How Does the Debt Get Transferred?

Basic Black Letter law: A debt can only be transferred by the owner of the debt. The owner of the debt may use agents or intermediaries to accomplish the transfer of the debt. If an intermediary executes a document of transfer without reference and identification of the owner of the debt, the document has potentially fatal defects.

Parole evidence may be admitted, upon discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction. But in the end, the party claiming authority to enforce the debt in a foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust must prove that it is doing so on behalf of the owner of the debt.

The simplest way of doing this is by alleging or asserting the name of the owner of the debt and the fact that the enforcer is representing the owner of the debt. In the absence of such allegation or assertion it is more likely than not that the enforcer is not representing the owner of the debt and therefore has no authority to enforce the foreclosure.

Promissory notes may be enforced without ownership of the debt. Mortgages and deeds of trust cannot. Article 9 of the UCC as adopted by all 50 states as their state law requires that the debt be owned or purchased for value as a condition precedent to the right of the claimant to enforce a mortgage through foreclosure.

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 consent 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 courts are hiding the issue but there is full consensus on the fact that a mortgage without ownership of the debt is useless. If you analyze the decisions it is always there. But the courts are creative in coming to the conclusion that the transfer of ownership of the debt MUST have occurred (even if it didn’t).

They are bridging that divide by making some legal presumptions like “why execute the assignment of mortgage if you were not transferring the debt?” This of course ignores the question of whether (1) the assignor owned the debt (2) the assignor also specifically referenced transfer of the debt either in the assignment of mortgage or in an indorsement on the note.

I have already explained in many different ways that the ownership of the debt is completely dependent upon actual payment of value and the assumption of the risk of nonpayment.  And I have often explained that the last person in the fictitious chain used by enforcers is virtually never the owner of the debt nor an authorized representative of the owner of the debt.

The rule is this: At some point in the fictitious chain, payment was not made because the loan was already sold. This could be as early as before the loan “Closing” to as late as the most recent assignment of mortgage. Note as well that where assignment of mortgage is abandoned at trial the case ceases to become a foreclosure case and converts solely to an action for damages for nonpayment on the note.

Transfer of the note is evidence of transfer of the debt. The matter asserted is that the debt was transferred. If the transferor of the note actually owned the debt, the evidence of transfer of the debt becomes fairly conclusive. But without evidence showing that the transferor owned the debt, no legal presumption should arise. And if the maker of the note challenges (denies) the transfer of the debt, the burden is on the enforcer to establish a chain of evidence starting with the owner of the debt. One way to put this in contention is simply denying that the note is held or owned by the enforcer which makes them prove it. In many cases the enforcer ahs been successful at fabricating a new “original.”

*
There is also an issue that is more grounded in law: the delivery of the note signals transfer of the debt because the note is like the title to a car. You become the legal owner when you get it. When you receive the note the presumption arises that the only evidence of the debt has been transferred to the recipient. Whether the note really is the only evidence of the debt is of course subject to dispute and normally not true. Dozens of documents at closing reflect the existence of the debt but not necessarily the owner of the debt. The only real conclusive evidence of the debt is evidence of actual payment by the Payee on the note to or on behalf of the Maker.
*
The creative courts dodge (1) the question about whether the prior possessor owned the note or debt and (2) whether the original note was actually physically delivered. In most cases only an image was delivered electronically, the original most likely having been destroyed or “lost.” Other sales of the image of the original note have almost always occurred. However, up to this point in time, the payoff to the underwriter/investment bank is not counted as reducing the receivable from the borrower to zero, even if the amount received is a multiple of the original note. If the investment bank was acting in the interest of investors to whom it sold Trust certificates, then the first money would have been return of capital to the investors and subsequent payoffs would have been shared between the underwriter and the investors.
*
The problem of course is that there would be no subsequent sales without the illusion that the loan still exists. So the investment banks created a convoluted trail to make it appear that the receivable (debt) existed while at the same time not titling it as such in the name of anyone. It was a brilliant act of deception. And THAT is the reason why they won’t identify the creditor. And it is the reason why no bank has ever challenged a TILA rescission by filing a suit to vacate the rescission. THERE IS NO CREDITOR, DESIGNATED OR OTHERWISE. Hence all such enforcement claims lack legal standing. TILA rescission strips away the veneer. If the banks actually had a creditor they would have buried anyone using rescission with a simple lawsuit vacating the rescission. They don’t because they can’t.

Statutory Requirements for Enforcement of Note or Mortgage

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

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

So many people sent me this short white paper that I don’t know who to thank or even who wrote it. Any help would be appreciated so I can edit this article and give attribution to the writer.

The only thing that I would caution is that eventually, perhaps sometime soon, the importance of the Assignment and Assumption Agreement will rise in importance as to these enforcement actions based upon a fictitious closing, debt, note and mortgage. The A&A is an agreement between the “originator” and some other “aggregator conduit”.

The A&A essentially calls for violation of TILA by not disclosing the existence of a third party lender. It also allows for compensation and profits arising from the signature of the borrower on the settlement documents without disclosure of who received that compensation or made those profits and how much they were “earning.”

Whether this is ultimately determined to be a table funded loan or simply not a loan contract at all with the borrower remains to be seen. If it is determined to be a table funded loan with an undisclosed third party lender who is not even the aggregator in the A&A then according to regulations Z it is “predatory per se.” If it is predatory per se then how can anyone seek enforcement in equity (i.e. foreclosure)?

And while I am at it, to answer the question of many judges — “what difference does it make where the money came from? — ASK THE BANKS. They nearly always demand to see the bank account from which the down payment is being made and even going beyond that to require the borrower to prove that the money is the money of the borrower. If normal underwriting requires the borrower to produce proof of funding then why isn’t the bank required to prove that they funded the loan — either by origination or acquisition or both?

If a borrower gets the down payment from his Uncle Joe because he is in fact broke, then the Bank under normal underwriting circumstances won’t approve the loan. If a Bank has no financial stake in the alleged “loan” then why should THEY be allowed to enforce it? Isn’t that highly prejudicial to the real creditors? Isn’t the foreclosure judge making it harder for the real creditors to collect by entering judgment for a party who has no risk, no financial stake and no contractual right (or obligations) to represent the real creditor.

And lastly is the wrong assumption about the chronology of these transactions. The mortgage backed securities were “sold forward,” which is to say there was nothing in the Trust when they were sold — and as it turns out in most cases the Trust never got any loans. Further the notes and mortgages were also sold forward in a cloudy arrangement in which the ownership and balance due was at least in doubt if not unknown. You must remember that the banks were not in the business of loaning money — they were in the business of selling mortgage backed securities for empty trusts and then using the money any way they chose.

All that said the following was received by me from several people and I agree with virtually all of it.

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

Statutory Requirements For Establishing The Right To Enforce An Instrument

1. Prove status of holder of the instrument. (UCC § 3-301(i)); or

2. Prove status of non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder. (UCC § 3-301(ii)); or

3. Prove status of being entitled to enforce the instrument as a person not in possession of the instrument pursuant to UCC § 3-309 or UCC § 3-418(d). (NOTE is lost, stolen, destroyed).

UCC § 3-309, requirements.

a. Prove possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred. (UCC § 3-309(a)(1)).

i. If illegality or fraud were involved in the original transaction, it cannot be proved that the person is entitled to enforce the instrument.(See UCC § 3-305. DEFENSES)

b. Prove non-possession of the NOTE is NOT the result of a transfer. (UCC § 3-309(a)(2)).

NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).

c. Prove that the person seeking enforcement cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process. (UCC § 3-309(a)(3)).

NOTE: If discovery shows that the instrument was sold by the person claiming the right to enforcement, a transfer occurred, and such person is NOT entitled to enforce the instrument. (See UCC § 3-309(a)(ii)).

d. A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-309(b)).

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

UCC § 3-309 Enforcement Of Lost, Destroyed, Or Stolen Instrument.
(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if

(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument​
(A) was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or
(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred; ​
(2) the loss of possession was NOT the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and​
(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.​

(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

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

An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. (UCC § 3-203(a)).

If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee. (UCC 3-203(d)).

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

If the bank, mortgage company, etc., sold the NOTE, they have no right to enforce the NOTE, through foreclosure or court proceeding pursuant to the fact that the UCC bars such claimant from invoking the court’s subject matter jurisdiction of the case.

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

Even if the claimant produces the original wet-ink NOTE, there is a defense to the action pursuant to UCC 3-305.

Illegality and false representation (fraud) perpetrated in the transaction.

Did the bankdisclose the SOURCE of the money for the transaction?Did the bank inform the NOTE issuer that the money for the transaction was provided at no cost to the bank?

Did the bank disclose that the NOTE would be sold at the earliest possible convenience, and that such sale and receipt of money from a third party would actually pay off the NOTE? (Satisfaction of Mortgage).​

Many discovery questions to be asked when a claimant initiates foreclosure proceedings.

***********

Many assume that the bank/broker/lender that begins the process is actually providing the money for making a “loan,” when in fact, the bank/broker/lender is only making an “exchange,“ of notes, at no cost, and then, coercing the issuer of the promissory note into the comprehension that he is receiving a “loan.” The following was stated in A PRIMER ON MONEY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC FINANCE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 88th Congress, 2d Session, AUGUST 5, 1964, CHAPTER VIII, HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE GIVES AWAY PUBLIC FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE BANKS [44-985 O-65-7, p89]

“In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such as Government bonds.”​

In this instance, the transaction was funded by using the prospective property (collateral) and the signer’s promissory note as if the property and the Note already belonged to the bank/broker/lender. [Editor’s note: Those loans NEVER belonged to the Bank who was selling them before they even existed.]

So, if the bank used the promissory NOTE, as money, to create the cash reserve which was then used to validate the bank check issued on the face amount of the promissory NOTE, at no cost to the bank, without NOTICE to the signer of the promissory NOTE, and without fully disclosing these facts and aspects of the transaction, the bank committed a DECEPTIVE PRACTICE, FRAUD.

Two Different Worlds — Note and Mortgage

Further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

No radio show tonight because of birthday celebration — I’m 68 and still doing this

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

The enforcement of promissory notes lies within the context of the marketplace for currency and currency equivalents. The enforcement of mortgages on real property lies within the the context of the marketplace for real estate transactions. While certainty is the aim of public policy in those two markets, the rules are different and should not be ignored.

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

see http://www.uniformlaws.org/Shared/Committees_Materials/PEBUCC/PEB_Report_111411.pdf

This article is not a substitute for getting advice from an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in which your property is or was located.

Back in 2008 I had some correspondence and telephone conversations with an attorney in Chicago, Robert Wutscher when I was writing about the reality of the way in which banks were doing  what they called “securitization of mortgages.” Of course then they were denying that there were any trusts, denying that any transfers occurred and were suing in the name of the originator or MERS or anyone but the party who actually had their money used in loan transactions.  It wasn’t done the right way because the obvious intent was to play a shell game in which the banks would emerge as the apparent principal party in interest under the illusion created by certain presumptions attendant to being the “holder” of a note. For each question I asked him he replied that Aurora in that case was the “holder.” No matter what the question was, he replied “we’re the holder.” I still have the letter he sent which also ignored the rescission from the homeowner whose case I was inquiring about for this blog.

He was right that the banks would be able to bend the law on rescission at the level of the trial courts because Judges just didn’t like TILA rescission. I knew that in the end he would lose on that proposition eventually and he did when Justice Scalia, in a terse opinion, simply told us that Judges and Justices were wrong in all those trial court decisions and even appellate court decisions that applied common law theories to modify the language of the Federal Law (TILA) on rescission. And now bank lawyers are facing the potential consequences of receiving notices of TILA rescission where the bank simply ignored them instead of preserving the rights of the “lender” by filing a declaratory action within 20 days of the rescission. By operation of law, the note and mortgage were nullified, ab initio. Which means that any further activity based upon the note and mortgage was void. And THAT means that the foreclosures were void.

Is discussing the issue of the “holder” with lawyers and even doing a tour of seminars I found that the confusion that was apparent for lay people was also apparent in lawyers. They looked at the transaction and the rights to enforce as one single instrument that everyone called “the mortgage.” They looked at me like I had three heads when I said, no, there are three parts to every one of these illusory transactions and the banks fail outright on two of them.

The three parts are the debt, the note and the mortgage. The debt arises when the borrower receives money. The presumption is that it is a loan and that the borrower owes the money back. it isn’t a gift. There should be no “free house” discussion here because we are talking about money, not what was done with the money. Only a purchase money mortgage loan involves the house and TILA recognizes that. Some of the rules are different for those loans. But most of the loans were not purchase money mortgages in that they were either refinancing, or combined loans of 1st mortgage plus HELOC. In fact it appears that ultimately nearly all the outstanding loans fall into the category of refinancing or the combined loan and HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit that exactly matches the total loan requirements of the transaction (including the purchase of the home).

The debt arises by operation of law in favor of the party who loaned the money. The banks diverged from the obvious and well-established practice of the lender being the same party as the party named on the note as payee and on the mortgage as mortgagee (or beneficiary under a Deed of Trust). The banks did this through a process known as “Table Funded Loans” in which the real lender is concealed from the borrower. And they did this through agreements frequently called “Assignment and Assumption” Agreements, which by contract called for both parties (the originator and the aggregator to violate the laws governing disclosure (TILA and frequently state law) which means by definition that the contract called for an illegal act that is by definition a contract in contravention of public policy.

A loan contract is created by operation of law in which the borrower is obligated to pay back the loan to the source of the funds with or without a written instrument. If the loan contract (comprised of offer, acceptance and consideration) does not exist, then there is nothing to enforce at law although it is possible to still force the borrower to repay the money to the actual source of funds through a suit in equity — mainly unjust enrichment. The banks, through their lawyers, argue that the Federal disclosure requirements should be ignored. I think it is pretty clear that Justice Scalia and a unanimous United States Supreme Court think that argument stinks. It is the bank’s argument that should be ignored, not the law.

Congress passed TILA specifically to protect consumers of financial products (loans) from the overly burdensome and overly complex nature of loan documents. This argument about what is important and what isn’t has already been addressed in Congress and signed into law against the banks’ position that it doesn’t matter whether they really follow the law and disclose all the parties involved in the transaction, the true identity of the lender, the compensation of all the parties that made money as a result of the origination of the loan transaction. Regulation Z states that a pattern of behavior (more than 5) in which loans are table funded (disclosure of real lender withheld from borrower) is PREDATORY PER SE.

If it is predatory per se then there are remedies available to the borrower which potentially include treble damages, attorneys fees etc. Equally important if not more so is that a transaction, whether illusory or real, that is predatory per se, is therefore against public policy and the party seeking to enforce an otherwise enforceable document cannot do so because of the doctrine of unclean hands. In fact, if the transaction is predatory per se, it is dirty hands per se. And this is where Judges get stuck and so do many lawyers. The outcome of that unavoidable analysis is, they say, a free house. And their remedy is to give the party with unclean hands a free house (because they paid nothing for the origination or acquisition of the loan). I think the Supreme Court will not look kindly upon this “legislating from the bench.” And I think the Court has already signaled its intent to hold everyone to the strict construction of TILA and Regulation Z.

So there are two reason the debt can’t be enforced the way the banks want. (1) There is no loan contract because the source of the money and the borrower never agreed to anything and neither one knew about the other. (2) the mortgage cannot be enforced because it is an action in equity and the shell game of parties tossing the paperwork around all have unclean hands. And there is a third reason as well — while the note might be enforceable based merely on an endorsement, the mortgage is not enforceable unless the enforcer paid for it (Article 9, UCC).

And THAT is where the confusion really starts — which bank lawyers depend on every time they go to court. Bank lawyers add to the confusion by using the tired phrase of “the note follows the mortgage and the mortgage follows the note.” At one time this was a completely true presumption backed up by real facts. But now the banks are asking the courts to apply the presumption even when the courts actually know that the facts presumed by the legal presumption are untrue.

Notes and mortgages exist in two different marketplaces or different worlds, if you like. Public policy insists that notes that are intended to be negotiable remain negotiable and raise certain presumptions. The holder of a note might very well be able to sue and win a judgment ON THE NOTE. And the judgment holder might be able to record a judgment lien and foreclose on it subject to homestead exemptions.

But it isn’t as simple as the banks make it out to be.

If someone pays for the note in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses when the note is not in default, THAT holder can enforce the note against the signor or maker of the note regardless of lack of consideration or anything else unless there is a provable defense of fraud and perhaps conspiracy. But any other holder steps into the shoes of the original lender. And if there was no consummated loan contract between the payee on the note and the borrower because the payee never loaned any money to the borrower, then the holder might have standing to sue but they don’t have the evidence to win the suit. The borrower still owes the money to whoever was the source, but the “holder” of the note doesn’t get a judgment. There is a difference between standing to sue and a prima facie case needed to win. Otherwise everyone would get one of those mechanical forging machines and sign the name of someone with money and sue them on a note they never signed. Or they would promise to loan money, get the signed note and then not complete the loan contract by making the loan.

So public policy demands that there be reasonable certainty in the negotiation of unqualified promises to pay. BUT public policy expressed in the UCC Article 9 says that if you want to enforce a mortgage you must not only have some indication that it was transferred to you, you must also have paid valuable consideration for the mortgage.

Without proof of payment, there is no prima facie case for enforcement of the mortgage, but it does curiously remain on the chain of title of the property (public records) unless nullified by the fact that the mortgage was executed as collateral for the note which was NOT a true representation of the loan contract based upon the real debt that arose by operation of law. The public policy is preserve the integrity of public records in the real estate marketplace. That is the only way to have reasonable certainty of title and encumbrances.

Forfeiture, an equitable remedy, must be done with clean hands based upon a real interest in the alleged default — not just a pile of paper that grows each year as banks try to convert an assignment of mortgage into a substitute for consideration.

Hence being the “holder” might mean you have the right to sue on the note but without being a holder in due course or otherwise paying fro the mortgage, there is no automatic basis for enforcing the mortgage in favor of a party with no economic interest in the mortgage.

see also http://knowltonlaw.com/james-knowlton-blog/ucc-article-3-and-mortgage-backed-securities.html

Some stories don’t end well in this battle for justice — A Smiling Judge Refuses to Get it

WHY WE ARE PLANNING 2-3 DAY BOOT-CAMPS AND MANUALS FOR LAWYERS, BOOT-CAMPS FOR FORENSIC ANALYSTS, AND BOOT-CAMPS FOR LAYMEN. IT’S JUST NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAY WANT IT TO BE.

NOT EVERYTHING ENDS WELL. THE BATTLE IS ON. THIS JUDGE SAID THE ASSIGNMENT DOESN’T NEED TO BE RECORDED TO PROVE OWNERSHIP. HE’S TECHNICALLY RIGHT, BUT HIS CONCLUSION WAS WRONG. THIS IS WHY I KEEP SAYING THERE IS NO SILVER BULLET. The fact that an assignment is not recorded does not mean that it can’t be recorded — unless it is not executed in recordable form. If it isn’t executed in recordable form and it isn’t recorded then it violates the terms of the pooling and service agreement and the prospectus/indentures for the mortgage backed bond sold investors.

If the purported document violates the enabling documents then the assignment has not been accepted. If the assignment has not been accepted then there is no assignment. At best there is a conditional assignment which is clearly in violation of the the express terms of the enabling documents. The existence of the condition creates an issue of fact as to who really has the right to own, enforce and collect on the obligation, note and mortgage.

If there was no consideration for the “transfer? then there isn’t even an equitable argument for why the pretender lender should be allowed to foreclose. They have nothing to lose by the alleged default and obviously don’t even know if there is a default in the OBLIGATION that was FUNDED with ADVANCED MONEY by INVESTORS.

But you see, this Judge was already predisposed to not giving the “borrower” a free house. He/She needs to be coddled and led along the path of education so he/she understands that the “borrower” is actually an investor who purchased a financial loan product subject to terms and duties which were breached by all the people in the securitization chain. The “lender” is the investor who advanced the money and is not in court.

The pretender lender is using bluff and fraud to get their share of the great American pie at the homeowner’s expense, depriving the homeowner of the knowledge of the identity of the true lender, the ability to settle out of court with the true lender, the ability to comply with federal law in seeking modification, short-sale, refinance or even payoff because the pretender lender in Court in Florida doesn’t even have the right, power, authority or justification to execute a satisfaction of mortgage.

If they don’t have the power to execute a satisfaction of mortgage then how could they have the power to foreclose?

The problem with this case is that the homeowners should be aggressive but not to try to convince the Judge why he/she should get a free house. You must align yourself with the Judge’s basic sense of fairness and basic mistrust of legal maneuvering to get out of a legally owed debt. By focusing your aggression on discovery, enforcement of the QWR and/or DVL, asking for the name of the true lender and the production of documents and names, addresses and phone numbers of people who can testify under oath, you present the Judge with something he cannot or should not refuse and that any appellate court would reverse him on. You are asking for discovery to test the merits of the pretender lender’s allegation or position that they have the right to enforce the note, that they are the party to whom the obligation is owed, that they are a creditor in the sense that they advanced money which they will lose if they don’t get to enforce the note and obligation, and that therefore they are the beneficiary of the terms of the the mortgage that secures the alleged debt.

If you go into court spouting securitization theories it is very easy to say you haven’t convinced the Judge. If you go in demanding an evidentiary hearing based upon the rules of evidence and founded on common discovery and enforcement in obtaining relevant information about your loan, and seeking an accounting from those people, entities or parties that were participants in the securitization chain, then you are only asking for a COMPLETE accounting so that you discover what undisclosed fees were paid under TILA and RESPA, and the true identities of the people involved in your table-funded loan.

I’m sorry for your result Mr Fitzgerald, but perhaps with the aid of competent, licensed, local counsel you can move for rehearing, file a bankruptcy that will stay the proceedings, and/or appeal.

Author : L.Fitzgerald
Comment:
” Happy Thanksgiving …give thanks to all the Blessings you have……he said,

and don’t complaint of the things you don’t have..”

“I’ll be eating turkey with my ” kids ” tomorrow “…he happily remarked .

With a smile on his face ..this Orlando 9 th Judicial Circuit

Court .. Judge…denied my motion to vacate judgment , and

allowed my house to be sold on Jan. 2010.

We became a ” potential homelessness couple.”… .the day

before Thanksgiving..

He was very kind to a Wall Street Bankster [ plaintiff ]..he gave away my only home ….

During this hearing ..one of my main arguments ..

was the Plaintiff’s lack of recorded Assignments ..and chain of

Title .. [ The Bankster is not my original lender..].

The smiling Judge made this comment ..that shocked us …

” Florida law does not require Assignments to be recorded…

…to prove the Plaintiff’s ownership…!!.

%d bloggers like this: