RESCISSION: MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

KENNETH S. TAYLOR ETAL [PRO SE]
PRO SE 8610 HADDEN TWINSBURG OHIO 44087

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFIATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KENNETH S. TAYLOR et.al. ALYCIA TAYLOR-DRIGGINS,
Defendant. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 5:11 CV 521

MOTION TO STAY WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT , PENDING APPEAL AT NINTH JUDICIAL CICRIUT 25281, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 11-047, AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 11-3277, AN COUNTERCLAIM TRIAL IN THIS COURT AND, FEDERAL COMPLAINT 5:10 V 2766 ALL FOR TILA Right of Rescission, : PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE
FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling,
FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUEIT TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;
JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON.

Motion to stay SHOULD be granted ,Judges must look at Praecipe For Order For Sale filed by Kevin L. Williams in trial court on June 1 2010 attached as Exhibit ( A A ) the signature on this filing is another forgery of his name. The court has erred, the entire case contains many errors of substantial Due Process, substantial Procedural Due Process, With all due respect to the Judges residing, you have failed to preserve any of the Taylor’s Constitutional Civil Rights to any hearing before the court , to contest fraudulent assignment, fraudulent affidavit, the eight forgeries before the court , the defective order of sale , the void summary Judgment granted, with no original blue ink note, that has been reported to court as lost or destroyed and missing, with no title in any plaintiffs name ever in this case, with no mortgage in any plaintiffs name, with no title search being performed, an the judge Tom Parker who has allowed this Case to matriculated through the court ILEGALLY AND UNLAWFULLY WITH BIAS , PARTIAL , RULINGS AND PREDETERMINATON TO HELP AND ASSIST PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY by lying about defendants Counterclaim , an conspiring with plaintiffs attorney , lying throughout his summary judgment order , while he is under two motions of recusal ,and has violated his sworn oath of office, violated Cannons, an refused to honor a direct order of the appeals court and has not set case for trial, and have not followed the Ohio and U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio along with the Ohio prosecutors office is on notice of the incessant egregious level of fraud and corruption by this law firm of Manley Deas Kochalski , the court should Call them and ask to speak to Kevin L. Williams, ask a hard question, why do you have two uniquely different signatures.) And why have either attorney for plaintiffs ever made an appearance? as the court just sits and watches and turns a blind eye, not only is this one Black African American Family home being destroyed in which they have lived for 23 years , its bigger than us it is a destruction of the American legal system as the founding fathers are turning in their graves. This entire system was created on Gods biblical principals, this court has a sworn duty to act and act with a since of urgency even in the face of trying to preserve a banking system that has destroyed this country morals and ethics and continues to rip away at the fabric of America, all by unbridled greed. Plaintiff must be stop for unlawful sale of defendants home as they have filed a second unlawful order of sale with trial court that no longer has jurisdiction over this case that has been remove to this federal court its force is inescapable, the case is now pending in four higher courts as lower court has just made to many errors See latest plaintiffs illegal order of sale filed on docket:
18/2011 – **CASE COSTED THRU 3/18/11 – PENDING. No Image
03/18/2011 – #2010-2098 ORDER OF SALE RETD. ENDR. AND I MAKE THIS RETURN BY ORDER OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY. SCSO Document 1

03/14/2011 PRO SE DEFENDANTS, KENNETH AND ALYCIA TAYLOR’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL UNDER CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005, FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION. Document 2

03/10/2011 NO ATTY. REQUIRED COURT ORDERS PARTIES TO BRIEF THEIR POSITIONS. PARTIES ARE TO FILE BRIEFS, NOT TO EXCEED FIVE PAGES IN LENGTH, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AND PROVIDE COPIES TO COURT’S STAFF. TP Document 3

03/01/2011 NO ATTY. REQUIRED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR SANCTIONS FOR MISBEHAVIOR OF OPPOSING COUNSEL. Document 4

Now comes Defendants Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor- Driggins from hereinafter the (“Taylor’s”) And they hereby gives notice that they are requesting in this Case No.: 5:11 CV 521, a

MOTION TO STAY WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT , PENDING APPEAL AT NINTH JUDICIAL CICRIUT 25281, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 11-047, AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 11-3277, AN COUNTERCLAIM TRIAL IN THIS COURT AND, FEDERAL COMPLAINT 5:10 V 2766 ALL FOR TILA Right of Rescission, : PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE
FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling,
FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUEIT TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;
JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON.

This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings, Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 ., Moreover absolute proof of fraud is attached; a forgery of Kevin L. Williams signature submitted to trial court date January 15, 2010 as Exhibit (B2) all which have affected Defendants Substantial rights and Procedural rights to Due Process and Fundamental rights; Rights to Privacy, Life, Liberty or Property Goss v. Lopez, Roe v Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut; Rights To Notice/ Contest Charges/ Hearings, Private v. Public , National v. State Governments, In School v. Out Of School Suspensions , Laney v Farley. WHEREAS: We pray now and for last as humbly as we know how that this Honorable high District Court and its high District Court Honorable Judge Pearson grant this motion to stay in one of the most remarkable and bizarre set of circumstances before are nation courts in this case in whole .
Respectfully and Humbly Submitted by:
_______________________
Alycia Taylor- Driggins, Kenneth S. Taylor [prose] /s/ for Defendant/ Appellant Kenneth S. Taylor 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg Ohio 44087 1-330-425-1542 katickit@yahoo.
Memorandum In Support
A rescission action may not be barred by prior or subsequent TILA 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)).

Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se filed a copy of the notice of rescission letter (See Exhibit I)
The Truth-in-Lending law empower Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor 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), 22e6.23(a)(2), Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(a)(2)-1) and 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).
Also, the principle does apply to TILA 3 years period of rescission since despite due diligence, Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se could not have reasonably discovered the concealeed fact of TILA violations in-depth and explicitly until after this court dimissed plaintiffs lawsiut for lack of standing filed in this Federal District Court in Ohio Northern Division on June 20,2007 case number 5: 07 CV -0840 SEL and Mr.Kenneth S. Taylor was alerted of fraud invovled in his mortgage loan tranaction, and nothing has change the Plaintiff continue to lack standing,as the same defective fraudulent assigment is before this court again, as this matter has been decided by this very court .
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 the original lender Option One Mortgage Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond and 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.) Instead they all made excuses, Option One admitted receiving right of recession to cancel loan on July 18, 2008 in there legal department, See exhibit (G-2) and failed to respond See exhibit (G), exhibit (E) shows American Home Mortgage failing to rescind loan. its all completely fraudulent as plaintiffs attorney , has sworn in her brief before the Court Of Appeals in Ohio Ninth Judicial District at III Statement Of The Case Sands Canyon excited the loan on February 6, 2006, and they conveyed property to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company on June 29th 2007 that is after they lied to this court and said they owned Taylor home and filed a federal lawsuit pretending to be owners of are home and real property this is a crime that has harmed us nothing can cure this fraud it cannot be fix, more lies and corruption are for sure going to keep reoccurring as these plaintiffs continue to lie to court any witness affidavit or affiants testimony to these facts are perjury , not one single allege lender has responded to defendant rights to cancel. Add to that plaintiffs have sworn original promissory note is missing, title is missing , they have no deed of trust or mortgage in plaintiffs name it’s the worst case of fraud ever realized in a court of law in which judges sworn to uphold the law just look the other way.
Extended Right of Rescission
The statute and Regulation Z make it clear that, if Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor 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 rights to rescind in three day or extended in three years for federal and four years under Ohio. 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 Option One Mortgage Corporation, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Sands Canyon Corporation, America Home Mortgage Servicing Incorporated, subjects themsevles 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.Kenneth S Taylor, Pro Se to pay finance and other charges, including accrued interest, points, broker fees, closing costs and that the lender must refund to Mr.Kenneth S. Taylor Pro Se all finance charges and fees paid.
Plaintiffs all of them mentioned above have failed to respond to recession letter as set forth by the law Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor 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”). That lawsuit has been filed and is pending in this court also; case number 10-02766, which is why a stay is absolutely necessary.
TIL rescission does not only cancel a security interest in the property but it also cancels any liability for Mr. Kenneth S.Taylor Pro Se to pay finance and other charges, including accrued interest, points, broker fees, closing costs and the lender must refund to Mr. Kenneth S.Taylor Pro Se all finance charges and fees paid
Thus, Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation are obligated to return those charges to Mr. Kenneth S Taylor, 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, 5th 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 (5th 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)). See exhibit ( I)
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. Kenneth S Taylor’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. Kenneth S. Taylor has legally rescinded the loans transaction, the alleged mortgage holders Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation 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. Kenneth S. Taylor 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 Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and Sands Canyon Corporation
XIV. Conclusion
I will be requesting an itemized statement of my payment record in writing to Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation
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 Option One Mortgage Corporation , Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Sands Canyon Corporation have not cancelled the security interest and return all monies paid by Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor to we request Stay all court litigation in this matter UNTIL ALL MONIES PAID BY TAYLOR ‘S ARE RETURNED. The lenders named above are responsible for actual and statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). Once again, THIS COURT SHOULD REQUIRE PLAINTIFFS TO send a copy of my payment history and other document showing the loan disbursements, loan charges and payment made directly to this court for examination.

Dated this 22nd day of March, 2011

About these ads

3 Responses

  1. the real cut and paste job has been done by the prentend lenders attorneys a vextation litigators using Docx ,LPS and Convicted Loraine Brown

  2. See Palmer v. Wilson, 502 F. 2d 860, at *861 (9th Cir. 1974)(“Section 1635(a) provides that an obligor exercises his right of rescission solely by notifying the creditor within prescribed time limits of his intention to rescind.”) Id.; (“[T]hat voids the mortgage absolutely and unconditionally, regardless of whether either the debtor or the creditor does any of the things that section 125 requires be done subsequent to the giving of notice of intention to rescind. This would be true even where the original creditor had meanwhile negotiated the paper to some third party. In this connection, I might point out that a lender who disburses funds, or a contractor who performs under his contract, would ordinarily be taking a risk if he did so before the contract and all the required information had been in the hands of the debtor for three full business days.”) 114 Cong.Rec. H4118-38 (1968) (statement of Rep. Sullivan (D-MO)); (“The objection that the notice of rescission was [ineffective when exercised] is without force. … The result claimed could be produced only by a statutory provision to that effect.” Pence v. Langdon, 99 US 578, at * 580 (1879) “[T]he wrong-doer cannot make extreme vigilance and promptitude conditions of rescission. It does not lie in his mouth to complain of delay unaccompanied by acts of ownership, and by which he has not been affected. The election to rescind or not to rescind, once made, is final and conclusive.”) Id. at *581-582.; (“In the instant case, A[ppellant]‘s alleged []failure to perform … is unrelated to the issue of whether A[ppellant] is entitled to rescind the [] agreement. … A[ppellant] had the right to rescind the [] agreement immediately upon its execution. Therefore, any subsequent nonperformance … did not affect A[ppellant]‘s right to rescission. Accordingly, A[ppellant]‘s rescission claim is not barred”.) Dollar Systems, Inc. v. Avcar Leasing Systems, Inc., 890 F.2d 165, at *173 (9th Cir. 1989).

    Doty v. Superior Court, Cal. App. 2nd Dist., Div. 8, at *9 (2009)(“The trial court erred in concluding that rescission is only a remedy and is not an “independent cause[] of action.” While the equitable action for a rescission was abolished in 1961, there is now a “legal action for restitution based on a completed unilateral rescission. [Citations, inter alia to Civil Code section 1688 et seq.]” (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 541, p. 668.)”.); Paularena v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.2d 906, at *913 (1965)(“[A]fter rescinding a contract, a party may seek any form of relief warranted under the circumstances, whether legal or equitable. As all such actions will be to enforce a rescission, the right of the parties to a jury and the court in which the action must be brought will be determined by the nature of the substantive relief requested and not by the form of the complaint.” Id.); Palmer v. Wilson, supra, 502 F.2d at *861(“Although tender of consideration received [was] an equitable prerequisite to rescission, the requirement was abolished by the Truth in Lending Act.” Id.).

    And there is a host of precedent both State and Federal which support that the rule has changed and allegations of tender, showing of ability or offer to make tender thereof are no longer requisites and make no mention of such requirement at either State or Federal level. Runyan v. Pacific Air Industries, Inc., 2 Cal.3d 304 (1970) (“This method contemplated a rescission by the individual act of one of the parties to the contract and has been referred to as a unilateral rescission. Having rescinded the contract by his own act, the rescinding party then brought an action to enforce the out-of-court rescission. Such action was considered to be one at law brought on the implied promise on the part of the nonrescinding party to repay or return the consideration received. In reality, it is an action in which the law, in order to prevent the unjust enrichment of defendants from the property of plaintiff, itself implies a promise to repay the sum demanded. In other words, it is an action in assumpsit upon a promise implied by law.” Id. at *311-312. (internal quatations and citations omitted). “The rescission statutes should make plain that, after rescinding a contract, a party may seek any form of relief warranted under the circumstances, whether legal or equitable. As all such actions will be to enforce a rescission, the right of the parties to a jury and the court in which the action must be brought will be determined by the nature of the substantive relief requested and not by the form of the complaint.” Id. at *313. “[I]n such actions the court should do complete equity between the parties and to that end may grant any monetary relief necessary to do so. It is the purpose of rescission to restore both parties to their former position as far as possible and to bring about substantial justice by adjusting the equities between the parties despite the fact that the status quo cannot be exactly reproduced.” Id. at *316. “[The] general principles of equity have recognized that the restoration to the rescinding party of the consideration with which he originally parted does not necessarily in all instances restore him to his former position and bring about substantial justice. The rescinding vendee of land who in reliance upon the contract has placed improvements on the property must invariably be compensated for them if he is to be afforded complete relief. In instances such an adjustment may be compelled so as to forestall unjust enrichment of the nonrescinding party through whose fault the grounds of rescission have arisen.” Id. at *317. (internal quotations and citations omitted)); (“The effect of a rescission is to void the contract ab initio. In other words, the effect of the election of plaintiff’s [exercise] to avoid the contract … for the fraud practiced upon him is, that, as between the parties there has never existed any [agreement]”.) Weltman v. Kaye, 334 P. 2d 917. at *614 Cal App, 2nd Dist., Div. 1 (1959); (“[U]nilateral rescission was justified and declared that title to the house was vested in appellant[]…. [I]n this state a contract may be rescinded by a contracting party unilaterally if his consent to be bound by the agreement was induced either by a material misrepresentation, though innocently made, or a mistake. (Civ. Code, § 1689; Crocker-Anglo Nat. Bank v. Kuchman, 224 Cal. App.2d 490, 495-497 [36 Cal. Rptr. 806]; Evans v. Spatt, 131 Cal. App.2d 47, 48-49 [279 P.2d 1026]; Rest., Contracts, § 476.)”) Wood v. Kalbaugh, 39 Cal. App. 3d 926, at *929-930 (1974); (“[A] person suing to rescind a contract, as a rule, is not required to restore the consideration at the very outset of the litigation. See 3 Restatement (Second) of Contracts, supra, § 384, and Comment b; Restatement of Restitution § 65, Comment d (1936); D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 4.8, p. 294 (1973).”) Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 US 422, at *426 (1998)

  3. i’m sorry but this is just pro se nonsense that doesn’t belong on the site with the other informative pieces. it’s a cut and paste of a motion filed by the borrower, not an actual court order that would have some real value

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 3,256 other followers

%d bloggers like this: