UNDISCLOSED MIDDLE: Repurchase Obligation in the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement

FROM ANONYMOUS, MY FAVORITE CONTRIBUTOR :)

EDITOR’S NOTE: I would be better off and so would our readers if I could be as succinct in my writing as Anonymous. Somehow it always takes me longer to say what he does in a few sentences. Use HIS version instead of mine whenever possible. My version is more academic and runs the risk of putting the Judge to sleep.

  • This piece written by Anonymous underscores the BASIC point that needs to be made from the start: the TOTAL agreement between lender and borrower consists of far more than the loan closing documents.
  • The fact that the rest of the documents were withheld doesn’t mean they weren’t involved, signed, executed and delivered. It means they were not disclosed when the applicable federal and state statutes as well as common law required them to be disclosed.
  • The old school Judges and lawyers are confused ONLY because they fail to recognize this basic truth.
  • Once they accept the fact that the borrower signed a note but the lender received a bond from a party not involved in the borrower’s closing, it all falls into place.
  • There is no nexus between borrower and lender without recognizing the obvious — there were parties, documents, agreements and corresponding duties and obligations existing in the UNDISCLOSED MIDDLE.
  • The single transaction rule once applied, clears up all confusion. No money from investor – NO DEAL. No borrower to accept loan — NO DEAL. SINGLE TRANSACTION if there ever was one.
  • But perhaps the single most important point Anonymous makes is that the alleged assignment, transfer, endorsement etc of the note never took actually place which means that the title (encumbrance — mortgage or deed of trust) is and remains in the name of the originating “lender” to whom no money is owed. A classical case of an unperfected security interest.

From Anonymous: “Repurchase and stipulations is contained within the same Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement – it is not a separate contract – it is the same document and contract under the stated Trust and SEC filings. Thus, none of the note endorsements were actually “without recourse.”

However, many of the repurchase demands were not executed because the banks often looked the other way – until they became massive – and the originators were shut down.

Most of the endorsements were in blank – only when they knew there was no longer any recourse, are the notes actually endorsed to the trustee. But, they did not know this at the time of the trust set-up.

And, the notes are executed before foreclosure – they are sold at steep discounts to the servicer and removed from the trust – at this point there is no recourse..

It is at the inception of the trust – that the notes were not actually negotiable. Thus, the trust never actually owned the notes – they did not have to – because only the receivables are passed-through.

If there was a separate contract for Repurchases – it would have had to have been filed with the SEC – along with other documents. There was no separate contract – the Repurchase agreement was part of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement – they were one and the same.

About these ads

28 Responses

  1. Deena,

    I sent you an email…

    David

  2. David,

    Please contact me. Bierman, Geesing & Ward AND their notaries forged docs in my case.

    THEY HAVE GOT TO GO!!!!

    deena519@gmail.com

  3. David

    Sometimes takes a while to check old posts. I forget to check off – notify me.

    You write – Countrywide was already Advertising our LOAN to investors FOR SALE. Not merely the Loan-Trust it was Pooled (CWALT) but OUR LOAN with the ACCOUNT NUMBER – STATE – type of loan – Amount – EVERYTHING… THis is clearly an SEC Violation.

    Think you are on right track. Hoping all that is going on now will make courts realize they cannot just assume all is valid – SEC went after Madoff (after much prodding) – but have allowed biggest Ponzi scheme to go on and on – these notes were not negotiable – or valid – when they subject of fraud. Everyone knows this. Courts have to stop pretending all was/is valid – far from it.

    Happy Anniversary!! Recently heard someone say – “there will be justice” – it may not be the way we see it – may not be in a court – may not be visible to us right now. But, – there will be justice. Keep fighting – but enjoy your Anniversary – we can not let them take everything from us. Your story is heart-warming – as so many stories out there.

    Good Luck David – my best.

  4. Hi Alina,

    Thanks for helping me keep this straight… This stuff makes my brain hurt. I am one that sees the big picture then can quickly adapt to find other formulas & solutions – USUSALLY… BUT there is a MAJOR hiccup in that process – until I see the big picture, I bounce-off the walls trying to figure it out. It is not voluntary. It is how my brain is wired. I took a test about 15-16 yrs ago for AADD (Adult Attention Deficit Disorder) and the scoring was anything above 72 was extreme (my words)… I scored an 87 and until then I thought all that stuff was non-sense and excuses. After reading a few books on it – especially on relationships etc – man, I learned a lot about myself.

    It has great advantages but it also has very serious side-effects & consequences. That’s where this stuff gets by brains twisted around. The other thing is that I am very serious about principles – especially regarding right & wrong when it concerns taking advantage of others. It really gets under my skin to see others abused or being taken advantage. So, this entire issue for me is mind-blowing and sends me into spirals trying to grasp the big picture. At 51 yrs old I’ve grown used to most things throwing for a loop and learned out to compensate. Thankfully, I am married to the BEST LADY in the world and this coming Monday (Sept 27) will be our 31st anniversay, she’s also grown used to it.

    I don’t say any of that as an excuse for us. We’ve done well for ourselves over the years. We purchased this property in 2002. It was our dream – 2.5 acre peninsula in a creek adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay. It had an old farmhouse on it built 1887. We began remodeling in 2003 and were hit by hurricane Isabel. That wiped out everything and we were remodeling mostly out-of-pocket. Our goal was to be DEBT-FREE – sell our business & retire. The insurance companies only reimbursed us 2,300 bucks. That was devastating because we lost 100-150k. We secured a construction but it only had 25k to remodel. We could not rebuild a complete house with only 25k and they pre-qualified us for 500-600k. They kept promising to re-write the loan to fund a new house but never followed through. Finally, some time in 2004 I refused to continue paying an interest only loan that we could not use. I offered to pay all fees to re-write the loan – even as a standard property loan but they refused and continued promising to re-write the construction loan.

    Finally, I stopped paying – they threatened to foreclose and said GOOD – explain why it’s been 2-yrs to re-write the loan. The VP of the bank even drove 2.5 hrs to our property to personally see it. This was before I ever heard of “predatory lending” or “property fliping” or “equity stripping”. It was inconceviable to that a bank would do something like that.

    It was literally a matter of weeks prior to the foreclosure hearing that this builder came into our business and introduced himself. He then introduced us to his lender and that’s where this saga begins back in Aug 2005.

    We paid the full mortgage payment for 8-months prior to moving in this house. We moved in despite it not being finished because we were also paying the BUILDER RENT because he purchased the house we were rent during construction. So, we were paying 1,450 rent – plus 5,600 mortgage…

    We paid the full mortgage payment for 18-months when I hired another builder to fix the problems left. That was over 91k and we already spent 30-50k to fix and finish certain issues left. That was when reality hit – the builder told me he could NOT fix anything until the previous inspections and permit issues were resolved.

    That is why the “CONDITIONAL” part of the UCC code is important to me. I believe THAT is a big part of our case but finding an attorney that even understands this stuff is hard enough. Finding one that is willing to take-on these big lenders knowing we have no funds to finance the fight seems impossible. We spent over 60k on attorneys thus far but none are willing to take-on Countrywide/BofA. They tell me that will cost 200k easy to fight and they cannot afford to do it.

    We started to file suit against the original lender. CW/BofA offered us a deal. We needed to get a licensed real estate agent to submit an estimate for our place per a short-sale type transaction. They would then deduct 20% more then re-write the loan at their expense – in part because there are serious TILA violations also… We complied and instead recieving the new loan docs – we were sent foreclosure notice.

    The foreclosure mill used forged signatures and forged notary on the docs filed in court and with land records. They filed false affidavits and this is supported by a FBI forensic handwriting expert… They withdrew their foreclosure and the judge dismissed without prejudice…

    I’m sorry for rambling – I beleive OUR CASE has so much fraud it is a primo-example for the courts – especially the outrageous illegalities committed regarding Securitization Process. These lenders thought they were above the law and it appears in most cases – thus far, they’ve assumed correctly. However, our case BLOWS a HOLE in their presumptueous arrogance because it exposes the depth of thier deceptions.

    The notion that the pretender-lender allegedly sold our mortgage to CW “KNOWING” it had serious issues – embezzlement, zero-inspections, they obtained a fraudulent U&O, obviously obtained a fraudulent appraisal, then they had the audacity to leave my wife & I in an impossible situation. It is beyond comprehension.

    I filed an Attorney Grievance against the foreclosure mill and they are being investigated.

    Sorry to ramble so long but I was hoping to give a bit more perspective our situation and would appreciate any pointers. I have never been in a courtroom. I have tried writing our complaint but my AADD is hell to keep focused enough to write it out. I get side-tracked. I’d end-up writing a 800pg complaint which would not go-over well in court.

    Thanks again Alina & ANONYMOUS… I apprecaite it…

  5. Hi ANONYMOUS,

    Conditional = non-Negotiable

    Our Loan has serious hiccups regarding the “Conditional” issue…

    Builder introduced us to his lender. We get a construction loan with his lender. The builder embezzled 100k but the lender warned they could foreclose if we terminated their builder. Delays – then more delays…

    I sent an email telling the Builder & Lender we’re through – sue us – foreclose do whatever – we’re done.

    Alarmed – lender calls and explains that “if” the builder completes the house within 30-days “AFTER” settlement would we continue. Obviously we already had several 300+k invested so sure – my question to the lender was WHO was going to MAKE the builder complete the house. They said – he had to finish it. I am sure this agreement is NOT in writing but merely verbal.

    Settlement – we close-out the construction loan – and convert to a perm loan but they call it is Refinance – maybe that’s typical but it was odd to me. The loan goes from 716k up to 1-million. The lender asks me how much money it will take to complete the house. I respond – how the hell do I know – ask your builder…

    I ask them how can we settle without a Use & Occupancy Permit by the County? They say it is all taken care-of. I asked how can they settle without an appraisal because though the project was 10-months behind schedule, they were settling before the house was completed.

    Shortly before settlement I learned the house had NEVER been inspected. I alerted the lender and didn’t waste my time with the builder. The lender called the builder and called us back stating everything was taken care-of – we don’t need to worry about it.

    Settlement – Dec 29 2006 – I call the lender in mid Jan – no builder. We get a notice in the mail they sold our loan to Countrywide 2-3 wks after settlement. The house is not complete… I call the lender in Feb – then mid-Feb – house not complete. We make our first FULL mortgage payment in Feb – but house is incomplete.

    IMHO – those are ALL aspects of CONDITIONAL – because the house was NEVER completed and still is NOT completed. We also learned early 2009 that the lender used a Fraudulent USE & OCCUPANCY PERMIT to close the loan AND the house was NEVER INSPECTED… That means we cannot even finish the house because of the violations – we cannot fix/repair the house because no contractor would touch it, especially being built within the hyper-sensitive Critical Area Buffer Zone – We cannot sell the house because legally – it does not exist.

    The zoning violations alone disqualify our loan from the Mortgage Pool per the PSA. The fact that they used a fraudulent appraisal with a Satisfaction of Completion Certificate – though it was never completed – AND – never inspected – and Fraudulent U&O Permit – ALL create CONDITIONS to the loan making in VOID (IMHO).

    Am I on the right track…? I have PICTURES and documentation to substantiate the above. There is no-way I would have signed up for that loan if I knew they were selling the damn thing because that would have left us in this position. They had no incentive to make the buidler complete the house because they already got their money then illegally sold it to Countrywide. I have documentation showing Countrywide was already Advertising our LOAN to investors FOR SALE. Not merely the Loan-Trust it was Pooled (CWALT) but OUR LOAN with the ACCOUNT NUMBER – STATE – type of loan – Amount – EVERYTHING… THis is clearly an SEC Violation. They advertising the sale in Jan 2007 – yet, we could NOT even move into the house until AUGUST 2007 and that was with NO HEAT in sections of the house, missing electrical wiring in several areas meaning switches for lights but they did NOT run the wiring for the lights – no ducting for exhaust fans or wiring – etc… Yet, we were paying the 6500 dollar mortgage payment…

    Am I on the right track…?

  6. David and Alina

    Alina is right as to negotiability. My question is something that is not addressed – and that is “conditional”. No matter how endorsed – a note cannot be be negotiable -if it is conditional. Cited case elsewhere – and actually goes back to late 1800s.

    Any conditions that render the note transfer void by misrepresentation/conditions/warranties renders it invalid – non-negotiable. Repurchase agreement within loan purchase agreement – made all conditional.

    Thus, notes were not validly transferred to any trustee for any so-called conduit trust – because they were conditional. But, as stated before, no one was worried about this – because the notes were not effectively transferred/endorsed anyway – they did not need to be. Only receivables were transferred to security investors via off balance sheet conduits. That is all.

    Investors know this – so should we.

    Alina – attributing much of Florida contention and challenge to you – an astute challenger..

  7. Congrats to Paul. The best news.

  8. David,

    I think you are confusing a few concepts. When the borrower signs the note it is an “order instrument” because the note states “I promise to pay to the order of [lender]…..”

    The lender (and I am using this terms simply because that is the term on the mortgage documents) then indorses the note in blank. By doing so, the note is converted to a “bearer instrument” A bearer instrument is much like a blank check. Anyone who has it in their hands can cash it.

    In some instances, the bearer instruments are then “transferred” to another entity. To do so properly, the entity holding the bearer instrument must indorse the payment to make it payable to order. In this way, you have a proper chain of transfer. However, what has been happening is that the bearer instruments are simply just handed to whatever bank “in blank” (bearer instrument) without the required intervening indorsements.

    It is much like a bunch of people standing in a line, the first person hands to the second a blank check, the second person in turn just hands the check to the third person, and so on. When the check reaches the last person, that person claims it has the right enforce the check (cash it) without advising how it got the check and without the indorsements of the persons before them.

    It is pretty scary to think about because with a bearer instrument, anyone can claim the right to enforce. Now add to this picture the fact that the notes were commonly scanned and then destroyed. It was the scanned copies that were transferred. In many instances, the notes were transferred to more than one entity, therefore you have more than one entity claiming the right to enforce. Once a homeowner “defaults”, the common practice is to transfer the electronic copy of the note to the servicer who then has an employee stamp an indorsement or attach an allonge in blank (bearer paper). In some instances, the servicer electronically sends the note to the foreclosure mill law firm where the indorsements are stamped or an allonge attached by a foreclosure mill law firm employee..

    Because anyone holding a bearer instrument has the right to enforce, given the above scenario, you can conceivably have more than one entity suing on a note. There are several cases where this has actually happened. This is also the reason why Neil makes the important point that you are not denying payment on the note, you simply want to know to whom you really owe the money.

    Under the UCC, if you pay the wrong person, the correct entity can still come after you for payment. Therefore, it is vitally important that the correct entity be identified and you as the homeowner have the absolute right to know to whom you really owe the money.

  9. Ho legal is it to rehire retired judges..iw thier post is an elected post prior to retirement or are you appointed as judge…?

    How can we put back teeth into our constitution? And what will it take to get the nations attention or to actually get the authorities that be to put a stop to all this fraud in and of the courts…technically, it appears as if the judges are in colusion with the bankers…your thoughts…

    How can we see the entire case in Ca that was such a huge victory?

  10. Anonymous,

    I have photocopies of endorsed in blank without recourse from Indymac Bank FSB

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/29926545/Plaintiffs-Reply-to-Defendants-Objection-to-Evidence-Hearing-NDEX-DBNTC-RAST-2007-A5-POOLING-AND-SERVICING-AGREEMENT-dnbtc-uamcc-uamc-llc-trustee-duties-fraudUNIVERSAL-AMERICAN-MORTGAGE-COMPANY-TRUSTEE-OF-DEED-OF-TRUST-MERS-ONEWEST-2923-5-2924-2934-COLONIAL-BANK

    If there is recourse as shown in this situation:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/36172000/Banks-Face-Fight-Over-Mortgage-Loan-Buybacks-WSJ

    How does that effect the validity of the note?
    Any thoughts? State Court California does not allow the plaintiff to request proof of the note.

  11. Anonymous,

    I have photocopies of endorsed in blank without recourse from Indymac Bank

    FSB.http://www.scribd.com/doc/29926545/Plaintiffs-Reply-to-Defendants-Objection-to-Evidence-Hearing-NDEX-DBNTC-RAST-2007-A5-POOLING-AND-SERVICING-AGREEMENT-dnbtc-uamcc-uamc-llc-trustee-duties-fraudUNIVERSAL-AMERICAN-MORTGAGE-COMPANY-TRUSTEE-OF-DEED-OF-TRUST-MERS-ONEWEST-2923-5-2924-2934-COLONIAL-BANK

    If there is recourse as shown in this situation:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/36172000/Banks-Face-Fight-Over-Mortgage-Loan-Buybacks-WSJ

    How does that effect the validity of the note?
    Any thoughts? State Court California does not allow the plaintiff to request proof of the note.

  12. I did not post the final judgment but others beat me to it. Anyway, finalizing the accounting of refinancing costs and $ paid to Chase so that they can return the money. By the way, the default entered was not because Chase did not answer but because they violated the court order so many times. The gist is that informing the court of the bank’s total disregard of the laws and the order through OSC re contempt. They may not get sanction immediately but will eventually. Good luck to all out there fighting

  13. Hi ANONYMOUS,

    I guess what I’m drive-at is the issue of Negotiability.

    A Negotiable Instrument is either a Bearer Instrument or Order Instrument – correct?

    There are specific requirements that must be maintained to remain Negotiable. One of the underlying principles with these MERS cases is Negotiability. What appears to be happening is a “presumption” of Transferring Rights that were never transferable. There are several fundamental but legally damaging with their purported transfers. As seen by the Shack cases MERS has No Standing because they had no viable interest.

    However, what I’m trying to point towards is the actually Negotiability. If we deface a Dollar-Bill but maintain enough of the serial number – a bank will replace the dollar (Instrument). If there are not enough numbers – the bank confiscates it and we are not reimbursed.

    When the Lender changes the Instrument between Bearer & Order – they inherently change its Negotiability. A Non-Negotiable Instrument cannot be foreclosed…! The endorsements & assignments are then VOID because a Non-Negotiable Instrument is no longer secured by the property. If it is no longer secured – it cannot be securitized – therefore the entire transaction becomes a fraud.

    The issue is at the very basic FIRST step of the transaction. Once they change the Instrument it no loses its Negotiability… The allonge must be physically attached (affixed) to the Instrument (Deed of Trust)…

    I can’t quite get it straight in my head how to connect the dots but to put it in my quasi-layman’s terms I see it sort-a like this… I get a Certified Check from the bank and make it Pay to the Order of… Johnny-Joe… The bank decided they don’t like Johnny Joe – and make it payable to Jimmy-Jack… They claim it makes no difference to me because we are credited for it anyway – right judge…? You agree, don’t cha judge – they paid the same, they received credit the same, we merely changed the name on the Certified Check… They switched the Pay to the Order – but then explain to the judge that it makes no difference anyway because it did not change anything as-far-as it concerns me… the only little hiccup is that their actions are illegal. “I” made the Instrument (Certified Check) payable to Johnny-Joe and they changed it to Jimmy-Jack. That is illegal. That is exactly what they’ve done to our Mortgage Loans, Deeds of Trusts, etc.

    I’m not sure if that makes sense to you but I am trying to focus on the fundamental laws of the Instruments themselves – Bearer vs. Order – because this appears where they are “sliding” their reasoning unchallenged under the radar. The make presumptuous assertions disguised as logical – no harm done to the borrower and heck those dumb-borrowers don’t really understand this highly complex financial process anyway – and over the years the judges have gone along for the ride. The problem is they became fat-n-lazy – then greedy – then addicted to their greed – and throughout that time they’ve been able to bamboozle the judges with their gimmicks & tricks.

    They cannot unilaterally decide an Instrument as Bearer then for convenience magically change it to an Order Instrument – AND – maintain the same legal force. The Instrument is no longer Negotiable thus no longer secured by the property – therefore cannot be foreclosed. Cutting off the Negotiability – STOPS the Assignments and STOPS foreclosure…

    Sorry to ramble – I just can’t get this stuff connecting right s- I’m kind-a thinking out loud… Any comments would be appreciated.

    The goal is to make this so SIMPLE that a judge must look at and say – hmmm????? THEN give that judge every law – case law – and whatnot to began QUESTIONING the transaction’s legality. We cannot question the lenders motives. That doesn’t work. However by showing the illegality of the transaction at the infancy of the transactioin exposes their motives for us.

  14. David

    You know, there is very little case law on whether the mortgage/(Deed of Trust) follows the note or “the other-way” around.

    There is an old Connecticut case that addresses this issue – Fleet National Bank v. Vijay J. Nazareth, 818 A.2d 69 (2003). Many commented on this case – one comment was: “There’s a familiar rule that “the security follows the debt,” or the mortgage interest goes with the note, but, as illustrated in this case, the converse may not always be true.” But, this case was decided before the mortgage fraud heyday. Given all the fraud, for any court, today, to try to make some semblance of any “familiar rule” – is just, in my opinion, impossible.

  15. I guess we should send copies of this TILA victory to all foreclosure defense lawyers and judges across our great, but currently depressed nation.

    Yes it can be done, and YES attorneys out there, specially you guys from the EVIL CRIMINAL ELEMENT FORECLOSURE MILL LAWYERS out there. The case you may be thinking of steam rolling may be the one that actually even makes it possible for your license to be revoked.

    This cases are not like if the “GLOVE FITS” deal. They will make all of you fit into the gigantic glove we are pushing up hill right now. But victory will be ever sweeter.

    Cases like this come across the wire and I say to three kids, my wife and kids, If you fight for what you believe with passion, determination and smarts you can overcome any obstacle.

    Can you imagine that we may also include in our cases whatever this guy did in his and the securitization hell these banksters created. There is GOLD out there.

    We are so worried about fighting our battle, that we start thinking about not wanting to be foreclosed upon, and at the end that is precisely what happens. We need to start thinking about success, victory and preparing ourselves for that. We are what we think and we become what we act upon.

    We are not loosers nor dead beats. We are proud Americans that deserve a justice system that is “just”. We deserve better from our Judges, lawyers and government officials.

    Today I was listening 88.5 FM WAMU, here in Washington DC and on the air they had an interview with Corey Stewart a radical politician that everytime they are close to election time he picks up on the one group that has no defense, ILLEGAL ALIENS. This County official has one of the most disastrous terms as far as the economy for his county. But he picks on the undocumented aliens, but not on the banks and middle men that have evaded paying taxes to his county for over ten years and that have gotten away with it. How many teachers, schools, police officers could the afford to be hiring now, they could even be on the black and not with a budget deficit in the hundreds of millions. Just by forcing those lenders using MERS as a ploy to evade paying their share.

    In another county, Loudoun County they have a $140,000,000. budget hole. But the pretender lenders and their criminal element foreclosure mills keep stealing homes without paying taxes for all the illegal transfers they performed over the years.

    All their budgets would be fully balanced and may be even a refund to the citizens of all the counties would be in order if these sold out politician would have the testicles to go after the real criminals.

    Not a sermon , just a thought!

  16. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    PAUL NGUYEN, et al.,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    CHASE BANK USA, N.A., et al.,

    Defendants.

    CASE NO. CV09-4589-AHM (AJWx)
    ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND
    OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
    AGAINST CHASE BANK USA, N.A.;
    AND CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLCAND,
    JUDGMENT AGAINST FIRST AMERICAN
    LOANSTAR TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC.

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Deed of Trust recorded with Orange County Recorder as instrument No. 2007000731120 on 12/12/2007 is wholly voided as to plaintiff Laura Nguyen.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services record a DEED OF RECONVEYANCE to reconvey unto Plaintiffs thereto all right, title and interest which was heretofore acquired by First American Loanstar Trustee Services under deed of trust recorded with Orange County Recorder as instrument No. 2007000731120 on 12/12/2007.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all adverse claims against property known as 16141 Quartz Street, Westminster, CA 92683 are quieted. The legal description of said property is: LOT 44 TRACT NO. 8977, IN THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 369, PAGE(S) 46 AND 47 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Assessor’s Parcel No.: 107-903-44.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Promissory Note dated 12/12/2007 executed by Plaintiff Paul Nguyen in favor of Chase Bank USA, N.A. rescinded pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(i).

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(b), Plaintiffs had made offer to tender the loan evidenced by promissory note dated 12/12/2007 and Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. did not take possession within 20 days after tender by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, ownership of the loan proceed is vested in the Plaintiffs without obligation on their part to pay for it.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. within 20 days after entry of judgment shall return to the Plaintiffs any money or property given as earnest money, down payment, or otherwise pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(b).

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are awarded their costs of suit, to be paid by Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC, in an amount to be determined by the Clerk of the Court. DATED: September 15, 2010

  17. Finally, If you think you look funny on a horse then you can not lead a calvary charge.
    Let’s get these bastrards !

  18. If you are not sucessful, then redefine sucess.

  19. Todays Humor:

    In God we Trust.
    Every one else pay cash.

  20. This is just about all there is to be said on the subject of the fox in the hen house…Bank NY Mellon. If people do not get it by now… well then… and then there was that little bit about Bank NY and Madoff prior to the merger with Mellon …but that’s another story.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68657120100907

  21. CA CASE_ PAUL NGUYEN V. CHASE BANK – DEED OF TRUST VOIDED, PROMISSORY NOTE RESCINDED, ABSOLUTE VICTORY
    news u can use!
    Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on September 17, 2010 ·
    http://4closurefraud.org/2010/09/17/kaboom-paul-nguyen-v-chase-bank-deed-of-trust-voided-promissory-note-rescinded-absolute-victory/

  22. Said it before Bank NY Mellon was formed in 2007 .. the timing is of interest, as the “bubble” was about to burst. In 2008 when the s@*t hit the fan they are awarded $20 million to be the custodian of TARP money to the “to big to fail” bailout recipients, along with simultaneously receiving $3 Billion in bailout money.. so how in one short year, between when BONY was formed and the crash did they require $3 Billion in bailout funds? They are not a commercial lending institution to borrowers, do not have branch facilities. But yet they are showing up in foreclosures all over the country?

  23. Hi ANONYMOUS,

    So, in our case the Deed of Trust was NEVER signed – left in blank… and states that MERS is the “nominee” …

    BUT

    Our “Promise to Pay” (NOTE) was signed (stamped) stating “Without Recourse – Pay to the Order of Countrywide Bank NA… then signed by (supposed) original lender…

    However

    Our Assignments go from MERS to Countrywide/Bank of America – supposedly authorized signature Mary Kist – though she has never worked for MERS… She assigns it to a Donald Clark (in Texas) – to Bank of NY – Mellon – who then supposedly hired the foreclosure mill – Bierman, Geesing & Ward… who THEN FORGED their signatures and FORGED the NOTARY – on the affidavits submitted to the courts…

    So, can you tell me does the Deed of Trust follow the NOTE or is it the other-way around..?

    There is NOTHING in the Land Records or “AFFIXED” to the Deed of Trust showing the sales…

    Do the forgeries “TAINT” our entire Deed of Trust “enough” for us to file a Quiet Title..? Knowing Quiet Title will FORCE the pretender-lender out of hiding to state a claim and in doing-so will (should) be forced to PROVE it…?

    Any thoughts…?

    I have also read but would like other’s input – an illegality by the foreclosing attorney (law firm) during foreclosure OPENS THE DOORWAY to the TRUST – making them liable for the actions of the foreclosure mill? Any thoughts on that puppy…?

    Thanks

  24. And law is law. So maybe we need to start suing judges they rule in THE pEOPLES court

  25. THE BANKSTERS DEVOURED OUR GREAT STATE. PRETTY MUCH ATE US UP ALIVE. WE WENT FROM BEING THE BEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD CALIFORNIA TO BECOME ONE STEP AHEAD OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH AFRICA. AND I DO NOT BLAME THE ILLEGAL ALIENS BUT THE REAL ALIENS THE BANKS.

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0918-caljobs-20100918,0,1580689.story

  26. DITOR’S NOTE: I would be better off and so would our readers if I could be as succinct in my writing as Anonymous. Somehow it always takes me longer to say what he does in a few sentences. Use HIS version instead of mine whenever possible. My version is more academic and runs the risk of putting the Judge to sleep.

    ALL WE NEED IS A NEIL GARFIELD BOOK FOR DUMMIES. YOU COULD MAKE MILLIONS MR GARFIELD I WILL BE THE HAPPIEST MAN ON EARTH

  27. IT IS THE JUDGES. THEY ARE LIKE PHAROAH THEY HAVE A HEART OF STONE AND DEAF EARS.

    IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THE DINOSAUR BANKS START TO FALL ONE AFTER THE OTHER. LIKE DOMINOES.

    UNTIL THEN THE JUDGES MUNICIPALITIES ETC… ARE GONNA TAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN FROM THE BANKS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,277 other followers

%d bloggers like this: