Livinglies’s Weblog

Cash for keys is an offer from somebody that basically says that you are no longer the owner of the property, we can get an order of eviction, we can get the sheriff to throw you out, or you can accept $1,000 (or whatever the amount is in the offer) and get out on your own.

If you accept such a deal do not sign anything except a document that says you are acknowledging payment and that you will vacate the property. If the offer contains any language that looks like a release of other claims, do not sign it unless you have decided, after consulting local counsel, that you are willing to give up what might be very substantial claims against the lender which can always be brought after the sale. 

Cash for keys is a good option if you are giving up anyway. And nobody can blame you from walking away from a fight that you don’t understand, that you can’t match the resources or power of your adversary, and where you don’t know what to do and have no knowledge of the outcome of fighting this. Being out of money doesn’t help either.

So whatever decision you make is understandable and RIGHT FOR YOU because you made it. There is no right and wrong here except that what the lenders did here in conspiracy with Wall Street was clearly wrong.

ALL THAT SAID —- MY SUGGESTION IS THAT YOU FIGHT ON AND HAVE AN EMERGENCY PLAN B READY IF YOU NEED IT. AND CONSULT WITH COMPETENT COUNSEL BECAUSE THIS IS GENERAL INFORMATION AND NOT LEGAL ADVICE IN YOUR PARTICULAR CASE.

If you delay the eviction through bankruptcy (you can get one of those do it yourself kits) you should probably send a letter registered mail return receipt requested to the lender and file a Chapter 13, along with an adversary proceeding which says basically that the lender committed many violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), that you are entitled to an accounting for all interest paid, all points paid, and a refund of all out-of pocket expenses associated with finance charges or the costs of closing on the loan, and that you hereby rescind the transaction.

Under TILA (see my recent BLOG posts) this eliminates both the security interest and the debt.

You must allege that the lender procured title through trickery and fraud, that they have no security interest, that they have no entitlement to payment, and that they are NOT the owner of the actual security instrument nor the debt which has been sold as a collateralized mortgage obligation to a third party investor who has never been joined in the prior proceedings; thus they failed to join an indispensable party which means that the prior procedures which resulted in transfer of title were not only procured by trickery, fraud on the court, and overreaching, they did so without properly or legally invoking the jurisdiction of the local government that authorizes judicial and non-judicial sale.

Thus the taking of the title was an unconsitutional denial of due process, void ab initio (at inception) and therefore unenforceable by any court.

Hence when they (the lenders) move for relief from stay, you can point to their lack of standing because they did not legally or properly obtain title and you have rescinded (attach copy of your letter) so they don’t have the option of clearing it up.

Now here is the kicker.

Under TILA, when you are NOT REPRESENTED By COUNSEL the Judge, especially if it is in Federal Court (which is the case in all bankruptcies) MUST in essence act as your lawyer and review the facts, the allegations, the case law and the circumstances to determine if there is ANY basis to support the relief you are asking for or to deny the relief the lender is asking for.

In other words you are better off not having a lawyer than having one who barely knows what he or she is doing. The bankruptcy judges are almost universally well-schooled in the law and very sharp. You couldn’t have a better lawyer! Of course if you DO know a very competent attorney who is familiar with these concepts, then you are better off going with the lawyer than without one.

Another casualty of the Mortgage Meltdown induced paranoia that is sweeping the credit and money markets: Banks no longer trust the indexes which they have relied upon for decades. In other words, they don’t trust each other. And they don’t trust the people who report on what is happening out in the financial marketplace. The simple fact is that they do NOT know how much they are paying or how much they are going to pay, or the actual trend lines in inter-bank lending. This basically slips the rug out of the entire credit infrastructure. 

What this means to the average Joe or Jane is that it adds uncertainty to an already chaotic marketplace. Uncertainty produces fear and fear produces increased risk aversion. Bottom Line: Interest rates are going up no matter what the central banks do. Loans will be harder to get. Asset values will decline because of the difficulty in obtaining financing that is usually associated with the purchase of those assets — like housing and mortgages. 

In terms of policy, it means that decision-makers in government and the private sector need to be honest and straightforward in their reporting of data.

Making lemons appear to be lemonade is going to further erode trust and confidence in the financial systems.

THOSE WHO COUNSEL CAUTION IN GIVING THE PUBLIC THE REAL FACTS ARE PROLONGING THE AGONY. HISTORY SHOWS THAT WHEN THE BAD NEWS IS OUT AND THE PUBLIC BELIEVES THAT IT IS ALL OUT, THE PROCESS OF HEALING AND REJUVENATION BEGINS. Until then, we are headed at best for a limping economy, with declining prospects. 

Pointing out sectors that have upticks does nothing to restore confidence in the overall system. Everyone understands that the failure here was systemic, not economic. Failure to address that issue will simply produce declining confidence in the markets until people start believing what they are told. They won’t believe it unless they can confirm it. And we all have access now to information that will confirm or deny the spin or reports that government and private sector leaders publish.

Time to fess up boys!!!!

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — A New York-based measure of how much it costs banks to borrow money will try to circumvent problems dogging Libor, the London benchmark that sets rates for everything from adjustable-rate mortgages to interest rate futures.

Successful avoidance of some pitfalls that have undermined bankers’ trust in Libor, however, is unlikely to prevent ICAP Plc’s New York Funding Rate from mimicking at least one of its London counterparts’ key traits. That is, a gap with other interest rates that suggests borrowing conditions for the world’s largest banks are still quite stressed.

“At this point, the U.S. index won’t make much difference, but it may be a good idea six months from now,” said Brendan Brown, head of research at Mitsubishi (UFJ) Securities International, in London.

Bankers point to a raft of other indicators, from currency forward rates to swap spreads, to show that bank borrowing costs are still high even while other measures of credit risk have fallen. That discrepancy has been a source of nagging worry for investors and economists looking for proof that the worse of the credit crisis has truly passed.

In fact, an interest rate that side-steps some of the problems that have recently undermined investors’ trust in Libor may even show banks are paying higher rates than shows up in Libor.

A month ago, Libor made its steepest five-day advance since August after concerns emerged that some banks had been underreporting their rates, out of fear they would be penalized if outsiders knew how much they were paying for funding.

Icap (UK:IAP: news, chart, profile) , a London-based inter-dealer broker that specializes in handling over-the-counter transactions like currencies and interest rates, is trying to discourage banks from fibbing about their borrowing costs by making its survey of 40 global banks anonymous.

Plus, rather than ask banks for the rate at which they can borrow short-term, unsecured loans — as the British Bankers Association does — ICAP will ask banks for their estimates of what the going rate is for the average bank.

There’s some urgency among banks, borrowers and the Federal Reserve to know just how costly it is for banks to tap the money market for their borrowings.

These funds are one of the main ways U.S. and overseas banks get capital for their own lending activities. If their costs are running high, they are likely to lend less, a headache for consumers and businesses that rely on flush conditions at banks to fund new mortgages, new auto loans, student loans, acquisitions and expansions.

And if the new measure does show Libor has been printing lower than the true cost of interbank borrowings, a lot of consumers and businesses with loans tied to Libor could get a nasty shock. It’s been estimated that loans and derivative contracts totaling roughly $150 trillion (more than $20,000 for every person on earth) are indexed or tied to Libor in some way.

In fact, the universe of financial instruments tied to Libor is so huge that some bankers are nervous that any efforts to tweak the way Libor is collected could make a bigger mess.

Libor “is extremely important,” said Terry Belton, head of fixed income strategy at J.P. Morgan Chase. “We would probably create more problems by changing it in a material way than we would solve,” he said.

Libor rises…

ICAP’s efforts to publish a new bank lending rate follows an unusual period where Libor as well as other bank lending rates have frequently topped central bank policy rates, meaning banks are paying more to borrow because of heightened credit and liquidity risk

The difference, or spread, between the three-month U.S.-dollar Libor and the effective federal funds rate rose to more than 80 basis points on Wednesday. Usually, dollar-denominated Libor tracks closely with the fed funds rate. See earlier story on Libor’s rise.

By other measures, costs for banks’ borrowing needs have also been rising. The spread between three-month Libor and overnight index swaps has been climbing since February. What’s known among credit analysts as the BOR-OIS spread gives a view of Libor that strips out expectations that central banks will raise or lower rates.

These spreads “are all signs that there is stress in the market,” said Eoin O’Callaghan, market economist for BNP Paribas in London.

Such signs of stress are worrisome for the Fed, which has $462 billion in special lending programs to financial institutions as it tries to get money flowing in frozen pockets of the credit market.

Notwithstanding efforts by the Fed and other central banks to “meet panic demands for liquidity” by making more funds available to financial institutions, still “many markets are not functioning normally,” noted Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, in a speech Tuesday.

In contrast to rates that reflecting bank costs, indexes that track perceived credit risk and rates paid by corporations have been tumbling. Markit’s index of high-grade, North American credit default swaps has fallen about 27% since late-March. The spread between safe-haven 10-yield Treasury notes and bonds issued by companies with Baa ratings, which indicate riskier but still investment-grade companies, has also narrowed since mid-March.

… But not by enough?

Amid these concerns, other measures of short-term borrowing, such as the over-the-counter market to buy currencies like euros or sterling for future delivery, also suggest Libor just may not be high enough.

The British Bankers Association gets the Libor “fix” by polling global banks including Citigroup’s Citibank (C

) and Lloyds TSB Group (UK:LLOY: news, chart, profile) every day on what they are paying for funds.

The group says it doubts its Libor panel banks are contributing to deliberate distortions of the rate. Still, it has brought forward a review of how the rate gets calculated. See related story. And banks may be paying more for their loans than Libor suggests for purely innocent reasons.

It’s just not that liquid a market, bankers note.

Plus, the massive and surprise losses resulting from the U.S. housing market collapse have created a lot of variation among financial institutions when they try to borrow money. Banks that are light on funding or carry poor credit are likely to pay a far higher rate in the forward currency market, for instance, than the Libor panel would reflect.

“This is a problem that is temporary in nature and reflects the dislocation in the financing market,” J.P. Morgan Chase’s Belton said. He predicts that as central banks inject more money into the financial system “and as things there improve, we’ll move back to a world where all banks in panel have similar financing rates.”

Banks are likely paying more to borrow money, whether that’s reflected in Libor or another indicator, simply because supply has dried up. Banks, mutual funds and corporations that lend in the bank borrowing market are keeping more cash to themselves.

“Confidence in and between banks has been dented significantly after the Bear Stearns Cos. (BSC

) episode. Investors and banks are reluctant to lend cash to banks, effectively wondering who the next casualty will be,” said economists at Societe Generale in a report.

In mid-March, Bear Stearns came close to collapse, causing fears of a run on Wall Street.

“Also, money market funds, which are liquidity providers, continue to fear redemptions and invest at very low maturities,” they noted.

New York fixing

Since the NYFR will be based on a survey, rather than actual transactions, there still will be no way of telling if banks are giving an honest assessment of borrowing costs.

“There’s not really an ultimate check on whether the rates banks are reporting are the right rates,” said Brown of Mitsubishi Securities.

One thing that will change, however, is the time zone.

The British Bankers Association gets the so-called fixing of rates at 11 a.m. London time, or about 6 a.m. New York time. That’s about three hours before banks in the United States can start borrowing money in U.S. dollars, so may not accurately reflect the price of costs facing banks trying to tap these dollar markets.

ICAP’s planned NYFR rate instead will query banks at 9:30 a.m. New York time.

ICAP’s planned rate will also attempt to give a better view of what’s going on in the market for dollar-based bank borrowing than one of its current measures, eurodollar deposits. It gets this data from bid-ask spreads ICAP users provide for these deposits and supplies it to the Fed, which publishes the bid rate daily on its H. 15 statistical release. Go to the Fed’s Web site.

As the financial markets have convulsed, those eurodollar deposit rates have increasingly reflected a wider bid-ask spread, perhaps skewing the published rate.

“Since August, and especially since Bear Stearns, our desk has been setting that range very wide to reflect that trading is a lot messier,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, the New York research arm of ICAP.

“It made us look for a more objective way to say where rates are trading,” he said.

NYFR is designed to give a clearer snapshot of bank borrowing costs. But it’s not designed to become the next Libor, which is the benchmark for so many loans and derivatives, Crandall stressed.

“This is designed to supplement Libor, not replace it,” Crandall said. “The series we had been publishing was no longer adequate for that purpose.” 

Laura Mandaro is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco.

TIME TO WAKE UP. EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT IN DEFAULT THE MORTGAGE MELTDOWN IS GOING TO HURT YOU UNLESS YOU ACT NOW. GET INVOLVED! THERE IS NO “MIDDLE GROUND”

Most projections put the number at over 20 million homes, which means that over 95% of the people negatively impacted by the mortgage meltdown either didn’t purchase or refinance their homes or if they did are not in default and think this situation will pass them by — after all “I’M NOT BEHIND IN MY PAYMENTS. I’M FINE!” No you are not!!! 

If this mess is not cleared up by aggressive government intervention you will permanently lose equity in your house, see your real estate taxes soar, and watch as inflation eats up that comfortable margin you think you have in income. 

Bernanke is no give-away liberal. He wants this because it is absolutely necessary and at that only a partial step. 

Write your congressmen and senators. We cannot afford stick our heads in the sand on this one on some ideological grounds protecting taxpayer bailouts or whatever. It doesn’t matter whether or not the mortgage meltdown started with borrowers being stupid or Wall Street being greedy. It happened. And now it’s a train wreck headed your way.

Anatomy of a Fight

Over Mortgage Bill

By JOSEPH SCHUMAN

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

A surge of partisanship has placed in jeopardy a bill aimed at helping homeowners who are at risk of foreclosure. But the political resonance of the issue could prompt the measure’s Republican critics and Democratic backers to find middle ground.

The bill would try to lower risks for both the lender and the borrower, by offering government-backed insurance to lenders willing to reduce the principal for loans made to some people who owe more on the property than the home is now worth. It passed through the House Financial Services Committee with 10 Republicans joining Chairman Barney Frank and the panel’s other Democrats. But after President Bush yesterday came out and threatened to veto the bill, Republicans threw up legislative roadblocks to keep the measure from the House floor, as the New York Times reports. Mr. Bush says the bill would “reward speculators and lenders” without making a big dent in the country’s mortgage and housing-market crisis. Moreover, Republicans argue, it means taxpayers could be stuck with bad loans newly insured by the Federal Housing Administration. But the issue is more complicated than that.

Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel boils down the debate to a question of whether Washington should push the lenders to help Americans whose home values sank below the size of their mortgages “even if it may cost taxpayers some money,” with the White House saying “No!” and Mr. Frank, quietly backed by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, saying “Yes!” Citing research from Economy.com, Mr. Wessel puts the number of families with such “underwater” mortgages at about four million, and notes that number is predicted to reach around 12 million by early next year. While many of those families will keep paying their mortgages, “many won’t, and are at risk of losing their homes,” he says. Since “no one in Washington wants to help the ’speculators’” who bought homes as investments, and most there agree people who bought houses they can’t afford are probably beyond aid, “the debate revolves around the ‘preventable foreclosures,’” he adds.

And no one, from the homeowners to the lenders to the politicians and economists like Mr. Bernanke, wants to let “preventable foreclosures” go unprevented. The bill, while crafted to exclude people who don’t need the help or wouldn’t benefit, “could allow some homeowners to get a deal they don’t deserve; that’s the unfortunate byproduct of any rescue,” Mr. Wessel notes. But the Treasury and Fed, he argues, “surrendered the let-the-market-work-it-out high ground when they agreed to risk nearly $30 billion of taxpayer money to shield Bear Stearns, its creditors and counterparties from losses.” Democratic legislators yesterday were mentioning the Bear Stearns bailout again and again.

The housing downturn is an economic problem with as much political resonance as gas prices, and if no relief is provided, it could be a poignant issue ahead of November’s elections. Even as Mr. Bush was threatening a veto yesterday, Keith Hennessey, director of the White House National Economic Council, was saying the differences between congressional Democrats and the administration aren’t “insurmountable,” the Journal reports, adding that this leaves the door open for an eventual deal.

TILA RIGHT OF RESCISSION and CONSEQUENCES

TRUTH IN LENDING

FEDERAL CIVIL COURT, FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY, STATE COURT INFORMATION

I have been inundated with TILA questions. So I went out hunting to see if anyone had already written about it in terms that a lay person might be able to understand. What I found is shown below. I believe it to be generally correct and the citations are good citations of law. See this site for the entire write-up. It should give most lay people an idea on how to handle this and it will be valuable to your lawyer if he/she is not totally familiar with the TILA context. http://www.rcxloan.com/Civil_Action__BK__Motion_14.htm. As always, we are available to answer questions and direct you to the proper people to get expert help and advice.

MY ANSWER TO OUR READER’S QUESTIONS:

1. TILA Rescission is self enforcing. It automatically extinguishes the lien and the liability. The time for rescission does not run until you actually knew the full scope of the violation. That is tantamount to it never running out. 
2. YOU CAN ASSERT AND SHOULD ASSERT TILA VIOLATIONS IF YOU CAN BEFORE YOU ARE IN FORECLOSURE OR EVEN IF YOU ARE CURRENT IN YOUR PAYMENTS. 
3. Judge is required to look for authority himself if you are representing yourself without a lawyer (pro se). This provision in effect makes the Judge your lawyer and your Judge. Pretty good combination for you. 
4. Judge has no discretion to deny damages, refunds etc to Borrower once a violation of TILA, no matter how small, is discovered.
5. TILA Rescission is NOT barred before during or after other proceedings unless those other proceedings specifically mention rescission as an issue to be tried.
6. Federal Action for injunction against the players to require them to file documents canceling the documents of record and providing judgment for damages and refunds is probably the best action since that is what is contemplated.
7. If in bankruptcy, it should be pled in an adversary proceeding. But if the bankruptcy is  primarily related to the foreclosure the better practice would be to file in the same Federal Court, Civil Division, a complaint for violation of TILA rescission.
8. A Quiet TItle Action in State Court would probably also be a good idea before, during or after the Federal action. It clears up any doubt whatsoever about the status of title or the lender’s lien or encumbrances. 
9. THIS IS INFORMATION YOU NEED BECAUSE THE LATEST LENDER STRATEGY SEEMS TO BE FOR THE LENDER TO IGNORE THE RESCISSION NOTICE. THE LENDER IS BETTING YOU WON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO. 
10. Suggestion: If you are in Court and you have opted or are ordered to settlement, try to get a paragraph in the mediation order that requires all decision-makers to be present, whether they are parties or not. This would include the holders of securities who are the ultimate owners of the mortgage. (You may get a pleasant surprise. We have reports that the lenders sometimes can’t trace them down, in which case, the foreclosure action or sale is dismissed and you have no mortgage).

TILA & Res Judicata

(Analogous to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se’s situation since he had never litigated fully or raised any TILA claims affirmatively or defensively) – 

A rescission action may not be barred by prior or subsequent TIL litigation which did not involve rescission (Smith v. Wells Fargo Credit Corp., 713 F. Supp.  354 (D. Ariz. 1989) (state court action involving, inter alia TIL disclosure violations did not bar a subsequent action based on rescission notice violations in conjunction with same transaction which were not alleged or litigated in prior action) (See also In re Laubach, 77 B.R. 483 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) (doctrine of merger bars raising state and federal law claims arising from a transaction on which a previous successful federal TILA action was based; merger does not bar, however, rescission-based on the same transaction)).

IX.  Timely Notified Lenders/Attorneys of TILA Right of Rescission

Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se filed a copy of the notice of rescission letter (See Exhibit 5) in the bankruptcy court notifying the attorneys representing DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance as well as having certified receipt return of proof of delivery to the Lawyers including are proof of notification according to the Official Staff Commentary, 226.2(a)(22)-2 as authorizing service on attorney.  

The Truth-in-Lending law empower Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se to exercise his right in writing by notifying creditors of his cancellation by mail to rescind the mortgage loan transactions per (Reg. Z §§ 226.15(a)(2), 226.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).

 Equitable Tolling
The filing of Bankruptcy tolls or extends the rescission time as Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se had filed for bankruptcy on September 26, 2005 and obtained a discharge on September 26, 2006. 

Also, the principle of equitable tolling does apply to TILA 3 years period of rescission since despite due diligence, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se could not have reasonably discovered the concealed fact of TILA violations in-depth and explicitly until September 17, 2006 at about 5 a.m. in reading the Truth-in-Lending book by the National Consumer Law Center.

The equitable tolling principles are to be read into every federal statute of limitations unless Congress expressly provides to the contrary in clear and ambiguous language, (See Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 560-61, 120 S. Ct. 1075, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1047 (2000)). Since TILA does not evidence a contrary Congressional intent, its statute of limitations must be read to be subject to equitable tolling, particularly since the act is to be construed liberally in favor of consumers.

 Security Interest is Void
The statute and regulation specify that the security interest, promissory note or lien arising by operation of law on the property becomes automatically void. (15 U.S.C. § 1635(b); Reg. Z §§ 226.15(d)(1), 226.23(d)(1). 

As noted by the Official Staff Commentary, the creditor’s interest in the property is “automatically negated regardless of its status and whether or not it was recorded or perfected.” (Official Staff Commentary §§ 226.15(d)(1)-1, 226.23(d)(1)-1.).  

Also, the security interest is void and of no legal effect irrespective of whether the creditor makes any affirmative response to the notice. Also, strict construction of Regulation Z would dictate that the voiding be considered absolute and not subject to judicial modification. 

This requires DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance to submit canceling documents creating the security interest and filing release or termination statements in the public record. (Official Staff Commentary §§ 226.15(d)(2)-3, 226.23(d)(2)-3.)

 Extended Right of Rescission
The statute and Regulation Z make it clear that, if Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se has the extended right and chooses to exercise it, the security interest and obligation to pay charges are automatically voided. (Cf. Semar v. Platte Valley Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 791 F.2d 699, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1986) (courts do not have equitable discretion to alter substantive provisions of TILA, so cases on equitable modification are irrelevant). 

The statute, section 1635(b) states: “When an obligor exercises his right to cancel…, any security interest given by the obligor… becomes void upon such rescission”. Also, it is clear from the statutory language that the court’s modification authority extends only to the procedures specified by section 1625(b).

The voiding of the security interest is not a procedure, in the sense of a step to be followed or an action to be taken. 

The statute makes no distinction between the right to rescind in three day or extended in three years for federal and four years under Mass. TILA, as neither cases nor statute give courts equitable discretion to alter TILA’s substantive provisions. 

Since the rescission process was intended to be self-enforcing, failure to comply with the rescission obligations subjects DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance to potential liability.

XIII.  Non-Compliance

Non-compliance is a violation of the act which gives rise to a claim for actual and statutory damages under 15 USC 1640. TIL rescission does not only cancel a security interest in the property but it also cancels any liability for the Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se to pay finance and other charges, including accrued interest, points, broker fees, closing costs and that the lender must refund to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se all finance charges and fees paid.

In case DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance do not respond to this default letter, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se has the option of enforcing the rescission right in the federal, bankruptcy or state court (See S. Rep. No. 368, 96th Cong. 2 Sess. 28 at 32 reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.A.N. 236, 268 (“The bill also makes explicit that a consumer may institute suit under section 130 [15 U.S.C., 1640] to enforce the right of rescission and recover costs and attorney fees”).  

TIL rescission does not only cancel a security interest in the property but it also cancels any liability for Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se to pay finance and other charges, including accrued interest, points, broker fees, closing costs and the lender must refund to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se all finance charges and fees paid.  

Thus, DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance are obligated to return those charges to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se (Pulphus v. Sullivan, 2003 WL 1964333, at *17 (N.D. Apr. 28, 2003) (citing lender’s duty to return consumer’s money as reason for allowing rescission of refinanced loan); McIntosh v. Irwing Union Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 26 (D. Mass. 2003) (citing borrower’s right to be reimbursed for prepayment penalty as reason for allowing rescission of paid-off loan).

XIV.  Sources of Law in Truth in Lending Cases

“These include TILA itself, the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Z which implements the Act, the Official Staff Commentary on Regulation Z, and case law.  Except where Congress has explicitly relieved lenders of liability for noncompliance, it is a strict liability statute.  (Truth-In-Lending, 5^th Edition, National Consumer Law Center, 1.4.2.3.2, page 11)

XV.  Synopsis of How Rescission Works

The process starts with the consumer’s notice to the creditor that he or she is rescinding the transaction.  As the bare bones nature of the FRB model notice demonstrates, it is not necessary to explain why the consumer is canceling.  The FRB Model Notice simply says: “I WISH TO CANCEL,” followed by a signature and date line (Arnold v. W.D.L. Invs., Inc., 703 F.2d 848, 850 (5^th cir. 1983) (clear intention of TILA and Reg. Z is to make sure that the creditor gets notice of the consumer’s intention to rescind)). 

The statute and Regulation Z states that if creditor disputes the consumer’s right to rescind, it should file a declaratory judgment action within the twenty days after receiving the rescission notice, before its deadline to return the consumer’s money or property and record the termination of its security interest (15 USC 1625(b)).  Once the lender receives the notice, the statute and Regulation Z mandate 3 steps to be followed. 

XVI. Step One of Rescission

First, by operation of law, the security interest and promissory note automatically becomes void and the consumer is relieved of any obligation to pay any finance or other charges (15 USC 1635(b); Reg. Z-226.15(d)(1),226.23(d)(1).  .  See Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(d)(2)-1. (See Willis v. Friedman, Clearinghouse No. 54,564 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2002) (Once the right to rescind is exercised, the security interest in the Mr. Pierre R. Augustin’s property becomes void ab initio).  

Thus, the security interest is void and of no legal effect irrespective of whether the creditor makes any affirmative response to the notice. (See Family Financial Services v. Spencer, 677 A.2d 479 (Conn. App. 1996) (all that is required is notification of the intent to rescind, and the agreement is automatically rescinded).

It is clear from the statutory language that the court’s modification authority extends only to the procedures specified by section 1635(b).  The voiding of the security interest is not a procedure, in the sense of a step to be followed or an action to be taken.  

The statute makes no distinction between the right to rescind in 3-day or extended as neither cases nor statute give courts equitable discretion to alter TILA’s substantive provisions.  Also, after the security interest is voided, secured creditor becomes unsecured. (See Exhibit #6)

XVII. Step Two of Rescission

Second, since Mr. Pierre R. Augustin has legally rescinded the loans transaction, the mortgage holders (DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance) must return any money, including that which may have been passed on to a third party, such as a broker or an appraiser and to take any action necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest within 20 calendar days of receiving the rescission notice which has expired.  

The creditor’s other task is to take any necessary or appropriate action to reflect the fact that the security interest was automatically terminated by the rescission within 20 days of the creditor’s receipt of the rescission notice (15 USC 1635(b); Reg. Z-226.15(d)(2),226.23(d)(2).

XIII. Step Three of Rescission 

Mr. Pierre R. Augustin is prepared to discuss a tender obligation, should it arise, and satisfactory ways in which to meet this obligation.  The termination of the security interest is required before tendering and step 1 and 2 have to be respected by DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance

XIV. Conclusion

I am requesting an itemized statement of my payment record to DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance.    When Mr. Pierre R. Augustin rescinds within the context of a bankruptcy, courts have held that the rescission effectively voids the security interest, rendering the debt, if any, unsecured (See Exhibit #6).  (See in re Perkins, 106 B.R. 863, 874 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1989); In re Brown, 134 B.R. 134 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1991); In re Moore, 117 B.R. 135 (Bankr.E.D. Pa. 1990)). 

Once the court finds a violation such as not responding to the TILA rescission letter, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability (in re Wright, supra. At 708; In re Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F,2d 1066, 1078 (3d. Cir. 1992); Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., Supra. At 898.  Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts. 

Since DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance have not cancelled the security interest and return all monies paid by Mr. Pierre R. Augustin within the 20 days of receipt of the letter of rescission of September 21, 2006, the lenders named above are responsible for actual and statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).

Once again, please send me a copy of my payment history and other document showing the loan disbursements, loan charges and payment made.  Also, DanversBank, Ameriquest Mortgage, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, New Century Mortgage and Chase Home Finance are to take any necessary or appropriate action to reflect the fact that the security interest was automatically terminated by the rescission (15 USC 1635(b); Reg. Z-226.15(d)(2),226.23(d)(2).  This requires canceling documents creating the security interest and filing release or termination statements in the public record of FREE and CLEAR TITLE to Mr. Pierre R. Augustin.  Thank you (TTTLMG).

May GOD Bless America, 

Pierre Richard Augustin, Pro Se, MPA, MBA

28 Cedar Street, Lowell, MA 01852

Tel: 617-202-8069

TILA Pleading 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, it may be sufficient to plead that the TILA has been violated. (Fed.R. Civ. P. 8(a)).  

Specific violations do not necessarily have to be alleged with particularity (Brown v. Mortgagestar, 194 F. Supp. 2d 473 (S.D. W. Va. 2002) (notice pleading is all that is required in TILA case);

Herrara v. North & Kimball Group, Inc., 2002 WL 253019 (N.D. Ill. Feb.. 20, 2002) (notice pleading sufficient; response to motion to dismiss can supplement complaint by alleging facts re specific documents assigned); 

Staley v. Americorp. Credit Corp., 164 F. Supp. 2d 578 (D. Md. 2001) (Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, 

Pro Se need not specify specific statute or regulations that entitle him to relief; court will examine complaint for relief on any possible legal theory); 

Hill v. GFC Loan Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4345 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2000).  

The consumer’s complaint need not plead an error exceeded the applicable tolerance, since this is an affirmative defense (Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613 (6th cir. 2002)).  

In page 2 (See Exhibit 1) of Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se’s civil complaint, he stated that TILA was in of the Jurisdiction of all the claims against the creditors or defendants in that civil action.  

At #6 of page 14 (See Exhibit 2) of civil complaint, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se explicitly stated that the New Century Mortgage Note which is now assigned to Chase is in violation of TILA and Regulation Z claims.  

In page 17 of the civil complaint, Mr. Pierre R. Augustin, Pro Se did mention rescission and statutory damages (See Exhibit 3). 

You could see the grueling 15 months of endless campaign stops on the faces of the candidate, her husband and her daughter. It wasn’t working and they knew it. She had piled on the drive for momentum as late as an hour before the polls closed and the deal swung the other way. History slipping away. Her assumption of power thwarted. Her dream smashed by a democratic process that turned out to be every bit as unpredictable as it was intended to be.

She tried her best. She was inevitable, vetted, competent, well financed, and started out with hundreds of delegates and endorsements. She was brilliant, home-town, foreign policy astute, an historic candidate as the former first lady and the first lady to become president. She was tough. She was rough. She used every trick in the book and showed her mettle as she applied all her long years of political knowledge to the project at hand, confident of victory.

While her own quest is ended, she has nonetheless made history, paving the way for the next first lady president; and she played an important part of enduring American history by providing training and sparring with the first Afro-American man in the U.S. history to occupy the oval office.

It is on this day that America takes another leap forward in healing the greatest tragedy in our history with an “imperfect messenger” whose African father ironically and paradoxically arrived in this Country by his own free will, leaving a child behind who would become the most powerful person on Earth.

It’s a step down from lofty ambition but I doubt if we seen the last of Hillary. Her role model being Eleanor Roosevelt, her mentor being a successful former President himself, her current position as United States Senator, and her upcoming appearances on the campaign trail, without the stress of having her own trajectory on the line, all tell a tale of future accomplishments. When President Obama starts his first term, he’ll know he got there not just in spite of her, but because of her. 

Every state is idfferent to some degree, which is why you can’t take this post to court with you and assume that you have the right legal information. Checking local laws, rules and practices is essential in any fireclosure defense, defesne of eviction or making claims against teh lenders, mortgage brokers and other parties before or after the sale.

Many people have asked the difference between the kinds of sales and procedures. This will give you a general idea. In my opinion the non-judicial sale is equivalent to a taking of property without due process. I believe it is against basic black letter law of the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial Foreclosures

Judicial foreclosures are processed through the courts, beginning with the lender filing a complaint and recording a notice of Lis Pendens. 

• The complaint will state what the debt is, and why the default should allow the lender to foreclose and take the property given as security.  
• The homeowner will be served notice of the complaint, either by mailing, direct service, or publication of the notice, and will have the opportunity to be heard before the court.  IT IS RIGHT HERE THAT YOU SHOULD FILE YOUR CLAIMS, DENIALS, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ETC. A Motion to Dismiss claiming the Plaintiff has failed to plead or attach proof that it is the owner of the mortgage and note and still possesses the right to pursue foreclosure. In a fair number of cases they won’t have the documentation and the foreclosure will be dismissed because the Plaintiff “lacks standing.”
• You should file for discovery — interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests to produce relating to the accounting for your payments, the schedule of payments received and when they were posted, and the names and addresses of people who have original documentation including the note, mortgage, assignment of the mortgage and note, sale of the loan, or other instruments showing that some third party, who is NOT party to the action, is the actual party in interest. Then you can show the court that the wrong person is before the court suing you, or at least that an indispensable party is not present. 
• If that is the case, summary judgment will probably be denied, judgment could be entered in your favor (unlikely but possible) and/or the action will be dismissed without prejudice (which means they can get their act together and sue you again. The probability is that once dismissed, it will go to the bottom of their pile and they will pursue the “low handing fruit” which are people who don’t know the their rights or how to fight back.
• If the court finds the debt valid, and in default, it will issue  a judgment for the total amount owed, including the costs of the foreclosure process.  
• After the judgment has been entered, a writ will be issued by the court authorizing a sheriff’s sale.  
• The sheriff’s sale is an auction, open to anyone, and is held in a public place, which can range from in front of the courthouse steps, to in front of the property being auctioned.   
• Sheriff’s sales will generally require either cash to be paid at the time of sale, or a substantial deposit, with the balance paid from later that same day up to 30 days after the sale.  Check your local procedures carefully.  
• At the end of the auction, the highest bidder will be the owner of the property, subject to the court’s confirmation of the sale.  
• After the court has confirmed the sale, a sheriff’s deed will be prepared and delivered to the highest bidder, when that deed is recorded, the highest bidder is the owner of the property. Contesting eviction after this point is highly problematic, but you still retain rights to sue the lender for TILA, Fraud and other violations and claims. TILA is NOT generally regarded as a compulsory counterclaim and so the theory is neither is fraud. The safest route is to bring your claims when your first responses are due. 

Non-Judicial Foreclosures

Non-judicial foreclosures are processed without court intervention, which means that the notice of sale and the actual sale can take place without the lender proving to the court that it has a right to do so. The burden is shifted to YOU the borrower to bring a lawsuit agaisnt the the Lender to stop the sale. Obviously this precious piece of legislation was established through aggressive lobbying and campaign contributions to the states which allow this patently wrong procedure, which unfairly puts the burden on the least sophisticated player (you) who has the least resources to start a legal action. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

The sale takes place with the requirements for the foreclosure established by state statutes. 

• When a loan default occurs, the homeowner will be mailed a default letter, and in many states, a Notice of Default will be recorded at approximately the same time.   The fact that, like many of our readers, you are NOT in default and that the lender has made multiple errors, committed many violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is not in issue because the state only requires the Lender to post notice. The fact that the real lender, the one who actually put up the money for the mortgage and note and who owns it now does not appear on the Notice, or that the Trustee no longer has the authority to proceed are issues that the Lender sidesteps in states that permit this awful procedure.
• If the homeowner does not cure the default (the borrower is presumed to be in default upon the filing of the notice, which immediately screws up your credit and makes certain you cannot refinance because you already “in foreclosure”), a Notice of Sale will be mailed to the homeowner, posted in public places, recorded at the county recorder’s office, and published in area legal publications.  
• After the legally required time period has expired, a public auction will be held, with the highest bidder becoming the owner of the property, subject to their receipt and recordation of the deed. Showing up at this sale and announcing that you are contesting the sale and the foreclosure generally will stop anyone from bidding. 
• Auctions of non-judicial foreclosures will generally require cash, or cash equivalent either at the sale, or very shortly thereafter.

It is important to note that each non-judicial foreclosure state has different procedures.   Some do not require a Notice of Default, but start with a Notice of Sale.   Others require only the publication of the Notice of Sale to announce the sale, with no direct owner notification required.  You need to know the specific procedure for your state.

SUING THE LENDER, MORTGAGE BROKER ET AL AFTER FORECLOSURE AND SALE

When it is all over and you have been evicted from your dream home, most people drop the matter and move on, being too distracted by their monetary problems to look back at the painful disaster.

What you should know, however, is that violations of Truth in Lending, fraud and other claims can be brought long AFTER the sale and judgment. 

The first step is to get a TILA audit and that is why we have a link to www.repairyourloan.com. So far in our search for competent people who are not out to steal even more of your money, they seem to be the ONLY people who truly understand the process, who have long track records of performing audits for all kinds of clients — government, financial institutions and individuals.

When you are done with your audit you go to a competent, experienced lawyer. If you can’t find one, we can help you.

Theoretically it is possible for any lender in a foreclosure to pursue what is called a “deficiency Judgment.” This is the amount they lost after selling the property to a third party. The amount they “lost” includes all their interest, penalties, legal fees, court costs, and other out of pocket expenses. 

Most mortgage lenders do not seek or obtain deficiency judgments on residential property. Generally speaking they are futile and uncollectible and the foreclosure is enough to put a big black mark on your credit history.

For one thing, they open themselves up to a night mare of counterclaims because of all the violations and breaches they committed during the closing process. For another reason, they would be digging themselves deeper into a hole they are already in — that they went for the sale and foreclosure without owning the mortgage and note and without proper authority to do as because in the rush to sell all these mortgages, most of the people didn’t know what they were doing or care. They just wanted the money that was rushing in. 

I WANT YOUR STORIES!!!

HERE IS WHAT I JUST RECEIVED FROM A LAWYER I KNOW —

This one who I have been corresponding with sent me an e-mail describing the events of her “closing” where she was told by the Countrywide loan officer that her dad’s life estate did not need to go on the mortgage, and the “closing” took place at a little table in a Barnes & Noble bookstore with a line of people waiting to “close” in a frantic fashion.

 

Jesus! Assembly-line closings in bookstores, forged signatures on loan documents, etc. all obviously railroaded through to get the “bundle” together for resale to Bear Stearns or whoever. This is beyond ugly.

If nothing else this story demonstrates the literal death grip at the throats of you and your relatives. If you or someone you know uses oxygen, they do so to stay alive. But the decision on what to offer, how to offer it, and how much it will cost is left in the hands of small and large “entrepreneuers” who are charging, like the Pharmaceutical companies on Medicare Part D, whatever they want depending upon how much they lost at the casino last night or some other irrelveant issue. 

Many of these people who need oxygen (remember, we are talking just breathing here) are on fixed income and are getting bills that are mounting as co-pays, deductibles and payments allowances spin out of control. That is the result of having an insurance mentality inserted in between the person who needs medical attention and the people who provide it. Insurance companies provide NOTHING to the system of value.

They have increased the cost of medical care, prices of drugs, products and services to heights far beyond any other modern nation. A trillion dollars or more is available to the U.S. economy if we dissasociate ourselves from the insurance middleman. And the lives of millions of patients, and millions more as the baby boomers get older depend upon fundamental reform of this system. 

Companies like Praxair, Apria and dozens of other medical supply stores act as middlemen in delivering lquid oxygen to immobile patients at home charging around 12 times the cost of doing so. That is the result of allowing the “free market” to operate without a government referree. It is inevitable. A one-payer system (call it socialized medicine or whatver you want) would give these providers a fee for distribution and pay for or arrange the delivery of oxygen for distribution all for about 15% of what is being charged.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, treatments that could get people off of oxygen are either banned, not covered by insurance or medicare, or the physician is an NMD, homeopath or some other licensed medical provider who cannot get paid because THEIR practice is mostly preventative and does not involve, for the most part, writing prescriptions for the drugged out civilized population on earth.

Insurance companies and medicare (after you pay the rising “GAP” that is not covered by your secondary insurance as many hapless patients have found out after the fact) will quickly pay for a lung transplant and the 50-60 pills per day that are required, costing millions of dollars because the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies like a treatment that is intervention rather than prevention and which results in high cost continued maintenance, even if it might shorten the life of the patient. 

But they won’t pay for cell therapy (performed over the border for a few hundred dollars) that gets people off of oxygen and medication, at least for a few years, they won’t pay for stem cell therapy, and they won’t pay for chelation, IV treatments, diet supplement pills, vitamins etc. that are “legend drugs” under FDA rules or proposed FDA rules all of which leave the patient in better condition and are among the only therapies that “first do no harm.”

A Living, Breathing Lobby
Oxygen-Supply Firms Turn to Customers for Help on the Hill
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; D01

The air we breathe may be free. Oxygen is not.

Just how much it should cost is pitting the multibillion-dollar industry that supplies oxygen to medical patients against a large number of lawmakers andMedicare, which said it was being charged many times more for oxygen equipment rentals than the actual cost.

About 1.2 million people use oxygen with help from Medicare. The price for taxpayers: $2.7 billion a year. Pending legislation to reduce reimbursements for oxygen has prompted the medical-device lobby, which spent $29 million on Capitol Hill last year, to ramp up its efforts.

Last week, patients hooked up to oxygen machines subsidized by a major medical supplier came to Washington from across the country to lobby against the payment cuts. Smaller equipment companies, which operate in nearly every congressional district, have been pressing lawmakers as well, while political donations from people involved with the medical-device industry have reached record highs.

Medicare officials said the patients, who are by far the most effective lobbyists against the cuts, argued against their own best interests. A 2006 study by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services showed that Medicare pays 12 times as much for the rental of oxygen equipment, called an oxygen concentrator, as its actual cost. The patients are billed for out-of-pocket payments that are more than twice the cost of a new concentrator, $587.

“This program is outrageously overpaid,” said Corinne Hirsch, spokeswoman for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

Government officials have been complaining for two decades that the medical-device lobby has managed to keep reimbursements for that service too high. Last year, the Democratic-controlled House passed a bill that would have slashed oxygen payments, but the Senate did not act. Kerry Weems, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said Congress could lower payments sharply and still provide profit to the companies and full service to patients.

But the American Association for Homecare, the main lobbying group for the home medical industry, rejected the government’s study about costs under Medicare. The association said the assessment ignored the cost of servicing oxygen equipment. In addition, it said, steep reductions could harm patient care.

To make its case, the industry has the assistance of patients groups, including the National Emphysema/COPD Association, the group that had 14 people on oxygen roaming the halls of Congress last week. The association claims 1,000 paid members and reaches 325,000 oxygen users through its newsletter. The group, based in New York, advocates primarily on behalf of patients with emphysema and other chronic lung diseases.

“We work closely with those groups,” said Tyler Wilson, president of the American Association for Homecare.

Barbara Rogers, a 61-year-old New Yorker who heads the patients association, spent a day last week visiting five congressional offices to urge them not to approve cuts in Medicare payments for oxygen. “They were very receptive,” Rogers said. “Nobody wants to hurt Medicare patients.”

She and her fellow oxygen users — as well as some family members along to help — held nearly 100 meetings with lawmakers and their staff members. These lobbyists-for-a-day said the uncertainty created by the pending reductions could endanger the ability of oxygen users to get reliable treatment and up-to-date equipment. They also said they wanted to make sure that any cutbacks would not come at the expense of proper care.

“We don’t know how these are going to impact us,” Rogers said. “It’s time for patients to take these issues into their own hands.” She and the other members of her lobbying team came from all over the country, including California, Florida, Texas, Arizona and Arkansas.

Members of Congress have grown accustomed to patients groups descending on Washington to echo the views of industry. “It’s a gimmick the providers have used for years. I think it’s hokey,” said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), chairman of the health subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. “I like to think we are able to make an objective decision based on facts. I don’t want to make these decisions based on an emotional appeal.”

Still, the industry has found that patients make effective lobbyists. “Members of Congress and their staffs will always care more about patients than providers,” said Frederick H. Graefe, a lobbyist for Invacare, a large medical-device manufacturer.

Rogers said that her colleagues were not paid by any industry group to lobby and that their views were entirely their own.

But the group was not without industry support. Apria Healthcare, a major home-health-care company, gave Rogers’s lobbyists free oxygen, a subsidy that made the event financially feasible, she said. Apria is a member of the two largest oxygen lobbying groups, the American Association for Homecare, which highlighted the patients’ visits on its Web site, and the Council for Quality Respiratory Care.

In addition, health-care lobbyists said the industry regularly collaborated with groups like Rogers’s, briefing them about legislation and regulations in the hope that the patients would be able to get a more sympathetic hearing.

The home-medical-supply industry is made up mostly of small companies, many of them family-owned. The American Association for Homecare says there are 20,000 such firms that sell and rent medical devices. A handful of national companies are also in the business, including Apria and Lincare. The industry also includes manufacturers of medical equipment. Some of the largest are Invacare, Pride Mobility Products, Inogen and Respironics.

The medical-device industry is a significant contributor to federal election campaigns. Donations from people involved with medical-supply companies have risen steadily in the past decade and have reached $2.7 million in the current election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The American Association for Homecare normally has one “fly-in” a year that brings owners and managers of medical-supply companies to the capital from more than 20 states. This year’s event, in March, was its largest ever, with 350 people from 35 states. Attendees heard speeches from prominent federal officials, were briefed about the issues affecting them in Congress and traveled to Capitol Hill to lobby their elected representatives. So much is happening that the association is holding a second fly-in this month.

The industry is stepping up its professional lobbying, as well. “The oxygen guys have hired every lobbyist in town,” Stark said. Pacific Pulmonary Services, an equipment provider in California, plans to open a lobbying office in Washington soon.

Between fly-ins, the association keeps in steady contact with lawmakers through its smaller member companies. Stark even had a visit last week from a long-lost cousin — who is a medical supplier in Tennessee.

“There are oxygen suppliers in almost every district, and members of Congress hear from them,” said Weems, Medicare’s acting administrator. Although he wants to see reimbursements reduced, he said, “This will be a heavy lift.”