TILA RESCISSION: The war is NOT over contrary to bank disinformation

The banks have not asked for an order vacating a TILA RESCISSION because they know that following standard procedure would block  them from challenging TILA RESCISSION.

This is PROCEDURE vs SUBSTANCE. That is what this has always been about. As more courts continue to “rule” on TILA RESCISSION, getting it wrong every time, the effort to discredit TILA RESCISSION is picking up steam.

Here is the bottom line: I never said that the borrower would always prevail if challenged. I only said that the borrower must be challenged if a creditor wants to avoid the consequences of rescission. And failing to do that means that the rescission stands, by operation of law. I have also said that only a party with standing can bring that challenge and that on its face such a party does not seem to be the same as the party seeking to enforce the paper.

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 past couple of weeks I have received hate mail from those who are pretending  to be on the side of homeowners whilst adamantly opposing TILA Rescission. The banks are more scared of TILA RESCISSION than anything else. So their effort is directed at discrediting the express wording of the statute, the Supreme Court decision directly on point and of course anyone (e.g., me) who persists in pushing the use of TILA RESCISSION. I will say openly that the courts have managed to tie up rescission now just as they did before SCOTUS stopped them. And once again, SCOTUS will administer a stern warning about playing with the express wording a clearly worded statute.

Remember when the general rule was that rescission was a claim and not an event — i.e., that homeowners had to bring an action to enforce rescission in order for rescission to be effective? That’s gone now.

So now they are saying that the likelihood of the defeat of the homeowner in a hypothetical lawsuit directed at vacating the TILA RESCISSION means that the rescission should be ignored (but not subject to a final judgment in which the TILA Rescission is vacated. That will be gone soon too.

Judges are not empowered to render decisions based upon a hypothetical lawsuit. The lawsuit to vacate the rescission must be real and must be filed by a party with standing. And standing cannot be based upon the note and mortgage which are void by operation of law. Standing in such a suit can ONLY be established by a party to whom the underlying debt is owed.

These purveyors of “bad news” will continue to report each erroneous court decision (as I predicted) until once again, the US Supreme Court smacks down the bad decisions for (a) not following the statute, (b) not following the SCOTUS Jesinoski decision and (c) not following standard due process procedure. Such a decision is extremely likely considering the unanimous Jesinoski decision.

And I would ask them — “If you are so sure that TILA Rescission is a dead horse, why are YOU spending any time rebutting TILA RESCISSION?”

Once again these paid shills for the banks are intentionally confusing procedure with substance. I never said that the borrower would always prevail if TILA RESCISSION was properly challenged. I only said that the borrower’s rescission must be challenged if a creditor wants to avoid the consequences of rescission. And failing to do that means that the rescission stands, by operation of law. I have also said that only a party with standing can seek relief from a court including bringing that challenge. I have also said that on its face such a “creditor” party does not seem to be the party seeking to enforce the paper and oddly enough, might not exist at all.

The error that occurred in the remanded Jesinoski case was the assumption or presumption that the party claiming to be beneficiary under the deed of trust was an actual creditor instead of a possessor or holder of the note. As per the express wording of the TILA RESCISSION statute, such a party relying upon paper documents are relying upon a note and mortgage that are void by operation of law and thus could never be the basis of legal standing to challenge TILA RESCISSION.

The court and the parties continued with a basic erroneous assumption:  that somehow a party who claims only to be holder of a note or mortgage can somehow challenge the notice of TILA RESCISSION. By failing to challenge their opposition on the question of standing (because the note and mortgage were void) the Jesinoskis sealed their own doom. This in turn enables the sometimes nonexistent claimant for a nonexistent claim to twist legal procedure and simply attack the notice of rescission with a motion and/or affidavit instead of a complaint in which it alleges standing to sue based upon the underlying debt.

The remand of the Jesinoski case to the trial court should have resulted in a stay of the proceedings for a defined period allowing the “creditor” to affirmatively allege that it has standing because it is the party who would suffer financial injury and that all disclosures were made, —thus requesting from the court that the rescission be vacated — something that has yet to be done anywhere — despite direct advice and counsel from lawyers for the banks. The problem they face is that the banks were given 20 days to challenge rescission— just as the homeowners being given up to 3 years to invoke rescission.

Despite the FACT that a TILA RESCISSION is effective upon mailing or delivery by operation of law, the courts simply refuse to treat it that way. As a result, no order has been entered nor has it been requested by the banks — a court order in which the rescission was vacated. The banks have not asked because they know that following procedure would block  them from challenging TILA RESCISSION.

You can’t blame them. Steamrolling seems to work for the banks. It’s better than law!

But a decision from the US Supreme Court along the lines expressed in this article is likely to materially effect many of not most foreclosures where the notice of rescission was delivered prior to the foreclosure sale or the foreclosure judgment.

PRACTICE HINT: If you are dealing with a party claiming rights to foreclose on the basis of being “holder”, that is probably an admission that they are not a creditor. Hence they would not have legal standing to demand relief from a court when seeking to vacate the rescission. If they had purchased the underlying debt, in all probability, they would assert themselves as having the status of a “holder in due course” (and of course prove it). This needs to be fleshed out in discovery — and by demanding discovery on the issue of standing you are highlighting the fact that the rescission is effective and that a challenge to rescission must be a pleading of a case of action — in other words, where they are forced to allege their basis for asserting legal standing.

TILA RESCISSION: The Bottom Line for Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SeeLaw360: When to Consider Modifying TILA Rescission Procedures

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

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

Their erroneous points come down to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview of Rescission under TILA

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

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

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

 

 

TILA RESCISSION — Filling in the Gaps

Lawyers for homeowners are probably contributing to the confusion that the banks bring to the table. And Judges, despite the clear evidence in the public domain that the banks committed millions of illegal acts, nevertheless take the word of banks over the word of a homeowner.

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

I think that lawyers for homeowners are adding to the confusion when they file lawsuits seeking a declaration that the TILA rescission is or was effective. That lawsuit clearly says that they are asking the judge to decide if the rescission was effective when in fact the law of the land says quite clearly (according to SCOTUS in Jesinoski) that the rescission is already effective. The statute and SCOTUS says that the rescission already happened when it was mailed or delivered. Asking the court to ratify that is taking a step backwards.

Just filing the lawsuit for declaratory judgment might be enough to swing the TILA rescission into a common law rescission where the burden of proof is squarely on the homeowner instead of the other way around. The homeowner might be abandoning the TILA rescission.

But of course even if the homeowner did abandon the TILA rescission that does not remove the rescission, especially if it is recorded in the county records. Following the statute that says the cancellation of the loan contract is effective by operation of law, it is impossible for anyone, even the homeowner, to back off from the rescission except by agreement with the actual owner of the debt.

Theoretically such declaratory actions should be dismissed because the rescission is already an incontestable fact (unless delivery is an issue). But judges take such actions as an invitation to interpret the situation and rule on it. That is where so many “bad” decisions come from.

There is a lawsuit to enforce the statutory duties under the TILA rescission. But it is clear that lawsuit won’t produce a favorable result in today’s judicial climate. Tactically, I think it is better to wait the out the one year statute of limitations and take the position that there is no balance due because it is time-barred, there is no note and there is no mortgage or deed of trust. Of course I could be dead wrong. SCOTUS might reverse itself or carve out exceptions etc. But the Jesinoski decision was dripping with sarcasm as it slapped the hands of all judges in the land for “interpreting” a statute that was not subject to interpretation because the statute was clear and unambiguous.

If foreclosure is on the horizon then an action for injunctive relief and supplemental relief would be in order but it is unlikely to get traction because the judges are still “interpreting” the statute. It is therefore better to raise the defense, make sure the rescission is recorded, and run the clock until the next SCOTUS decision.

The bottom line is that TILA rescission is the ultra powerful remedy that has everyone scared to death. But it won’t be applied until SCOTUS, once and for all, explicitly states that judges are exceeding their authority by imposing restrictions that are not present in the statute. Under no circumstances should the lawyer for a homeowner get sucked into an argument about whether the rescission was effective. The sole position should be that rescission has already occurred and that if anyone doesn’t like it they should have brought a lawsuit to vacate it.

The issues of whether the notice of rescission was sent beyond 3 years from consummation, whether the loan was a purchase money mortgage loan, etc. should not arise until and unless a party with standing files a pleading seeking relief from the TILA rescission. The answer to such questions should always be the same — the rescission already happened. Nobody has alleged standing to contest it, thus the questions refer to questions of fact that could arise in a separate action, if a party with standing brought the action. That automatically excludes the present foreclosing parties unless they wish to plead and prove that they own the debt — without use of the void note or void mortgage.

Under no circumstances should a notice of TILA rescission be framed as a claim. It is an event that already occurred in the past. The only proof required from the homeowner is whether the notice of rescission was sent and when. That is the event that starts the clock ticking on all other remedies for borrower or lender. TILA rescission converts a contractual claim for money due into a statutory claim for money due. In order to bring that claim the owner of the debt must first comply with the three duties in the TILA rescission statute.

When and What is Consummation of Contract?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip to Greg (cement boots)

Consummation vs Closing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesinoski Revisited. Rescission is in the details.

It continues to be true that the statute is clear, the rules of procedure are clear, and the rules of evidence are clear — yet trial courts are adamantly opposed to allowing homeowners to use the power granted to them by Congress.

The second ultimate decision by the trial court that Jesinoski had to tender the money to Countrywide before the rescission could be effective is just as wrong as the same court’s prior decision that  the rescission would not be effective — a decision that was unanimously overturned by SCOTUS.  It put a condition on the effectiveness of rescission when SCOTUS clearly stated, and the statute clearly stated, that there were no conditions for the effectiveness of rescission other than the required notice.

Virtually everyone is ignoring the elephant in the living room, to wit: Countrywide was not a lender or even an aggregator. It was a conduit for an aggregator and far removed from the actual transfer of funds attendant to the apparent loan.

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

See http://mortgageattack.com/2016/07/28/jesinoski-loses-in-trial-court-proving-neil-garfield-wrong/

The ultimate decision in the Jesinoski case was against the rescission. This was wrong and in flagrant disregard of the Jesinoski decision rendered by the SCOTUS. The decision simply stated that the rescission WAS effective the moment it was dropped in the mail (or delivered.) You can read the attack on me in Bob Hurt’s blog in the above link.

Rescission was effective starting with the mailing and uncontested delivery of the notice of rescission, if someone wants to challenge it they must do so in a lawsuit to vacate the effective instrument. This is the most basic procedural law — you don’t get relief without asking for it and the way you ask for it is by filing an pleading in court and getting a decision vacating the rescission notice. This trial court never vacated the rescission probably because it knew it had no power to do so.

You can’t get relief unless you first establish legal standing. SCOTUS said that the rescission was effective in this case and all others like it. It is uncontested that rescission caused the note and mortgage to immediately become void – not conditionally but actually.

So in order to bring a claim you would need to file a claim stating that you are being injured by a wrongfully delivered notice of rescission. That is called standing. The only party who could do that is the owner of the debt, since the ownership of the note and mortgage (void instruments now) is irrelevant. And THAT is where the trial court got it wrong (again). In the absence of a pleading from the owner of the debt, the trial court was devoid of jurisdiction to render any decision in which there rescission was ignored.

*

Hurt, a non lawyer, is apparently attempting to discredit a Federal law. But he is voicing the party line of the banks. The trial court was twice in error when it entered judgment against Jesinoski and if Jesinoski had the resources to appeal again they MIGHT well have won. It does appear that the “issue” in the trial court was whether the rescission stands. Clearly the opposition did not follow the requirements of statute.
*
BUT it is possible for the appellate courts to see this as harmless error since the factual finding of the trial court was that proper disclosure was given to Jesinoski. While that finding is also appealable, appellate courts are not likely to intervene in a  finding of fact unless there was absolutely nothing in the court record to justify that finding.
*
So in the end this is about evidence and the failure to present it.
*
Since rescission is all about proper disclosure and since Jesinoski failed to show that required disclosure was not given at the “closing” of the loan, it may be assumed that they would have lost in an action brought by Countrywide or its successor to vacate the rescission. But that is an advisory decision prohibited to any court.
*
The assumption is improper. That is why we have rules of procedure. If you want relief you must plead for it not simply argue about it. Countrywide never filed a pleading to vacate the rescission, as far as I know. And the rescission was never vacated even by this decision.
*
The trial court decided instead to accept the challenge from a party without standing (CW did not own the debt and their standing was entirely based upon the void note and mortgage). Inherent in the trial court’s erroneous decision was the presumption that was used to allow Countrywide to oppose the rescission — i.e., that because it supposedly had the original note and mortgage, it therefore owned the debt. The rest is history.
*

This decision assumes that Countrywide had standing apart from the note and mortgage, i.e., ownership of the debt. And it also assumes that there was an action filed by Countrywide to vacate the rescission. Neither of these was addressed, much less the 20 day requirement for filing such an action. Instead the trial court simply continued its error by ignoring the rescission because of its factual finding that disclosures had been properly given. But the disclosures were given by people who withheld basic information that is required under the statute, to wit: the identity the lender and the identity of the creditor (i..e., owner of the debt).
*

So this case went down because Jesinoski did not stick with the requirements of burden of proof, and the requirement that a party with standing make the challenge to the rescission within 20 days. Ignoring the 20 day limitation period results in placing a condition to the effectiveness of there rescission in contradiction to the express wording of Federal Statute and SCOTUS. There are no conditions. Jesinoski failed to press the rules of evidence, based upon the written opinion, which could have landed a victory.
*

Virtually everyone is ignoring the elephant in the living room, to wit: Countrywide was not a lender or even an aggregator. It was a conduit for an aggregator and far removed from the actual transfer of funds attendant to the apparent loan.
*

This is why I am offering a seminar on evidence on February 2, 2018. The devil is in the details. And too many foreclosure defense lawyers do not properly prepare to attack the details. The trial court decision is basically a political decision, not a legal one. So it continues to be true that the statute is clear, the rules of procedure are clear, and the rules of evidence are clear — yet trial courts are adamantly opposed to allowing homeowners to use the power granted to them by Congress.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—————-

see

Junk SCOTUS Petition for Writ of Mandamus on TILA RESCISSION

Hiding in Plain Sight_ Jesinoski and the Consumer_s Right of Resc

Jesinoski decision

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

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

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

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

%d bloggers like this: