The only transaction that actually took place in which money exchanged hands is the one in which the certificates were sold to the investors. It might be successfully argued that the Investment Bank had paid the value for the debt so that is another possibility. If that argument succeeds then for a brief moment in time the Investment Bank was both the owner of the debt and the party who had paid value for it. But then it subsequently sold all attributes of the debt to the investors. the investors did not acquire any right title or interest directly in the subject debt, note or mortgage the only correct legal analysis would be that the Investment Bank retained bare naked title to the debt but had divested itself of any Financial interest in the debt. That divestiture generally occurred within 30 days from the date of funding the origination or acquisition of the loan.

*

So if you are looking for the dates of transactions in which money exchanged hands in exchange for ownership of the note you are not going to find them. but strategically you want to engage in exactly that investigation as you have indicated. there’s no need to hire a private investigator who will never have access to the money Trail starting with the investors in the Investment Bank. So your investigation would be limited to aggressive discovery. Your goal in discovery is to reveal the fact that they refuse to answer basic questions about the identity of the party who currently owns the debt by reason of having paid for it as required by article 9 section 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted by state statute.

*
This requires properly worded Discovery demands and aggressive efforts to compel Discovery, followed by motions for sanctions and probably a motion in limine.
*
Since you have a notice of rescission within the 3-year time period, what you are actually revealing is that your opposition has no legal standing. Their claims to have legal standing are entirely dependent upon the loan agreement which has been cancelled by your notice of rescission. Unless they can now also state that they are the owners of the debt by reason of having paid for it, they are not a creditor or a lender. therefore they have no legal standing to challenge legal sufficiency of the notice of rescission nor any standing to seek collection on the debt. And they certainly have no legal standing to enforce the note and mortgage which have been rendered void according to 15 USC 1635.
*
Their problem now is that their only claim now arises from the TILA rescission statute — and all such claims are barred by the statute of limitations on claims arising from the Truth in Lending Act. That time has long since expired.

*

It appears that no judge is going to like this argument even if it is completely logical and valid according to all generally accepted standards for legal analysis.

*
So you’re going to have to address the elephant in the living room. The fact remains that if you are successful, as you should be, you will end up with a windfall gain. The judge knows that and denying it will only undermine your credibility. The Counterpoint is that if your opposition does not own the debt by virtue of having paid for it pursuant to the requirements of statute then their attempt at foreclosure is really an attempt to generate Revenue. If the Foreclosure is not going to provide money for restitution of an unpaid debt it can’t be anything else other than Revenue.
*
In order to drill that point home you are going to need to argue, contrary to the judge’s bias, that not only is the current claimant not the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it, but that the current claimant is not an authorized representative of any party who paid for the debt by reason of having paid for it and that the proceeds of foreclosure, if allowed, will never be used to pay down the debt. Again the only way you’re going to accomplish this is through very aggressive Discovery and motions.
*
Don’t attempt to prove the dates of transactions, the data for which is within the sole care custody and control of your opposition, and can be easily manipulated, if you only focus only on the paperwork.
*
Don’t accept that burden of proof. The only way your opposition has gotten this far is because of legal presumptions arising from that claimed possession of the original note. you need to research those legal presumptions. Generally speaking the legal presumption of fact must include the conclusion that the claimant is the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it. Possession of the note is considered the same as title to the debt, The presumption arises therefore that possession of the note is ownership of the debt and the further presumption is that ownership of the debt is not likely to have been transferred without payment of value.

Legal presumptions are subject to rebuttal. the way to rebut the presumption is not by proving a particular fact but raising an inference that destroys the presumption. And the way to do that is by asking questions about payment to value for the debt (not just a note on mortgage) and pointing to the refusal of your opposition to give you an answer and to produce documents corroborating their answer.

After the appropriate motions, you will be able to legally require an inference that they are not the owner of the debt by reason of having paid for it and that they don’t represent anyone who does own the debt by reason of having paid for it. Once the presumption is rebutted, the burden of proof falls back onto your opposition. and because they violated the rules of discovery, your motion should demand that they be prohibited from introducing evidence to the contrary of your inference that they don’t own the debt by reason of having paid for it and they don’t represent anyone who owns the debt and who paid for it.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, Motions, prima facie case, quiet title, sham transactions, TILA, TILA rescission, Title, trial strategy | 9 Comments »

Finally a Judge Asks the right Questions about TILA Rescission and Invites Briefs

Posted on August 5, 2019 by Neil Garfield

The time may now be coming where the court systems and Federal and State legislatures must come to terms with two inescapable legal facts:

(1) That borrowers who sent TILA rescission notices — and particularly those who sent them within 3 years of consummation of the mortgage — still own the land that was deemed “lost” in foreclosure.

(2) That such borrowers possess valid claims to recover title. possession and money damages. 

It was bound to happen and now it has. In one case, a judge is asking the following questions and inviting briefs on the following subjects:

  1. What is the effect of the failure to return consideration upon an attempt to exercise the right of TILA Rescission?  
  2. What is the effect on rescission if the borrower continues to pay? 
  3. Does TILA pertain to refinancing?

See HOW TO FRAME TILA RESCISSION IN YOUR PLEADINGS

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

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.
========================
The Tila Rescission Statute 15 USC §1635 requires, as a condition precedent to demanding payment of the borrower’s debt, that the parties who received money from the borrower arising out of the loan agreement return all such money to the borrower first before anyone can make a claim for repayment. This is why bank lawyers have long advised their arrogant bank clients that failure to follow the rules set forth in the TILA Rescission statute could not only result in loss of enforcement of the mortgage which is automatic, but also loss of the right to enforce the debt.
*
The investment houses, who were the real parties in interest behind the origination or acquisition of residential loans, have long been bullying their way through the TILA Rescission statute since it undermines the value of the derivative infrastructure built and sold over every loan. Thus far they have succeeded in getting virtually all courts. except the Supreme Court of the United States, to go along with the bank narrative regarding 15 USC §1635. In plain terms they got what they wanted: judges ignored TILA rescission and entered orders as though it didn’t exist. But it did exist by operation of law and the US SUpreme Court said so.
*
Failure to return consideration bars collection of the debt. And there are two other things that the “lenders” are required to do as conditions precedent (return cancelled original note, which we all know they don’t have, and file a satisfaction and release of the mortgage in the county records so that the world will know that rescission has occurred. This is the replacement for cancellation of the loan agreement. The new “agreement” is set forth by the statute.
*
The judge doesn’t ask “effect on what?” The mortgage in all events is void, by operation of law. Neither the borrower nor the  creditor can effectively take any out of court action that changes that.
*
There is no unilateral or bilateral action that can be taken by either or both parties to change something that is effective “by operation of law.” The only exception MIGHT be (and probably WILL be) that rescissions sent outside the 3 year period of expiration could conceivably be ignored, but if they are recorded in county records only a party with legal standing could have the rescission notice removed from the chain of title with a court order.
*
And the problem for the banks is that they have no party who could be defined as a creditor — a party who had paid value for the debt and owns the debt, to wit: a party to whom the debt is currently owed. Another way of saying it, if you were listening to to the forensic auditor seminar last Friday, is that only a party who was carrying the borrower’s debt as an asset on its balance sheet as a loan receivable could claim the status of owner of the debt i.e., creditor.
*
The genius of the way securitization has been practiced with respect to residential loans, is that there is nobody who takes a loss from nonpayment of any debt. Nobody is entitled to actually receives the borrower’s payments or the proceeds from a foreclosure or other sale. The money that is received therefore, is revenue upon which they pay no tax because they report it as repayment of debt rather than income. This explains why you can’t get a straight answer on “who owns my debt.” The answer is nobody. But that answer is counter intuitive which is another way of saying nobody wants to actually believe that.
*
The issue is whether the borrower’s should forfeit their homes on a scheme that was based upon receipt of revenue rather than repayment of debt?
*
TILA Rescission highlights this problem because it cuts down the veil or curtain behind which the banks hide. There is no more loan agreement and there is no more note or mortgage from which all sorts of legal presumptions can arise. While I would have thought this day would come sooner we finally have our first judge asking the right questions. Thus the hard “talk” begins.
*
  • What is worrisome is the Judge’s use of the word “attempt.” He phrases the questions in the context of an “attempt at rescission” rather than the event of rescission. Either the rescission was sent or it wasn’t. In Jesinoski v Countrywide that is the end of the issue. If it was sent then TILA rescission is effective by operation of law. There is no attempt which insinuates that TILA rescission is a claim rather than an action with legal consequence. There is no attempt and there is no claim.
*
Paying on the mortgage is only to protect the borrower’s credit rating and prevent action to foreclose on the mortgage that does not exist but will obviously be treated as existing in the current judicial climate. It does nothing to effect what has already occurred by operation of law. The loan agreement is cancelled and with it the note and mortgage became void. The only consequence, rather than effect, is such payments increase the amount of money due back from the parties to whom the money was given or from  parties who originated the loan agreement under TILA or unjust enrichment. No person, whether borrower or lender, can “waive” a legal event that occurred by operation of law any more than they can ignore a court order without being in contempt of court.
*
TILA does pertain to refinancing. I don’t know what is meant by instant “circumstances.” Many “modifications” are actually refinancing. The creditor has changed and remains concealed. The entire purpose of the banks in modification is to validate what is otherwise a void or unenforceable loan agreement using undue duress or even extortion to get the borrower to sign away rights.

Filed under: foreclosure, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, prima facie case, quiet title, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission | 13 Comments »

Tonight! How to Use TILA Rescission in Court! The Neil Garfield Show 6PM EDT

Posted on August 1, 2019 by Neil Garfield

FORENSIC AUDITORS TAKE NOTE

Thursdays LIVE!

The Neil Garfield Show

or prior episodes

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

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

There are many potential claims arising out of attempted foreclosure after TILA rescission is effective.
*
But one of them is not a violation of your rescission rights. By pleading that you are putting into play the burden of proving the effectiveness of rescission which has already occurred by operation of law.
*
By pleading or arguing such a notion you are inviting interpretation form a court that is only too happy to reject your claim. In most cases your right to enforce the duties of a lender under the TILA Rescission statute, 15 USC §1635 has long since expired under TILA so you have no claim to violation of your rescission rights. You are making a claim that does not exist.
*
Nearly all successful foreclosure defenses are based upon the defense narrative that the party bringing the foreclosure action has no right to bring it. In the case where rescission has been effected, there is no claim for foreclosure anymore. The debt remains but there is a new way to collect it under the TILA Rescission statute.
*
You do have claims for violations of other statutes that protect consumers against fraudulent or wrongful claims and provide damages and the basis for declaratory, injunctive and supplemental relief. So you probably have a claim under the FDCPA in addition to other statutes. And you have claims under common law.

Filed under: foreclosure, Pleading, prima facie case, quiet title, standing, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission | Leave a comment »

How to Frame TILA Rescission in Your Pleadings

Posted on July 31, 2019 by Neil Garfield

In many cases it is the homeowner or their attorney that is confused about the effects of TILA rescission. It is much simpler than what I am seeing. It is an error to present it as a claim. The simple fact about TILA rescission is generally that you are still the owner of the property, free and clear of any legal encumbrance on the title. The debt still exists but the method of collection has changed because of 15 U.S.C. §1635.

Foreclosure is impossible because foreclosure is the exercise of rights under a mortgage or deed of trust that no longer legally exists.

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

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.
========================

The job of the forensic auditor in the context of TILA rescission, is simply to determine whether a notice of rescission was ever sent, when it was sent, when the loan agreement was consummated, and whether the notice of rescission was recorded in the county records. The report from a forensic auditor could quote 15 U.S.C. §1635 and then report on whether the notice of rescission complies with the facial elements of the statute.

If so, assuming the forensic reporter is not a title expert, the report could refer to the Jesinoski decision and opinions delivered by outside counsel that the property is owned by the homeowner, free and clear of the encumbrance. I do not believe the report should argue that the debt is uncollectible because enforcement is barred by a statute of limitations. That is a legal argument outside the purview of a forensic auditor.

The same instructions would apply to pleading by a homeowner or their attorney. The situation should be presented as the property is no longer encumbered by a mortgage or deed of trust that no longer legally exists. If the foreclosure is based upon enforcement of the mortgage or deed of trust legal standing does not exist by definition. Neither a court nor any claimant possesses any legal right or even argument to take any action in or out of court if that action is based upon the enforcement of a document that legally does not exist anymore.

In a lawsuit against the many parties who seek to enforce void encumbrances, the homeowner should seek declaratory, injunctive and supplemental relief based on the simple fact pattern that the mortgage or deed of trust has no legal existence but the defendants are using it anyway. Therefore the homeowner needs a judgment from the court declaring that the defendants have no right to enforce a document that has no legal existence, issuing an injunction against the defendants preventing them from taking any action in or out of court based upon rights that no longer exist, and granting the homeowner money damages, if applicable.

The prima facie case for the homeowner is simply that the notice of rescission was sent, and that the statute makes rescission effective by operation of law, and that the defendants are proceeding as though they still have a right to foreclose or to collect the debt contrary to the method for collection described in 15 U.S.C. §1635.

I think the problem could be that lawyer’s favor pleading a violation of statute and therefore present TILA rescission as a claim. This is a mistake. It is an event. The pursuit of a foreclosure is not, in my opinion, a violation of the TILA rescission statute. It is the pursuit of a claim that does not exist. The claimant does not exist is the right to foreclose. The claim that still exists is the right to collect on the debt.

There is only one party category that possesses the right to collect on the debt under the TILA rescission statute, to wit: it is a party who has paid value for the debt and therefore owns it. Theoretically the party to brought the foreclosure could be owners of the debt, but usually that is not the case. Usually they are concealing any information about the identity of the owners of the debt. The can only get away with that if a notice of rescission has not been sent. It is only the notice of rescission that removes and cancels the original loan agreement containing the right to foreclose.

Therefore any pleading, motion or argument from a party whose legal standing was dependent upon the existence of the mortgage or deed of trust must be ignored unless they first establish that they still have legal standing because they paid value for the debt and they own the debt, or because they are authorized representatives of an identified owner of the debt.

While I have stated on these pages that any facially valid notice of rescission triggers the effects of 15 USC Section 1635, it is evident that the courts, including the US Supreme Court, will take the position that only notices sent within the three year period of expiration stated in the statute have any chance of being considered. But that is the ONLY occasion in which a notice of rescission can be ignored.

As stated by many bank lawyers, ignoring notices of rescission that are properly sent within the three year expiration period will likely eventually produce a result where the parties seeking to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust can neither enforce the encumbrance nor the debt. Those bank lawyers have warned about negative effects on the derivative infrastructure that is built over such loans if the debt can no longer be enforced because it is barred by statutes of limitation. The banks chose to bully their way through this.

In my opinion the outcome of all this doubt and uncertainty is clear. Eventually the investment banks will pay a very heavy price for ignoring lawfully sent notices of TILA Rescission sent within three years from the date that the loan documents were signed.

 

Filed under: foreclosure, jurisdiction, legal standing, Pleading, prima facie case, TILA rescission, Title | 88 Comments »

No the Mortgages Are Not Securities, But the “Certificates” Do Not Qualify for Exemption As “Mortgaged Backed”

Posted on June 12, 2019 by Neil Garfield

For those straining to find a way to categorize mortgage loans as securities I offer this based upon my licensing, training and experience as a Wall Street Broker and Investment Banker and as an attorney who has practiced law, including securities law for over 42 years.

You are climbing the right tree but you are on the wrong branch, in my opinion. Despite possible legal and logical arguments for your point of view there is no way any court is going to take the common mortgage loan and say it is a security, and therefore was subject to regulation, registration, disclosure and sales restrictions. And the secondary market does not rise to the level of a free exchange. While loans appear to be traded under the guise of securitization they are not actually traded.

BUT
I like your reasoning when applied to (a) certificates issued by investment banks in which the investment bank makes promises to pay a passive income stream and (b) derivative and hedge contracts issued on the basis of deriving their value from the certificates.
*
The specific challenge I think should be on the status of the certificates or “bonds” issued by the investment banks. If securitization in theory were a reality then under the 1998 exemption they would not be treated as securities and could not be regulated.
*
That would mean that the fictitious name used by the investment bank was a real entity, an existing Trust (or special purpose vehicle) (a) organized and existing under the laws of some jurisdiction and (b) the trust actually acquired loans through (i) purchase for value or (ii) through  conveyance from a trustor/settlor who owned the loans, debts, notes and mortgages.
*
But that isn’t what happened in practice. The entire business plan of the investment banks who participated in this scheme was predicated on their ability to sell the loans multiple times in multiple ways to multiple layers and classes of investors, thus creating profits far in excess of the amount of  the loan.
*
Right now each of those sales is considered a separate private contract that is (a) separate and apart from the loan agreement and (b) not subject to securities regulation due to exemption under the 1998 law that does not allow securities regulation of mortgage-backed instruments.
*
So the goal should be to show that
*
(a) the securitization scheme was entirely based on the loan agreement under the single transaction and step transaction doctrines and therefore was not separate from the loan transactions
*
(b) the certificates or bonds were not mortgage-backed because the holders have no right, title or interest to the loan agreements, debts, notes or mortgages and
*
(c) the derivative and hedge contracts deriving their value from the certificates were securities based upon the certificates (“bonds”) that are more in the nature of warrants and options on the value of the certificates rather than any direct interest in the debt, note or mortgage of any borrower.
*
Hence both the certificates and hedge contracts and all other derivatives of the certificates would be subject to regulation as securities. Based upon information I have that is very suggestive although not conclusive, it appears that the Internal Revenue Service has already arrived at the conclusion that the certificates are not mortgage-backed and the trusts are not viable entities because in order to have a valid trust it must have assets and active affairs. It must also have identifiable beneficiaries, a trustor etc.
*
None of those elements are present or even alleged or asserted by the lawyers for the foreclosure mills. The only “beneficiary” is the investment bank, not the certificate holders who all expressly or impliedly disclaim any right, title or interest in the loans, debts, notes or mortgages and have no right to enforce. This has already been decided in tax court. The owners of certificates are not the holders of secured debt.
*
There is no “res” or “thing” that is entrusted to the named Trustee of the so-called REMIC Trust for the benefit of identifiable beneficiaries. There is no settlor who conveyed loans to the Trustee to hold in trust for identifiable beneficiary except that as a catch-all the investment bank is named as beneficiary of any title to anything that might be attributed to the trust, if only the trust existed.
*
Attacking this from the top down is the job of regulators who refuse to do so. But the attack can occur from the bottom up in courts. As shown above, in any case where a trust is referenced in a foreclosure there is no legal standing. That is there is no existing entity that owns the debt. The investment bank funded the origination or acquisition of the loan but contemporaneously sold off the value of the debt, the risk of loss, the cash flow and other attributes of the loan.
*
The notes had to be destroyed and a new culture based upon images had to be put in place even if it violated law. The problem with the courts is not that they don;t get it; I think a lot of judges get it but don’t like the outcome of applying the law as it currently exists. So they wink and nod at fabricated notes, assignments and endorsements.
But those same judges, when confronted with unexplained deficiencies are forced to rule in favor of borrowers. And they do. This would best be done in mass joinder, class action or some other vehicle where resources could be pooled, but the procedural deck is stacked against such efforts.

===============================
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.
========================

Filed under: boarding process, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, forensic investigation, forgery, investment banking, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, politics, prima facie case, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, TILA rescission, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | 8 Comments »

TILA Rescission and Bankruptcy: What Happens When the Bankruptcy Court Gets it Wrong

Posted on March 1, 2019 by Neil Garfield

When TILA rescission has occurred the encumbrance is eliminated and the debt converts from one arising from a promissory note to one arising from a statute — 15 USC §1635. The debt then becomes subject to the statute of limitations for claims under TILA because the debt now arises under TILA. If the statute has run the debt is barred. Thus when the court gets it wrong and ignores the TILA Rescission it is warping the value of the bankruptcy estate as well as allowing secured status to unsecured creditors.

==============================
DONATE to LivingLies
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 motions for reopening cases in bankruptcy based upon error in ignoring TILA Rescission generally fail to drill home the fact that the error causes the entire bankruptcy estate to be valued incorrectly.

I think the motion is missing something — the effect on the BKR estate that has been overlooked. By virtue of 15 USC §1635 the original loan contract has, by operation of law, been replaced with a statutorily imposed new agreement, the terms of which are spelled out in the statute.

*
This means, as per the statute and REG Z which must be read along with the statute, that the note is replaced by a new obligation and the mortgage has been eliminated — all by the express wording of the statute “by operation of law.” Hence the obligation to repay continues as an enforceable liability provided that the claimant satisfies the conditions precedent set forth in the statute. But that obligation is no longer secured — for the express purposes of allowing the borrower to seek new financing from which the obligation could be repaid.
*
The parties claiming to be owners of the debt or claiming to be representatives of the owner of the debt failed to comply with their obligations under the new agreement. Hence any right to enforce the obligation became inchoate. That failure was not in any way caused by the borrower.
*
The obligation arises not from the original loan agreement but from the statutorily imposed obligation that replaced the original loan agreement. The statute is part of the Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Claims under TILA are barred by the statute of limitations contained within that act.
*
Hence the obligation was wrongfully treated as secured when it had been converted to unsecured by the statute. And the obligation itself is now barred by the statute of limitations.
*
The effect on the bankruptcy estate is obvious — any claimants under the original loan agreement are moved from secured to unsecured and, since they no longer have the benefit of the written instruments (the void note and mortgage) they must establish their claim by filing a proof of claim in which they establish ownership of the obligation and thereby establish that the they hold the risk of pecuniary loss, without which they cannot be paid.
*
No party has established ownership of the statutorily imposed obligation. The time for pressing such a claim is now barred by the statute of limitations.
*
Hence the value of the estate that was overlooked is understated by the fair market value of the property that is now unsecured and the liabilities of the petitioner are overstated by whatever amount was erroneously claimed by the claimants.
*
These effects change the entire picture of the estate having an undeniable effect on all creditors and the petitioner. The court erred in ignoring these indisputable facts and laws thus casting the estate in an entirely erroneous light. This can only be corrected by re-opening the case and entering orders consistent with the true facts and applicable laws.

Filed under: bankruptcy, foreclosure, TILA, TILA rescission, Title | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

The Facts Behind Smoke and Mirrors

Posted on January 24, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Nearly everyone is confused as to the identity of the real holder in due course, or the “creditor,” or the owner of the debt. Nearly everyone thinks that ultimate it is investors who purchased certificates.

In fact there is no holder in due course and there never will be in most instances. There was never any possibility for a holder in course claim because in most cases the origination of the loan took place in what is called a table funded loan, which is against public policy as a matter of law (as expressed in the Truth in Lending Act).

The creditor or owner of the debt is actually a party who was never disclosed in any of the dealings with borrowers and is not adequately disclosed in the secondary market or pretend underwritings and sales of certificates.

==============================
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.
==========================

A Client just asked me if we should consider all the disclosed players as a single entity. Here is what I replied:

You could take that position but in reality they are all taking orders from a single entity that does not appear anywhere in the paper trail.

But it’s not like they are receiving orders on specific cases or events. They have standing orders to which they have agreed.

The party from whom they are receiving instructions is an investment bank who posed as an underwriter for the issuance and sale of bogus certificates from a nonexistent trust. The investment bank used money obtained under false pretenses from investors.

The investment bank might, under law, be considered a creditor — but it can’t assert that without opening itself up to a myriad of liabilities. In fact the investment will move heaven and Earth to avoid the revelation that the only financial transaction that means anything as a basis for foreclosure involves the investment bank and NOT any of the other disclosed parties with whom you are in litigation.

So in the end, the bottom line is that there is party who is willing to step up and claim status as creditor or owner of the debt — ever.

If you push this to the extreme in litigation you get some interesting results. Instead of being afraid that they will pop out a real creditor or owner of the debt, you should know that that in the end they will refuse to produce any such party.

And you will know that when they do assert or imply that this is the creditor you should look carefully at their wording and realize they are using a sham entity to cover up the fact that the investment bank who started it all is the real party in interest.

It is the investment banks’ unwillingness (for good reason) to be revealed as having anything to do with the loan, foreclosure or any other transactions that can be used as leverage if you push hard enough.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, Discovery -Subpoena, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, Servicer, TILA, TILA rescission, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Tolling the Statute of Limitations by Initiating Administrative Processes

Posted on January 23, 2019 by Neil Garfield

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.

 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Pleading, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

“True Lender” Lawsuits Causing Business and Legal Headaches for Banks

Posted on January 21, 2019 by Neil Garfield

hat tip Bill Paatalo

You can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other end as well. Or, if you like, you can’t eat your cake and still have it.

Banks used third party intermediaries all the time, and in non-mortgage loans they are considered as the real lender for purposes of being able to charge the interest rate stated in the consumer loan agreement.

But the situation is quite different and maybe the reverse in most alleged mortgage loans for the past 20 years. Usually a non-bank funding source was using a third party intermediary to originate the loan. Hence the term “originator” which in reality means nothing more than “salesman.”

The actual party funding the loan is not disclosed at all, ever. In most cases it is an investment bank which is different from a commercial bank, but the investment bank is not funding the loan with its own money but rather using money diverted from the advances of investors who thought they were purchasing mortgage backed securities.

In other words the investors think they are getting certificates that are backed by mortgage loans when in fact, in most cases, the certificate holders have no claim on any debt, note or mortgage executed or incurred by a borrower.

Since the loans are mostly originated rather than purchased by a Trust as advertised to investors, the actual ledner is neither disclosed nor shown on any of the closing documents possibly because it is impossible to determine the identity of a “Lender” whose money was  used from an undifferentiated slush fund in which money from investors is intermingled. Information ascertained thus far indicates that the slush fund includes money from the sale of certificates in the name of multiple nonexistent trusts.

Hence the issue of who is the “true lender.” But the Bank’s position in court in unsecured loans may be its undoing when it pretends to litigate a loan in which it was never actually a party to the loan transaction or the loan documents.

==============================
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.
==========================

see https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/a-remedy-for-true-lender-lawsuits-already-exists

So if you think about it, you can explain why most documents in foreclosures are pure fabrications reflecting nonexistent transactions. If you look closely at these documents you will nearly always be able to ascertain a gap which makes the documents NOT FACIALLY VALID. Or, in the alternative, if the documents are facially valid, it is because of forgery, robosigning and fabrication.

Such a gap might be the oft-used “attorney-in-fact” designation. Without reference to a specific power of attorney and a warranty that it has not been revoked and that it covers the execution of the proffered document, the reference to “attorney-in-fact” is meaningless. Hence the document signed by Ocwen as attorney in fact, is really just a signature by Ocwen who is not in the chain of title, making the document facially invalid. In most cases Ocwen (or whoever is the claimed “servicer” is executing as attorney in fact for a real entity (like US Bank) with a nonexistent role — trustee of a nonexistent trust. Remember that US Bank is a real bank but is not acting in a real role. 

By attacking the facial validity of such false documents you are also attacking jurisdiction, which is a deal killer for the banks. Bank lawyers are coming to their own conclusions — independently of their arrogant bank clients and independently of the foreclosure mills who blindly follow whatever instructions they receive electronically. Bank lawyers see trouble on the horizon coming from TILA REscission, and the lack of REAL facial validity of the documents being used in foreclosure which are at odds with the documents used to sell derivatives, synthetic derivatives and hedge products all based upon the same loans.

Here is a quote from the above-referenced article on “true lender lawsuits” brought by borrowers who seek to avoid interest from a non-bank as being  contrary to state law:

As a general rule, the fact that a bank subcontracts marketing, loan servicing or other “ministerial,” or nonessential, lending activities to third-party service providers has no effect on the bank’s ability to export its home state’s interest rate under federal law. To this end, the Bank Service Company Act expressly authorizes banks to utilize the services of third-parties. In short, under the federal banking laws, there is no “tipping point” beyond which a servicer becomes the lender in lieu of the bank — so long as the bank remains the party that is performing the primary, or “non-ministerial,” lending activities laid out in the three-part test, the bank is the only lender.

Yet federal bank agency guidance is silent regarding true lender risk, despite the growing number of states in which such lawsuits have arisen. The FDIC published draft third-party lending guidance in July 2016 that had the potential to provide some clarity, but it is still pending. Moreover, the guidance merely observes in a footnote that “courts are divided on whether third-parties may avail themselves of such preemption.”

As to whether a bank’s status as the lender could be undermined by its use of agents, the guidance says nothing. This silence is problematic because, as things stand, one could evaluate the facts of the same loan program and reach opposite conclusions with respect to the program’s status under usury laws depending on whether federal interest rate preemption rules or judge-made, state true lender rules are applied.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, Fabrication of documents, FDIC, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, prima facie case, Servicer, TILA, TILA rescission, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Solving the Puzzle: Settlements with Homeowners Are Rising

Posted on January 16, 2019 by Neil Garfield

Hat tip Michael Bazemore

It’s not easy to see but if you look at the court docket after a ruling against the parties designated as “foreclosing parties” you can see that these cases are often dismissed with reference to an agreement or settlement between the parties.

The typical pleading asking the court to dismiss the case will read as follows:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff X and Defendant Y that pursuant to [Federal][State] Rule of Civil Procedure (41(a)(2) [Federal] this action and all causes of action contained therein shall be dismissed with prejudice.

It is further Stipulated by and between Plaintiff and Defendant that each party shall bear their own costs and attorney fees associated with this action.

The parties are submitting a proposed order of dismissal concurrently with this Stipulation.

I took that wording from a case involving a homeowner asserting rights, among other things, that focussed on TILA Rescission. We all know that the consensus is that no court will rule in favor of homeowners. But here you have a settlement that the bank considered too risky to bet on — a case that could have served as precedent for the proposition that there is no note, there is no mortgage and the debt that could have been pursued under 15 USC §1635 (TILA Rescission) is now barred by Statute of Limitations (often stated as “SOT).

I am seeing more of these of late indicating that homeowners who fight aggressively are winning their case and forcing the banks to settle.

PRACTICE NOTE: I think it is error to predicate your thinking about settlement value on the value of the case as it is conventionally determined. The banks are not evaluating cases for settlement based upon what a particular homeowner might gain from a particular verdict. They are evaluating the case based upon potential exposure of the entire fraudulent scheme of foreclosure and the liability associated with false claims of securitization, dubbed “securitization fail” by Adam Levitin.

The threshold question of whether they will settle at all is answered by their evaluation of exposure. The amount of money damages paid is based upon the likely verdict in the case. But it remains to be seen as to whether those with an appetite for risk might bargain based upon the exposure in all cases rather than the risk of a negative verdict in this one particular case.

The index for such valuation could be based upon the amount of gain realized by the investment bank who posed as underwriter and perhaps Master Servicer of a nonexistent trust. Through sales and trading of derivatives based upon the signature of the borrower the investment bank collects as much as 40 times the principal due on the note without any allocation to the benefit of the investors or the borrowers. My opinion is that both investors and borrowers should share in the bounty of $10 million taken in on a $250,000 loan. My opinion has always been that the notion of a default or even a loss should be off the table. The question should not be one of foreclosure but of disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.

Litigating foreclosure defense in this context requires the mindset of a solving a puzzle. Like any word puzzle or video game you need to stare at it for a while. At first you see nothing there. It’s like a painting that upon longer viewing reveals a face. After awhile of looking at the names of parties or their purported roles your mind will kick in and you will see the gaps in their asserted roles.

==============================
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.
==========================

 

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, Servicer, TILA, TILA rescission | Tagged: | 16 Comments »

Distilling the 20 Points of TILA Rescission: 9th Circuit Allows “Claim” for Rescission Under WA Statute of Limitations

Posted on January 14, 2019 by Neil Garfield

I have distilled the legal points and procedure of TILA Rescission down to their essentials and specifics as you can see below. In the case presented the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the homeowner but in so doing continued to violate the law of the land enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States and Congress.

Yes the homeowner should win but no, the homeowner should not be treated as having any burden of proof as to effectiveness of the TILA Rescission because the TILA Rescission statute is a self-executing statute that is effective by operation of law. It is not and never was a claim.

Astonishing. The 9th Circuit is drilling down on the premise that TILA Rescission is a claim rather than a self executing statutory event. This decision, favorable to the homeowner, not only engraves the “claim” theory in concrete, it applies a 6 year statute of limitations in Washington State.

The fact that the statute says the rescission is effective “by operation of law” is once again ignored. This may cause the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to finally accept certiorari in cases involving TILA Rescission and to once again (See Jesinoski v Countrywide 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015) scold all the lower courts for their excess in reading into the statute what is either not there at all or which is in direct contradiction to what the TILA rescission statute says. 15 U.S.C. §1635(f).

The message from SCOTUS should be clear: Just because you don’t like the result doesn’t mean you can reinvent the statute to say what you think it should have said. Both the trial court and the 9th Circuit were massively wrong, and eventually that will be made clear — but not until considerably more damage is done to American homeowners, the real estate market, our society, and the financial system generally. If you really want to see a correction to bad bank behavior this is the tool.

==============================
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.
==========================

see 9th cir hoang v bank of america 17-35993

Had they accepted the simple wording of the statute and the wording of the SCOTUS decision in Jesinoski, the decision of the 9th Circuit would have been on target. As it is, they have muddied the waters even further.

They continue to regard TILA Rescission as a claim, thus applying the statute of limitations and avoiding the distasteful issues (for the courts) that would be raised by recognizing what SCOTUS and the TILA Rescission statute have already said: the TILA Rescission statute is procedural.

Upon sending the required notice the claim of the creditor is changed from the note and mortgage to a claim under the statute. The note and mortgage vanish just like the debt vanishes and when the note is executed (assuming the Payee is the same party to whom the debt is owed). The purpose both the TILA Rescission statute and the merger doctrine is to to bar two claims on the same debt.

The problem that the courts have manufactured is based upon the premise of “I don’t’ like that statute.” But if the statute is to be changed it MUST be done ONLY by Congress. SCOTUS (Jesinoski) has already pronounced the TILA Rescission statute clear and unambiguous permitting no interpretation based upon any perceived “ambiguity.” The courts hands are legally tied but they continue to operate in derogation of the statute and SCOTUS.

Here is the ONLY correct application of the statute — according to 15 USC §1635 and SCOTUS in Jesinoski v Countrywide 135 S. Ct. 790, 792 (2015):

  1. Upon sending a clear notice of a desire or intent to cancel the loan contract, and either its actual or presumed receipt (i.e. US Mail) by the owner of the debt or the owner’s authorized representative (or agent with apparent authority) the loan contract is canceled “by operation of law”.
  2. This renders the note and mortgage void. There is no “but”.
  3. The statute substitutes a different creditor claim for what was the note and mortgage, to wit:  a statutory obligation to pay the debt after the owner complies with three conditions: (a) payment of money to the borrower (b) cancellation of note and sending it to borrower and (c) satisfaction of mortgage filed in the county records.
  4. The three duties are conditions precedent to demanding tender of property or money to pay off the debt.
  5. The fact that the three duties MAY be subject to an enforcement action by the borrower does nothing to change the effect of the cancelation of the loan contract by notice of TILA Rescission.
  6. There is no claim for enforcement of the three duties if the TILA statute of limitations has run.
  7. There is no claim for TILA Rescission. Either it was mailed or it wasn’t. There is no case or prima facie case except in enforcement of the three duties.
  8. There is no lawsuit required or even applicable to demand a court declare that the Rescission was effective. It is already effective simply by mailing. It already happened by operation of law. All decisions by all courts to the contrary are wrong. SCOTUS already said that.
  9. If the owner of the debt fails to either sue to vacate the rescission and/or follow the statutory duties, the statute of limitations under TILA is running and they may lose their right to demand payment of the debt completely. Once the TILA SOL runs out the right to collect the debt is dead after TILA Rescission.
  10. If the borrower fails to sue to enforce the three creditor duties, he/she is gambling on the TILA SOL cutting off the debt. The same statute of limitations cuts off the right of the borrower to sue based upon TILA claims.
  11. If the borrower does sue to enforce the three statutory Rescission duties the ONLY thing he/she should be claiming is that the statutory duties exist by virtue of 15 USC §1735 and that the Defendants failed to comply. Such an action could be after the SOL has run out seeking a declaration that the debt is dead (depending upon how SOL is treated).
  12. Neither the borrower nor the owner of the debt can reverse the effect of the TILA Rescission law. It is effective by operation of law and self-executing.
  13. Whether the notice is sent within 3 years or outside of the 3 years could be grounds to vacate the rescission which was already effective by operation of law. But that creditor lawsuit must be brought within the 20 days due for compliance with the three statutory duties. Minutes of the congressional discussion on this statute are quite clear — there should be no possibility at all for the presumed creditor to stonewall the borrower. SCOTUS said as much in Jesinoski, when it declared that no further action is required from the borrower other than the sending of the notice.
  14. The notice of rescission is facially valid if it declares the intention or desire to cancel the loan contract. There are dozens of cases saying exactly that. But it might be facially invalid if it expressly states that the contract it seeks to eliminate is outside of the three year limitation of “Consummation” (otherwise the 3 year limitation requires parole or extrinsic facts and requires finding of facts). This admission on the face of the instrument used to declare TILA Rescission MIGHT enable the presumed creditor to ignore it and ask the court to ignore it, at their own peril.
  15. If the creditor’s claim is that the rescission should be vacated (especially if it is recorded) or ignored because of the three year limitation or for any other reason, that is a lawsuit or an affirmative defense requiring allegation and proof of facts that are parole or extrinsic to the fact of the notice of TILA Rescission.
  16. There is no statute of limitation on anything that is effective by operation of law. It is an event, not a claim. Hence notice of TILA Rescission cannot be subject to interpretation as a claim and therefore cannot be subject to any statute of limitations.
  17. Thus all claims upon which courts took action or are taking action or will take any action based upon a loan contract that was canceled are VOID and completely undermine judicial standing and jurisdiction of the court. Subject matter jurisdiction is absent because the loan contract no longer exists. The creditor may either sue to revoke the rescission and cancel the instrument of rescission if recorded or make a claim based upon the statutory debt created by 15 USC §1635.
  18. The ONLY thing that could make void “sales” (of title to real property) final is Adverse Possession which typically takes around 20 years to establish. Check state statutes. The elements of adverse possession include but are not limited to continuous, open, notorious, peaceful, hostile (to actual owner), actual, visible, exclusive, and adverse. This is the “reset” that I forecasted 12 years ago. State legislatures are being lobbied to make such sales final even though they are legally void.
  19. All attorneys for the financial industry are in agreement with this analysis. The industry rejects the analysis because they correctly believe that they can persuade judges to act and rule opposite to the express provisions of the statute. So far they are right — except for the the  Supreme Court of the United States who is the sole source of a final definition of the law in this country.
  20. Anyone who seeks a change from the the current statute or the Supreme Court decision must do so through efforts to have Congress change the law.  If the rule of law is to prevail, the above procedural analysis must be followed in every instance.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, evidence, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, legal standing, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, TILA, TILA rescission | Tagged: , , , | 29 Comments »

Using TILA Rescission as Jurisdictional Issue

Posted on December 19, 2018 by Neil Garfield

I think TILA Rescission should be approached as a jurisdictional issue since it focuses on the procedural aspects of the TILA Rescission statute. In other words it should always be front and center.

I think a problem with TILA Rescission is that not even borrowers understand that the rescission issue is over. By asking a court to  make rescission effective you underline the correct premise that rescission has already occurred. All your pleadings after that should be based upon that premise or you undermine yourself.

==============================
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.
===========================
The plain wording of the statute says that rescission is effective, as a matter of law, when delivered (or sent via USPS). SCOTUS says no lawsuit is required to make rescission effective. The fact that the banks treat it as ineffective is something they do at their own peril. The statute explicitly says otherwise along with REG Z procedures based on the statute 15 USC §1635 and the Jesinoski decision.
*
Under the statute and Reg Z the loan contract is eliminated and replaced with a new relationship under the statute — a set of procedures creating a statutory claim for the debt. It follows that ONLY a party who is an actual creditor or owner of the debt can even appear much less claim or defend anything about rescission. If they claim standing from the loan contract, they have no standing.
*
Hence if the formers holders of the now nonexistent note and mortgage are also creditors they have no problem. They can plead anything they want, including defenses to or motions (or lawsuits) to vacate TILA Rescission. 
*
BUT usually the former holders of the loan contract (note and mortgage) were using the loan CONTRACT as the sole basis of their standing — desiring to raise legal presumptions from the existence of those contracts (note and mortgage).
*
What happens next is incontrovertible by logic or legal reasoning. Although they might be named parties to an action pending in court such ex-holders have lost their standing in that court action or they never had it to begin with. By operation of law the note and mortgage from which all their claims derive do not exist. That is a jurisdictional issue and it MUST be decided against the banks — by operation of law. Failure to present this has resulted in a number of escape hatches for judges who don’t like TILA Rescission. Your job is to close those hatches.
*
The whole point of the rescission strategy is to remove any possibility of an arguable claim for standing to foreclose on the now nonexistent mortgage or deed of trust. Unless the claim for standing is based upon ownership of the debt subject matter jurisdiction is absent.
*
This means that no claim or defense against the effectiveness of the rescission can be raised by anyone other than the owner of the debt.  
*
This also means that there can be no foreclosure because the loan contract has been replaced by a statutory “contract.”
*
Borrowers undermine this premise by filing lawsuits asking the court to declare that the rescission is effective. The TILA Rescission statute 15 USC §1635 has already answered that and THAT is what should be pled. SCOTUS has also already answered that in the Jesinoski case. Asking the court to declare it so means that you take the position that the statute has not already answered that question, that SCOTUS has not already ruled and that therefore it is now up to the trial court to make a ruling.
*
You are opening the door for argument when there is no such argument intended by the statute or the US Supreme Court. Upon being invited to do so a judge who doesn’t like the statute will come with reasons not to declare the rescission effective — usually based upon objections from parties who could not possibly have standing to raise such objections.
*
If that is true (and it is true by definition in our legal system once the highest court has ruled) then a party seeking relief from rescission would need to allege that they are the owners of the debt and then  prove it without reference to the note or mortgage. In other words they would need to prove they funded the debt or they purchased it with actual money.
*
We all know that the fake securitization scheme was entirely dependent upon illegally funding the origination and purchase of the loans in the fictitious name of the trust for the account of the underwriter and that the investors were cut off contractually from having any right, title, interest or even opportunity to review or audit the portfolio of loans claimed to be in a fictitious pool that was being managed by a trust that did not exist, which in turn was managed by a trustee that had no powers of administration for the benefit of nonexistent beneficiaries.
*
Hence the problem of the banks is clearly that they can’t prove funding or purchase because doing so would expose their illegal activities. Whether this would actually lead to a free house is debatable, depending upon the exercise of equitable jurisdiction in the courts.
*
What is clear is that the banks were told by their own lawyers not to ignore rescission or they would lose everything. They ignored it anyway believing they could steamroll through the courts, which was in fact an accurate measurement of their own power.
*
BUT as the banks persist along this strategy they continually build the inventory of homes that by operation of law are still owned by the borrowers, all other actions being void ab initio, not voidable by any stretch of the imagination.
*
AND the banks are by their own actions and inaction causing the debt to slip away from them as well. Under TILA Rescission the old loan contract is replaced with a new statutory contract. Actions for enforcement under that contract must be based on violation of TILA. TILA has a statute of limitations. Thus claims beyond the statute of limitations are barred. And THAT means that claims for the debt are barred after the statute of limitations (on claims arising from TILA) has run — as result of plain arrogance of the banks — and no fault of any borrower.

Filed under: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, Investor, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, TILA, TILA rescission, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »

How to Apply Federal TILA Rescission Rights

Posted on December 11, 2018 by Neil Garfield

Bottom Line: TILA Rescission is looming as a major risk factor to banks and investors who were not informed about the risk of TILA Rescission. The oddity is that the investors were not purchasing the loans and in fact agreed to replace the income stream from borrowers with an income stream from a fake trust.

Court decisions are inching closer to allowing the explicit language of the TILA Rescission Statute 15 U.S.C. §1635 to control situations like any other law passed by Congress and signed into law, with unanimous approval from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

It is highly probable that TILA Rescission will be the undoing of the mass fraud perpetrated on the word in which the banks unlawfully created an illusion of being principals when there was a profit to be made but as intermediaries when there was a loss.

==============================
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.
===========================
  1. If we can show that the TILA Rescission Notice was sent/delivered within 3 years of the date of the presumed consummation, then it would be foolish not to raise the issue in blazing lights. But any pleading based upon the rescission should avoid any semblance of being a claim for rescission or relief based upon rescission (i.e., enforcement of the TILA Rescission statutory duties) because the statute of limitations has clearly run on that in most cases. Any such pleading should emphasize that rescission has occurred — i.e., that the written loan contract has been replaced with the statutory scheme — and that the claimants should be barred from avoiding that simple fact. Further, given the same statute of limitations in TILA, the claimants are now barred from pursuing the debt which has expired. Ignoring the rescission was a fatal decision by the claimants who lost not only their right to enforce the paper instruments, but the debt as well.
  2. Notwithstanding some erroneous decisions rendered by state court and even federal courts (other than SCOTUS) there is no statute of limitations that applies to a notice of rescission sent within 3 years of the supposed consummation. Rescission is an event (like a  deed) not a claim. It is effective “by operation of law.”
  3. If the proof shows that the notice of TILA rescission was sent more than 3 years after the presumed date of consummation it is my opinion that SCOTUS will eventually treat it the same as the above paragraph. BUT, a big caveat here, is that SCOTUS might throw a bone to the banks. They could do that by saying that rescission notices that appear from their face to be sent after the three year “expiration” date could be reviewed by the court and declared void ab initio with affirmative pleading, thus removing the judicial standing impediment that the banks face (they have no creditor who would fulfill the requirements of judicial standing). Thus while my analysis shows that SCOTUS and  Congress clearly see the TILA rescission statute as a procedural statute and not a substantive one, there remains a possible interpretation by the high  court that would eviscerate rescissions outside the three year limitation. This is also the opinion of many lawyers who have carefully analyzed the situation, like Beth Findsen in Arizona. I don’t think that is right, but I can see how that could occur.
  4. The 3 year limitation is a viable defense for the creditor, just as the other restrictions on TILA rescission (lack of disclosures, purchase money mortgage etc.). All defenses must be raised as affirmative pleading to vacate the rescission or they are nothing at all. An affirmative pleading would be a lawsuit to vacate the rescission or affirmative defenses raised in a lawsuit brought by the borrower. But since rescission automatically voids the note and mortgage, those instruments cannot be used to plead or even imply standing. 
  5. Multiple deliveries of the rescission notice are a two edged sword particularly if they each bear different dates. Oddly this draws in a separate analysis. If rescission is truly an event as Congress and SCOTUS (and I) have stated, then NOBODY can rescind the rescission without a court order — not even the borrower. Any act undertaken in spite of the existence of a deed or rescission is void, in the sense of a wild deed, particularly if it is recorded in the county records. A new agreement could be reached but the rescission stands until a court order is entered changing the situation. The new agreement would likely be subject to disclosure requirements.
  6. What all of this means is that title could not have been changed even with court orders after the sending/delivery of the TILA Rescission. Here the high court will have a more difficult time allowing any foreclosure sale to stand in the absence of an affirmative pleading seeking to vacate the rescission and an order granting the demand. Title issues are a matter within the bounds of state law, not Federal law except where preempted, as in the TILA Rescission statute.
  7. But in the absence of an affirmative pleading, a trial on the merits, and a final  judgment or order, the state courts would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter and avoidance of the TILA Rescission would be without authority to do so under the US Constitution Article III. The logic is simple, the paper instruments  upon which the foreclosure was brought do not exist and did not exist at the time of the foreclosure sale. Hence title could not change without due process — i.e., a trial on the issue of whether the rescission should be vacated. The caveat here is that SCOTUS could again carve out something for the banks, because this would leave millions of homeowners retaining title to their homes long after the foreclosure sale. They might invent some doctrine based upon laches or some such doctrine that would bar homeowners from asserting their title after some period of time after the foreclosure sale.

Filed under: evidence, Fabrication of documents, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, Investor, legal standing, Mortgage, Pleading, prima facie case, standing, TILA, TILA rescission, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , | 5 Comments »

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

Posted on December 7, 2018 by Neil Garfield

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.”).

 

Filed under: CASES, foreclosure, jurisdiction, legal standing, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

CURRENT STATUS OF TILA RESCISSION AND ITS APPLICATION TO PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE FORECLOSURES

Posted on November 9, 2018 by Neil Garfield

Ultimately there will be recognition that the courts are vetoing legislation passed by congress simply because the judges disagree or are afraid of the consequences if they were to apply the law. Congress wrote it, passed it, and it was signed into law. In a nation governed by the rule of law there can be no space for exceptions. This is a violation of the most basic tenet of the US Constitution — division of governance into three co-equal branches of government. The courts are required under law to follow the law. Eventually the chickens are going to come home. How and when that will happen remains unclear.

I am of the opinion that an action should be brought to SCOTUS, using perhaps some non-traditional approaches for original jurisdiction to demand a remedy, to wit: vacating all orders, judgments and actions taken to enforce the void note and mortgage after rescission has been sent. The failure of the creditors to contest the rescissions should not be the basis for ignoring or invalidating the express wording of the statute.

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.

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

Here is the current status of TILA Rescission.
*
Despite the clear wording of the statute and the clear wording of a unanimous Supreme Court decision, lawyers and judges continue to erroneously “read in” conditions to rescission under 15 USC §1635. They were told not to do that by SCOTUS in Jesinoski but they continue to do it.
*
The practical effect is that judges are not following the law and therefore ruling in ways that basically ignore the TILA rescission.
*
According to both statutory and case law, no lawsuit, no tender, no condition of any kind and of any nature is written in the statute and SCOTUS says the wording is clear and unambiguous and therefore nobody can read any conditions into the procedures set forth by the TILA Rescission statute. In Jesinoski SCOTUS unanimously said that no lawsuit and no tender was required. Tender is NOT required UNTIL the so-called lender complies with the three statutory duties set forth in the TILA Rescission Statute. In Jesinoski the Supreme Court expressly stated that it was ruling on WHEN the rescission was effective by operation of law. The Court expressly ruled that this was a procedural statute. It provides nonjudicial relief to borrowers just like many states provide nonjudicial relief to lenders.
*
In an abundance of caution, I have been advising my clients to raise the issue but realize that virtually no court in the land, state or federal is going to say that the note and mortgage is void unless they are reversed by an appellate court — and the appellate courts have been doing the same thing as the trial courts. You probably don’t need that to preserve the issue because it is jurisdictional.
*
By law, the rescission statute acts as a cancelation and release of the mortgage encumbrance because that is what the law says. If the note and mortgage are in fact void by operation of law then everything that comes after that is void.
*
But if the courts refuse to apply that law because they have decided they don’t like the result then your notice of rescission will not get you any relief until SCOTUS, in a decision like Countrywide v Jesinoski, explicitly tells all the lower courts to stop pretending they can interpret the statute.
*
Such a decision will only be effective if the court spells out that  rescission is and has been effective by operation of law upon delivery and that no other conditions apply. It can attacked on any number of grounds but the so-called lenders must do so within 20 days or they are time barred. And if they maintain that position for one year, they lose the right to enforce the debt, in addition to the their previous loss of the right to enforce the void note and void mortgage.
*
Bottom line: the lawyer who says that tender is required before rescission is effective is wrong on the law but right as to the practical result. In fact any lawyer who advises clients about the weakness of any position based upon TILA Rescission is wrong on the law but right as to the practical effect.
*
Ultimately the system is going to need to deal with the the consequences of rebelling against the clear pronouncements of law from the US Congress and the US supreme Court. There is absolutely no question that millions of foreclosures have proceeded without jurisdiction because the note and mortgage were void as a result of delivery of TILA Rescission. In many cases they were actually recorded in the chain of title. Decisions and actions taken without jurisdiction to do so are void according to all statutory law, common law and rules of civil procedure as required by the US Constitution.
*
In my opinion that means that all homeowners who were deprived of clear title to their homes through foreclosure after sending a notice of rescission, still own their property. Lawyers for the banks were repeatedly told to ignore rescission at their own peril. They did it anyway.
*
Ultimately there will be recognition that the courts are vetoing legislation passed by congress simply because the judges disagree or are afraid of the consequences if they were to apply the law. This is a violation of the most basic tenet of the US Constitution — division of governance into three co-equal branches of government. The courts are required under law to follow the law. Eventually the chickens are going to come home. How and when that will happen remains unclear.

Filed under: foreclosure, TILA, TILA rescission | 14 Comments »

What is the effect of TILA Rescission on My title? Can I sue for damages?

Posted on August 6, 2018 by Neil Garfield

I have been getting the same questions from multiple attorneys and homeowners. One of them is preparing a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on rescission, but is wondering, as things stand whether she has any right to sue for damages. When our team prepares a complaint or other pleading for a lawyer or homeowner we concentrate on the elements of what needs to be present and the logic of what we are presenting. It must be very compelling or the judge will regard it as just another attempt to get out of justly due debt.

Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult

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 IS NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

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).

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

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

Combining fact patterns from multiple inquiries we start with a homeowner who actually sent two notices of rescission (2010 and 2017). Questions vary from who do I sue for damages to how do I get my title back?

Note that the biggest and most common error in rescission litigation is that the homeowner attempts to (a) have the court declare the rescission effective contrary to their own argument that it is already effective by operation of law, 15 USC §1635, and (b) seek to enforce the TILA rescission statutory duties beyond one year after rescission.

Whether you can sue for damages is one question. Whether the rescission had the effect of removing the jurisdiction, right or authority to dispossess you of title is another. And whether title ever changed is yet another. Yes you can sue for damages if not barred by a statute of limitations. Yes authority is vitiated by operation of law regardless of the status of litigation. And NO, title never changed and you probably own your house unless state law restricts your right to claim such ownership.

All three questions are related.
Taking the last question (did title actually change?) first, my opinion is that the rescission was effective when mailed. Therefore the note and mortgage were void. The failure of the alleged “lender” to comply with the rescission duties and then pursue repayment within one year from the date of rescission bars them from pursuing the debt. So at this point in time (equally applicable to the 2017 rescission notice) there is no note, mortgage or enforceable debt.
  • Hence any further activities to enforce the note and mortgage were legally void. And that means that any change of title wherein a party received title via any instrument executed by anyone other than you is equally legally void. In fact, that would be the very definition of a wild deed.
  • The grantor did not have any right, title or interest to convey even if it was a Sheriff, Clerk or Trustee in a deed of trust.
  • Any other interpretation offered by the banks would in substance boil down to arguments about why the rescission notice should not be effective upon mailing, like the statute says and like SCOTUS said 9-0 in Jesinoski.
  • CAUSES OF ACTION would definitely include
    • the equitable remedy of mandatory and prohibitive injunctions to prevent anyone from clouding your title or harassing you for an unenforceable debt would apply. But as we have seen, the trial courts and even the appellate courts refuse to concede that the rescission notice is effective upon mailing by operation of law, voiding the note and mortgage.
    • such a petition could also seek supplemental relief (i.e., monetary damages) and could be pursued as long as the statute of limitations does not bar your claim for damages. This is where it gets academically interesting. You are more likely to be barred if you use the 20010 rescission than you are if you use the 2016 rescission.
    • a lawsuit for misrepresentation (intentional and/or negligent) might also produce a verdict for damages — compensatory and punitive. It can be shown that bank lawyers were publishing all over the internet warning the banks to stop ignoring rescission. They knew. And they did it anyway. Add that to the fact that the foreclosing party was most often a nonexistent trust with no substance to its claim as administrator of the loan, and the case becomes stronger and potentially more lucrative.
    • CLASS ACTION: Mass joinder would probably be the better vehicle but the FTC and AG’s (and other agencies) have bowed to bank pressure and made mass joinder a dirty word. It is the one vehicle that cannot be stopped for failure to certify a class because there is not class — just a group of people who have the same cause fo action with varying damages. The rules for class actions have become increasingly restrictive but it certainly appears that technically the legal elements for certification fo the class are present. It is very expensive for the lawyers, often exceeding $1 million in costs and expenses other than fees.
    • Bottom line is that you legally still own your property but it may take a court to legally unwind all of the wrongful actions undertaken by previous courts at the behest of banks misrepresenting the facts. Legally title never changed, in my opinion.

Taking the second question (the right to dispossess your title) my answer would obviously be in the negative (i.e., NO). Since there was no right to even attempt changing title without the homeowner’s consent and signature, petitions to vacate such actions and for damages would most likely apply.

  • This question is added because the courts are almost certainly going to confuse (intentionally or not) the difference between unauthorized actions and void actions.
  • The proper analysis is obviously that the rescission is effective upon mailing by operation of law.
  • Being effective by operation of law means that the action constitutes an event that has already happened at the moment that the law says it is effective. If a court views this simply as “unauthorized” actions then it will most likely slip back into its original “sin”, to wit: treating rescission as a claim rather than an event that has already transpired.

And lastly the issue of claims for damages. There are different elements to each potential cause of action for damages or supplemental relief. I would group them as negligence, fraud, and breach of statutory duty.

  • As to the last you are barred from enforcing statutory duties in the TILA rescission statute if you are seeking such relief more than one year after rescission. But there are other statutes — RESPA, FDCPA and state statutes that are intended to provide for consumer protection or redress when the statutes are violated. There are statutory limits on the amount of damages that can be awarded to a consumer borrower.
  • Fraud requires specific allegations of misrepresentations — not just an argument that the position taken by the banks and servicers was wrong or even wrongful. It also requires knowledge and intent to deceive. It is harder to prove first because fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence which is close to beyond a reasonable doubt. Second it is harder to prove because you must go into “state of mind” of a business entity. The reward for proving fraud is that it might open the door to punitive damages and such awards have been in the millions of dollars.
  • Negligence is the easier to prove that it is more likely than not that the Defendant violated a statutory or common law duty — a duty of care. So the elements are simple — duty, breach of that duty, proximate cause of injury, and the actual injury. Negligent misrepresentation and negligent super vision and gross negligence are popular.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, jurisdiction, legal standing, Motions, Servicer, standing, TILA rescission | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

GARFIELD PREMISES

Posted on July 11, 2018 by Neil Garfield

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

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

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

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

844.478.6774

. 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.

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

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

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

Filed under: foreclosure, forms, jurisdiction, legal standing, Mortgage, Motions, originator, Pleading, sham transactions, TILA, TILA rescission, Title, Trail Objections, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy | 7 Comments »

Why Everyone (except SCOTUS) is Wrong About TILA Rescission

Posted on June 26, 2018 by Neil Garfield

All contrary arguments are erroneous since they would insert a contingency where the statute contains no room for any contingency. The language of the statute bars any such contingency when it says that the TILA Rescission is effective upon delivery, by operation of law. If anyone wants the statute to say or mean anything different they must get their remedy from the legislature, not the courts, who have no authority whatsoever to interpret the statute otherwise. The status of any case involving foreclosure is that it does not exist. Hence the court is left ONLY with the power to perform the ministerial act of dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

So in answer to questions about putative “modifications”, eviction or unlawful detainer, bankruptcy, and TILA Rescission this is what I have written in response to some inquiries.

Should the rescission be recorded? Not necessarily but

YES. I would like to see it recorded. You need to check with the clerk in the recording office or an attorney who understands recording procedure. Generally recording a document with an old date must be attached to an affidavit that is recorded with the notice of rescission attached. The affidavit explains that the attachment was inadvertently not recorded at the time it was created.

*

Should a copy of the notice of rescission be filed in the court record also?

YES. If there is any way to get the recorded document into the court record, it should be pursued.

This presents title issues because if you are recording this long after events have transpired, some of which are also recorded as memorializing transactions, fake or real. Any recorded instruments that purports to be a memorialization of a transaction before the rescission was recorded would generally be given priority.
*
The lawyer sent me an answer to my notice of rescission. Now what?
Either file to enforce the duties to be performed (if you are within one year of the date of delivery of the notice of rescission), or file a quiet title action if the one year has expired. There are several different scenarios actually, but this is the one I would focus upon.
*
I am getting kicked out of bankruptcy court. Now what?
Getting “kicked out” of BKR court probably means that you are back in the state court system which might open some opportunities for you to get more into the court record. (Like an old rescission).
*
My property is being sold. Does that mean that I have to get out?
*
They can’t get you out without filing an unlawful detainer (eviction in some jurisdictions) based upon an asserted change of title. There might be a period of time between the sale and the attempt to get you out of the home (eviction or unlawful detainer). If the property is sold to a “third party” they want want rent from you, which could allow you to stay.
The unlawful detainer action presents another opportunity to raise the issue of rescission, since the entire action is based upon a valid change of title. It also sets off potentially another round for appeal, especially on the issue of rescission. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel do not apply to jurisdictional issues. If the rescission was mailed then by operation of the law the note and mortgage are void.
The defense is ordinarily that the “sale” was a fabrication based upon fictional claims and was contrary to the notice of rescission, which voided the note and mortgage upon which they were relying. The time for challenging the rescission has long passed. Hence all enforcement actions after the date of the 2009 rescission are void since they were based upon various claims attendant to paper instruments that were void, effective the day of delivery of the rescission.
Note that delivery of TILA Rescission notice is complete when dropped in a USPS mailbox and your testimony that it was sent via US Postal Service is all that is necessary as foundation.
I sent 2 notices of rescissions. Is that better or worse for me?
If I was defending against your claim of rescission I would argue that sending the 2016 rescission was either an admission that the earlier one had not been sent or that it was a concession that, for whatever reason, the 2009 rescission notice had been abandoned.
Hence I suggest you put very little emphasis on the new rescission and maximum emphasis on the old rescission.
*
I sent the rescission less than 3 years after the modification but more than 3 years since the alleged consummation. Hoes my rescission affect my loan in that instance?
In most cases “modifications” are not treated as new loans. But the fact that something is called a modification and it really changes everything including the “lender” it may be possible to characterize it as a new loan subject to TILA Rescission. TILA Rescission hinges on whether the “modification” was a new loan — a fact, we would argue — that must be determined by trial. Since intent is part of the analysis of a contract, this could present another opportunity to force them to admit they don’t know the identity or intent of the creditor and whether said creditor had given them authority to make a new contract.
And the underlying narrative for this approach is that as a new contract, the “lender” was required to comply with disclosure requirements at the time of the new contract, thus triggering the three day right of rescission and the the three year limitation. Under my theory, based on Jesinoski, it doesn’t matter whether the three years has expired or not.
We know for certain that the notice of rescission is effective upon mailing; it is not based upon some contingent event or claim or court order. The date of consummation is itself a factual issue that can be in the pleading of the creditor (who is the only one with standing, the note and mortgage having been rendered void) claiming that the notice of rescission should be vacated based upon the three years, the date of consummation etc. 
Any alternative theory that puts the burden on the property owner would be contrary to the express wording of the statute and the SCOTUS ruling in Jesinoski. The statute 15 USC §1635 and SCOTUS are in complete agreement: there is no law suit required to make rescission effective. It would make the statutorily defined TILA Rescission event indefinite, requiring a court ruling before any rescission would be treated seriously. In other words, the opposite of what the statute says and the opposite of what SCOTUS said in Jesinoski. 
All contrary arguments are erroneous since they would insert a contingency where the statute contains no room for any contingency. The language of the statute bars any such contingency when it says that the TILA Rescission is effective upon delivery, by operation of law. If anyone wants the statute to say or mean anything different they must get their remedy from the legislature, not the courts, who have no authority whatsoever to interpret the statute otherwise. The status of any case involving foreclosure is that it does not exist. Hence the court is left ONLY with the power to perform the ministerial act of dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.
All this is important because we ought to be heading toward any defensive strategy that reveals the absence of a creditor. We are betting that the fight to conceal the name of the creditor is a cover for not knowing the the identity of the creditor, hence fatally undermining the authority as holder, servicer, trustee or anything else.
*
What if consummation never occurred?
It may turn out that consummation between the parties to the note and mortgage never occurred. It’s important to remember that would mean the rescission is irrelevant since the loan contract does not exist. But such a finding by a court of competent jurisdiction would negate the legal effect of the note and mortgage; this is true as long as the note was not purchased for value in good faith by a buyer without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses.
In that case, the burden does shift to the homeowner and it is entirely possible that under that scenario there could be no consummation but nevertheless homeowner liability would continue on the falsely procured note and potentially the mortgage as well. The reason is simple: that is what the State statute says under Article 3 and Article 9 of the UCC, as adopted by all 50 states. The homeowner’s remedy in such a scenario would be limited to actions for damages against the intermediaries who perpetrated the the fraudulent and fictitious “transaction” in which the named lender failed to loan anything.

Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, foreclosure, jurisdiction, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Motions, originator, Pleading, quiet title, sham transactions, TILA rescission | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Why Borrowers Have the Right to Rescind under the Truth In Lending Act

Posted on April 5, 2018 by Neil Garfield

In my opinion any foreclosure judgment or foreclosure sale that took place after a notice of rescission was sent and delivered is completely void and should be treated the same as a wild deed. This is particularly true in cases where courts have ignored the rescission completely and failed to issue an order effectively vacating the rescission. And it is particularly true where the rescission notice was sent within three years of consummation (assuming there was consummation). As with any wild deed, the actions and events subsequent to the void foreclosure judgment and/or void sale are also void. The effect of a rescinded loan is to make the note and mortgage void by operation of law effective the date of mailing or delivery. Void means they don’t legally exist.

Where the rescission was sent within three years of the purported consummation and was completely ignored  I am positive that SCOTUS will agree. And it is at least doubtful, if not legally impossible, that any subsequent law passed by any state legislature could effectively ratify a court’s action where it had no subject matter jurisdiction. In plain language, if the effect is the same as a wild deed, the only way title can be divested from homeowners would be through various state laws governing adverse possession (usually used in boundary disputes, but nonetheless applicable). Absent that, homeowners who have sent notices of TILA Rescission remain the legal owners of the property, even it goes back many years.

The banks know and understand this. They have lobbied extensively and successfully in state legislatures to bar or limit actions to “take back” title. By doing so they distract from the main issue, to wit: homeowners already have title by operation of law and thus need make no claim in court or otherwise. That was the whole point of the TILA Rescission statute as confirmed by SCOTUS in Jesinoski.

Bankers are rejoicing over the nearly universal rejection of TILA Rescission in trial and appellate court — with the notable exception of the Supreme Court of the United States, (SCOTUS) who unanimously ruled in Jesinoski that (a) the statute was constitutional, (b) that the statute was clearly worded thus barring “interpretation”, (c) that no lawsuit was needed to make rescission effective, and (d) that the rescission notice is effective on the date of delivery (mailing, if USPS is used).

Any “logic” or rationale that leads to a result contrary to these points is equally void and without merit simply because it is the law of the land from Congress and from the highest court in the land — SCOTUS. All adverse decisions and arguments are based upon the premise that the statute runs against the grain of personal beliefs that borrowers should never have that much power. Without aggressive enforcement of the consumer rights enunciated in TILA, the rights and protections of the statute and regulations are effectively revoked leaving consumers in the same position they were in back in the 1960’s when the law was considered and passed.

While I am certain that SCOTUS will slap down all the courts of the country who tried imposing limits and restrictions on TILA Rescission, just as it did in Jesinoski, that doesn’t mean that that all cases would be reversible based upon Jesinoski and the next decision.

This is especially true when a court considers TILA Rescission as a claim instead of an event effective by operation of law — just as the statute says it is. The effect on procedure and burdens of proof is enormous.

If you regard it as a claim asserted by the borrower, then the borrower must prove that the rescission was properly sent and for good reasons.

If you regard it as an event, then it is the “lender” who must file a claim seeking to set it aside. The TILA Rescission statute and SCOTUS both state the same thing: rescission is an event that is effective upon mailing (delivery).

The burden is clearly on the party claiming to be a lender to file a claim seeking to vacate the rescission which has same effect as a court order or statutory law. But they must plead and prove standing without using the note and mortgage as the foundation for their assertion of legal standing.

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

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

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

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

In the 1960’s Congress was faced with a problem. The banks were forever seeking ways to deceive borrowers in increasingly complex loan transactions. Congress was passing TILA, but in order to have any effect in protecting consumers, a compliance enforcement mechanism was needed.

One choice was to create a massive new federal government agency to enforce compliance with the new Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Nobody took that seriously because of the huge expense and logistical problems in analyzing the closing statements on each loan and selectively auditing loans during their term to see if the disclosures were correct or had been false or misleading. Tens of thousands of people would need to be hired, trained, and educated. Systems would have had to be invented to keep track of the huge amount of data that would be collected.

The other path was to create a self activating mechanism that would impose draconian penalties on lenders who violate the law and spirit of TILA. Faced with virtual loss of the loan the banks would scrupulously comply. The extraordinary provision gave consumers the right to rescind the transaction if they believed they had been deceived — i.e., that the disclosures were absent, false or misleading (all of which apply to loans during the great meltdown leading up to the 2008 crash).

Key to the effectiveness of the statute is that there was no requirement that the borrower had to be right, inasmuch as this would enable banks to stonewall even further. Nothing was required except that the borrower send a notice of rescission. The entire burden thus falls completely and solely on the “lender” to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to vacate the rescission, which was effective by operation of law, upon mailing or delivery.

Congress rejected any notion that consumers had to go see a lawyer or a court in order to get redress for the consumer’s perceived grievances. Hence the TILA Rescission statute was passed stating that the rescission was effective by operation of law upon delivery (or mailing). 

For years the banks had internal controls that usually assured compliance, although there were some major exceptions. Then starting in the 1990’s the banks embarked on a scheme that required  violations of the protections afforded by TILA. When people sent notices of rescission they were frequently ignored or “contested” by a letter.

In court, judges were driven by a fear that such power delivered into the hands of borrowers with little to lose might destroy the entire socio-economic fabric of the country and that the “sanctity of contract” must be upheld. Accordingly judges began to “interpret the statute thus imposing limits and restrictions that effectively denuded the primary objective of the legislation — to punish participants in the lending process for withholding disclosures or making false and misleading disclosures.

In short, as pointed out by SCOTUS in the Jesinoski decision  judges were attempting to legislate from the bench by proclaiming what the judge thought the statute should have said. SCOTUS truck down all the restrictions and limitations invented by the courts and appellate courts that affirmed such decisions. Still judges try to avoid the draconian results on “lenders” that were intended by Congress and President Johnson. And so the real truth about these loans and these foreclosures is still emerging very slowly.

The practice pointer here is that lawyers should not present rescission as a claim for any relief except perhaps enforcement of TILA Rescission duties imposed on lenders. The relief has already been granted by Congress. Don’t fall into the trap of alleging the rescission as a claim in a complaint or in affirmative defenses. The proper motion is a motion to dismiss. In the absence of an actual pleading setting forth standing and the timely contest (20 days) of whether the rescission should have been sent, the “lenders” either must admit they are not lenders or comply with the three duties imposed by delivery of  TILA Rescission:

  1. Return of moneys to the homeowner/borrower
  2. Return of the canceled original note
  3. Cancellation and release of the mortgage recorded in public records.

It is only after the lender has complied or a court has vacated the borrower’s rescission that the creditor or obligee can demand money from the homeowner/borrower. But here is the rub: Under TILA Rescission, there might to recover money arises from either timely compliance with the statue or an order vacating the rescission. The right to receive money under TILA Rescission arises from the rescission statute, not the debt, note or mortgage. If no claim has been made under TILA within 1 year, then the debt is unenforceable. And no claim can remade without compliance with the TILA Rescission statutes.

 

 

 

 

 

Filed under: burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, foreclosure, legal standing, Mortgage, Motions, TILA, TILA rescission | Tagged: | 6 Comments »

Next Page »
%d bloggers like this: