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 »

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 »

The Role of Dynamic Dark Pools in Ponzi Schemes Masquerading as Securitized Loan Pools

Posted on May 17, 2018 by Neil Garfield

The bottom line is that there are no financial transactions in today’s securitization schemes. There is only fabricated paper. If you don’t understand the DDP, you don’t understand “securitization fail,” a term coined by Adam Levitin.

GET A CONSULT

GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services. Our forensic report is called “TERA“— “Title and Encumbrance Report and Analysis.” I personally review each of them for edits and comments before they are released.

Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase audio seminar now — Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations.

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

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

I received a short question today to which I gave a long answer. The question is “What happens when an investor decides that he or she wants to cash it in does someone redeem their certificate ?”

Here is my answer:

YES they get paid, most of the time. It is masked as a “trade” on the proprietary trading desk of the CMO Dept. which is completely unregulated and reports nothing. As long as the Ponzi scheme is going strong, the underwriter issues money from the investor pool of money (dynamic dark pool -DDP). It looks like a third party bought the “investment.” If the scheme collapses then the underwriter reports to investors that the market is frozen and there are no buyers.

 *
There is no redemption because there are no certificates. They are all digital entries on a server. Since the 1998 law deregulated the certificates, reporting is limited or nonexistent. The entries can be changed, erased, altered, amended or modified at will without any regulator or third party knowing. There is no paper trail. Thus the underwriter will say, if they were ever asked, whatever suits them and there is no way for anyone to confirm or rebut that. BUT in discovery, the investors have standing to ask to see the records of such transactions. That is when the underwriter settles for several hundred million or more.
 *
They discount the settlement based upon “market” values and by settling for pennies on the dollar with small community banks who do not have resources to fight. Thus if they received $2 billion for a particular “securitized pool” that is allocated to a named trust they will instantly make about 10-20 times the normal underwriting fee by merely taking money before or after the money hits the DDP. Money is paid to the investors as long as sales of certificates are robust. Hence the DDP is constantly receiving and disbursing money from many more sources than a fixed group of homeowners or investors.
 *
It is all about gaps and absences. If a debt was properly securitized, the investor would pay money to the underwriter in exchange for ownership of a certificate. The money would then be subject to fees paid to the underwriter and sellers of the certificates. The balance would be paid into a trust account on which the signatory would be a trust officer of the Trustee bank.
 *
If a scheme is played, then the money does not go into the trust. It goes to the DDP. From there the money is funneled through conduits to the closing table with the homeowner. By depositing the exact and expected amount of money into the trust account of the closing agent, neither the closing agent nor the homeowner understands that they are being played. They don’t even have enough information to arouse suspicion so that they can ask questions.
 *
Hence if you combine the proper securitization scheme with the improper one you see that the money is diverted from the so-called plan. This in turn causes the participants to fabricate documents if there is litigation. They MUST fabricate documents because if they produced real documents they would have civil and criminal liability for theft, embezzlement in investor litigation and fraud and perjury in foreclosure litigation.
 *
It is only by forcing a peek around the multiple layers of curtains fabricated by the players that you can reveal the absence of ownership, authority or even an economic interest — other than the loss of continued revenue from servicing and resales of the same loan through multiple investment vehicles whose value is completely derived from the presumed existence of a party who is the obligee of the debt (owner of the debt, or creditor).
 *
That party is the DDP — fund that is partially authorized for “reserve” and which the prospectus and trust instrument (PSA) state (1) that the mortgage loan schedule is not the real one and is presented as an example and (2) that the investors acknowledge that they might be paid from their own money from the “reserve.”
 *
The gap is that the DDP and the reserve are two different accounts. The “reserve” is a pool of money held in trust by, for example, U.S. Bank as trustee for the trust. There is no such account. The DDP is controlled by the underwriter but ownership is intentionally obscured to avoid or evade detection and the liability that would attach if the truth were revealed.
 *
We win cases not by proving theft from investors but by hammering on the fact that the documents are fabricated, which is true in virtually all cases involving a named trust. We will win a large award if we can show that the intended beneficiaries of the foreclosure were parties other than the obligee on the debt.
 *
Thus the attorneys, servicers and trustee are protecting their ill-gotten gains and seeking to grab more money and property at the expense of the unnamed investors and homeowners. They are then transforming an expected revenue stream into the illusion of a secured debt owed not to the funding sources but to the intermediaries.
Go to LENDINGLIES for more help.

Filed under: AMGAR, foreclosure, forensic investigation, investment banking, Investor, legal standing, MBS TRUSTEE, securities fraud, sham transactions, TILA, Trail Objections, TRIAL OBJECTIONS, trial strategy, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Tonight — Silent Roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — Hiding Behind the Obtuse

Posted on April 12, 2018 by Neil Garfield

How to Withhold Vital Information from Homeowners

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing “presumptions” to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts.

Fannie and Freddie have long been a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Before false claims of securitization, before fabrication and forgery of documents, the GSEs had fairly clear role in the origination, servicing and enforcement of mortgages. Now they are used as cover to hide lack of ownership where the banks and servicers make the homeowner travel and endless loop leading nowhere.

Now, as to any specific loan, we don’t know which of the following applies:

  1.  GSE is the guarantor of the loan (basically like a third party insurer with government backing)
  2. GSE is Master Trustee of a REMIC Trust in which there is a named Trustee who has the same powers, rights and obligations as the Master Trustee — i.e., no powers to actively administer the active affairs of the trust because there is no business or assets in the trust.
  3. GSE is or was a purchaser for cash.
  4. GSE is or was a purchaser using MBS issued by a named trust that either exists or doesn’t exist.
  5. GSE, using Trust A MBS paid Trust A for loans owned by the Trust or for loans not owned by the trust.
  6. GSE was a seller of the subject debt, note or mortgage.
  7. GSE claimed ownership when it didn’t own the subject debt, note or mortgage.
  8. GSE showed subject loan on its website but had no interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage (or foreclosure).
  9. Third parties claimed that GSE owned the subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was true.
  10. Third parties claimed that GSE owned the subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was false.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, evidence, expert witness, Fabrication of documents, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, Mortgage, Pleading, standing, TILA, Title, trustee | Tagged: , , | 15 Comments »

Bank Fraud News: The reason why banks and servicers should receive no presumption of reliability

Posted on April 12, 2018 by Neil Garfield

The following is but a short sampling supporting the argument that any document coming from the banks and servicers is suspect and unworthy of any legal presumption of authenticity or validity. Judges are looking into self-serving fabricated documentation and coming to the wrong conclusion about the facts.

Chase following bank playbook: screw the customer

“Chase provided no prior notice to its cardholders that their crypto ‘purchases’ would be treated as ‘cash advances’ on a going forward basis,” according to the suit.

Tucker claims he was hit with about $140 in fees and a “sky-high” interest rate of 26 percent without warning after Chase reclassified his purchases as cash advances, a violation of the Truth in Lending act.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Stealth: Hiding the elephant in the living room

Its never been a secret that Freddie Mac’s business policy is to remain stealth in any chain of title if possible, and to rely on the servicers to keep its presence a secret in foreclosure proceedings. In fact, this PNC case which was overturned against PNC, involved the Defendant’s assertion that PNC was concealing Freddie Mac’s interest in the loan. Freddie Mac’s business policy appears to rely upon nothing more than handshakes with the originators and servicers. Here is some verbiage from a “Freddie Mac – Mortgage Participation Certificates” disclosure (See: Freddie Mac – Mortgage Participation Certificates):

Deutsch files lawsuit against private mailbox troller following the Deutsch playbook of foreclosure

“Defendants, and each of them initiated a malicious campaign to disrupt the chain of title to prevent Plaintiff from enforcing its contractual rights in the 2006 DOT by way of recording fraudulent documents to purportedly assign the rights under the 2006 DOT without the consent of Plaintiff, and otherwise thereafter fraudulently transfer all rights via a trustee deed upon sale, even though no trustee sale was ever conducted. All subsequently recorded or unrecorded transactions are therefore null, void, and of no effect.”

EDITOR COMMENT: So Deutsch is admitting that its practice of recording fraudulent documents are “null, void and of not effect.” In order to get to that point Deutsch is going to be required to prove standing — i.e., definitive proof that it paid for the debt, which it did not. Deutsch is on dangerous ground here and might deliver a bonus for homeowners. As for the defense, is it really a crime to steal a fraudulent deed of trust supported by fraudulent assignments and endorsements?

Barclays Bank settles for $2,000,000,000 for fraud on investors

Barclays’ offering documents “systematically and intentionally misrepresented key characteristics of the loans,” and more than half of the loans defaulted, federal officials said.

Additionally, the Department of Justice reached similar settlements with two Barclays’ employees involved with subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. They will pay $2 million collectively.

The agreements mark the latest in a string of U.S. settlements with major banks over sales of tainted mortgage securities from 2005 to 2007 that helped set the stage for the real estate crash that contributed to the financial crisis.

Deutsch Pays $7.2 Billion for Fraudulent securitizations

Confirming settlement details the bank disclosed in late December, federal investigators said Deutsche Bank will pay a $3.1 billion civil penalty and provide $4.1 billion in consumer relief to homeowners, borrowers, and communities that were harmed.

The federal penalty is the highest ever for a single entity involved in selling residential mortgage-backed securities that proved to be far more risky than Deutsche Bank led investors to believe. Nonetheless, the agreement represents relief of sorts for the bank and its shareholders, because federal investigators initially sought penalties twice as costly.

Credit Suisse‘s announcement said it would pay the Department of Justice a $2.48 billion civil monetary penalty. The bank will also provide $2.8 billion in consumer relief over five years as part of the deal, which is subject to negotiations over final documentation and approval by Credit Suisse’s board of directors. [Credit Suisse owns SPS Portfolio Servicing.]

Ocwen Settles with 10 States for Illegal Servicing

“The consent order provides that Ocwen will transition its servicing portfolio off of its current servicing platform to a platform better able to manage escrow accounts and establish a new complaint resolution process,” the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance said in a press release. “Ocwen shall hire a third-party firm to audit a statistically significant number of escrow accounts in high-risk areas of the portfolio to determine whether problems continue to exist around the management of escrow accounts and to identify the root cause of those problems.

“Ocwen has faced many legal and regulatory challenges in recent years. In December 2013 it reached a settlement over foreclosure and modification processes with the CFPB and state regulators. A year later, it made a separate agreement with New York regulators that removed company founder William Erbey as CEO.

Wells Fargo Whistleblower is Fired Among Others Who refused to Lie to Customers

In 2014, according to Mr. Tran, his boss ordered him to lie to customers who were facing foreclosure. When Mr. Tran refused, he said, he was fired. He worried that he wouldn’t be able to make his monthly mortgage payments and that he was about to become homeless.

Joining a cadre of former employees claiming they were mistreated for speaking out about problems at the bank, Mr. Tran sued. He argued in court filings that he had been fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle on misconduct at the giant San Francisco-based bank. Mr. Tran said he didn’t want his job back — he wanted Wells Fargo to admit that it had been wrong to fire him and wrong to mislead customers who were facing foreclosure.

 

 

 

Filed under: CORRUPTION, currency, foreclosure, TILA | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 13 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: | 5 Comments »

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

Posted on March 26, 2018 by Neil Garfield

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.

Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, evidence, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, legal standing, TILA, TILA rescission, Title | 12 Comments »

TILA RESCISSION: The Bottom Line for Now

Posted on February 14, 2018 by Neil Garfield

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.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, Investor, legal standing, Mortgage, Pleading, standing, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

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

Posted on February 6, 2018 by Neil Garfield

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]

 

 

Filed under: burden of persuasion, BURDEN OF PROOF, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, legal standing, Motions, Pleading, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission | 32 Comments »

TILA RESCISSION — Filling in the Gaps

Posted on February 1, 2018 by Neil Garfield

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.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, BURDEN OF PROOF, common law rescission, evidence, foreclosure, legal standing, Pleading, TILA, TILA rescission | 8 Comments »

When and What is Consummation of Contract?

Posted on January 24, 2018 by Neil Garfield

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.

Filed under: burden of persuasion, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, GTC | Honor, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, securities fraud, Servicer, sham transactions, standing, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission | 19 Comments »

Jesinoski Revisited. Rescission is in the details.

Posted on January 23, 2018 by Neil Garfield

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.

Filed under: appeals, burden of persuasion, BURDEN OF PROOF, discovery, education, evidence, foreclosure, legal standing, Pleading, TILA, TILA rescission | 22 Comments »

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

Posted on December 26, 2017 by Neil Garfield

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.

Filed under: BURDEN OF PROOF, CASES, CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, foreclosure, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, STATUTES, TILA, TILA rescission | Tagged: , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Short Explanation of TILA RESCISSION vs Common Law Rescission

Posted on December 13, 2017 by Neil Garfield

Quiet title is a lawsuit not a motion. It must be worded correctly to fulfill the elements required for the court to consider the demand for quiet title. Otherwise it will be dismissed.

For quiet title to apply the mortgage must be void not just unenforceable. TILA Rescission is a statutory remedy that is different from common law rescission. Sending of TILA rescission notice by U.S. Mail means that delivery is presumed. If delivery occurred or is presumed the TILA Rescission is effective. Just the opposite in common law rescission based upon fraud. At common law, sending a notice of rescission based upon fraud is only the first step in a long litigation process.

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

One must be careful NOT to file a lawsuit or motion seeking to have the court declare it is effective. Either the notice was delivered or it wasn’t delivered. If U.S. Mail is used d delivery is presumed. If it was delivered it is effective. That is what the statute says and that it was SCOTUS said about the statute. The matter should be closed, but judges are resisting following the directive of the highest court in the land from which there is no appeal. (See Jesinoski v Countrywide).

If the notice of rescission is sent within three years of apparent consummation then there is no doubt that it is effective. If it is sent more than 3 years after the note and mortgage were executed then there is a split of opinion. I believe it is still effective until the rescission is vacated by a court order. In either case — before and after the three years — courts are reluctant to apply it.

The appropriate lawsuit could be framed in allegations that the defendants should be stopped from attempting to enforce the void loan documents or stopped from harassing the borrower using the void note and void mortgage. Both are rendered void by virtue of the notice of rescission.

If the lawsuit is filed within 1 year of the date of the notice of rescission it could also include allegations that the defendants (if they are lenders) failed to comply with the three statutory duties in the TILA rescission statute. Or, if they are not lenders nor representatives of the lender that they committed multiple violations of TILA, RESPA and FDCPA as well as fraud and negligence and of course uttering false instruments and recording instruments that are false or fraudulent.

TILA RESCISSION is an statutory event not a claim. No lawsuit is proper to declare an already legally effective instrument to be effective. It happened on the day of mailing. Best to use U.S. Postal Service for the notice.

Common law rescission is a claim not an event. In that sense they are procedural the opposite of one another. A lawsuit is required and the pleader must prove the allegations which ordinarily means that they must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.

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

 

Filed under: common law rescission, foreclosure, Pleading, quiet title, TILA | Tagged: , , , , | 10 Comments »

« Previous Page
%d