the bailout and insurance money was paid not to the investors or the borrowers, it was paid to the investment bankers who never were at risk. I’m beginning to think that the ultra-sophisticated investors have some dog in this race that prevents them from entering the foreclosure market directly to recover or settle their investments at a much higher rate of recovery than that offered by Wall Street.Maybe they were not deceived after all and the investment bank can prove it.
A short note on why you should send one in addition to the QWR.
The response is usually that a DVL is inappropriate in a mortgage case. The mistake universally made is that this response has merit. It doesn’t. And the reason is that it would only be true if the pretender lender was actually a party to the mortgage transaction. In order to be a party to the mortgage transaction it must be the creditor or the debtor.
If they want to take the position that the the DVL does not apply then the proper response is an objection to that statement and a motion to strike it from the record. The basis of the objection is that the lawyer has failed to establish that his client is a party to the transaction. So now he either must give up or withdraw his objection to the demand that the DVL be answered OR prove that his client is a creditor.
Anyone other than a creditor in a mortgage transaction would of necessity be aan agent or at least alleging some agency relationship which makes them a collector — which is exactly why the Consumer Debt Protection Act was written.
Thus if you can get the pretender lender lawyer to state that the DVL doesn’t apply, your response should be good, now he has raised an issue of fact entitling you to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the issue fo whether his client is a creditor or a collector.
And by the way, you should also note that the statute requires not validation, but verification. validation would merely be a statement from the same party that says, “Yes, that’s what you owe, now pay up.” Verification requires that the collector actually inquire from the principal, disclose the principal and provide a signed, sworn statement that the information is true, providing the details of what was done, who they spoke with, where the files are and how anyone knows the answers.
The usual trick by the foreclosure mills is to get a signature from anyone on a vague document that doesn’t really say anything and doesn’t really say the signer knows anything. Then the lawyer goes to court and tells the court what it says, and if you don’t object, the lawyer’s statement will be taken as a true summary of the contents. Read the document carefully.
It will usually be vague as to the nature of the signor’s employment, and use words like “familiar with” INSTEAD OF WORDS THAT CONNOTE THAT THEY HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THE PERSON SIGNING PROBABLY HAS NO KNOWLEDGE AND EVEN THEY TYPED OUT THE STATEMENT IT WAS PROBABLY DICTATED BY SOMEONE ELSE WHO ALSO DIDN’T HAVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THUS THE DOCUMENT AND THE TESTIMONY, IF ANY, ARE HEARSAY AND DO NOT FALL WITHIN ANY EXCEPTION.
Lawyers Beware: A firm grasp of the laws and rules of evidence and the objections that go with that knowledge is the key to winning these cases. Their goal is to prevent you from getting the real information and to keep the investor and the borrower separated by a veil of secrecy or as Countrywide was so fond of saying “confidentiality.”
If the investor and borrower were to actually get together, the investor would find out first that only a small portion of his investment was used to fund mortgages — the rest being kept as fees and betting money that the loan would go bad.
The second thing they would discover as they drilled down further is that the bailout and insurance money was paid not to the investors or the borrowers, it was paid to the investment bankers who never were at risk. I’m beginning to think that the ultra-sophisticated investors have some dog in this race that prevents them from entering the foreclosure market directly to recover or settle their investments at a much higher rate of recovery than that offered by Wall Street. Maybe they were not deceived after all and the investment bank can prove it.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: collector, consumer debt protection act, creditor, debt validation letter, hearsay, investors, motion to strike, objection, personal knowledge, rules of evdience |