Since we had our technical difficulties with the use of free conference last time I am going to answer certain questions that were sent in and never covered in the last members teleconference. Free conference assures me that the technical problems have been solved — but the call-in number is going to be different.
THIS IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND SHOULD ONLY BE USED AFTER CONSULTING WITH AN ATTORNEY WHO IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED. I AM ONLY LICENSED IN FLORIDA AND EVEN IF YOU HAVE A FLORIDA CASE THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE USED AS ADVICE OR INSTRUCTION SINCE I OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT YOUR PARTICULAR CASE AND WHETHER THE FOLLOWING IS APPLICABLE TO YOU OR YOUR CASE. Call 850-765-1236 for further assistance. On the West Coast (CA, OR, WA, AZ NV, etc.) call 520-405-1688.
Question regarding “paragraph 22”: I have enclosed a link below discussing the paragraph which is numbered 22 in the example used.
The first thing I want to say is that there are no magic bullets anywhere within the complexity and chaos of the false securitization scheme devised by Wall Street. Nothing will be a substitute for a thorough understanding of the scheme and no one element or theory is going to result in a “free house” for a homeowner except in those cases where the party pretending to be the lender as so angered the judge that the judge is looking for a way to punish them. Nonetheless the article below is written by an attorney who apparently has a fair understanding of several issues involving securitization of debt and is therefore worth reading.
The second thing I want to say is that the paragraph does not always bear the number “22” since several different mortgage forms have been in use and evolving over the last 20 years. But the point raised by the article and by the question sent to me is entirely valid. In a case involving title to real property, and especially in a case where title is going to be forcibly taken from one party and given to another, the requirements of notice are usually going to be taken very seriously by a judge and applied very strictly. If not, and you have taken the trouble to properly prepare a good record, it is highly likely that exceed on appeal despite the fact that the odds on appeal generally favor the pretender lender by a wide margin.
The third thing I want to say is that notice is like a two edged sword. It must come from a party that is empowered to give notice and that power should not be assumed based upon the self-serving proclamation by a pretender lender that arrogate unto itself the power to do anything with your loan. The other side is that once notice appears to be properly given, you must open your mail and react to it within the time limits prescribed by statute. Obviously if the pretender lender commences some sort of action against you before the notice period runs out you have an opportunity to reverse the procedure and force them to start all over again. On the other hand if the statute requires you to take some action once you have received notice and the notice period has run out, then it is likely that this will be held against you and in fact it may be fatal to your position.