Forbes has taken notice. There is a shift toward borrowers in mortgage litigation. The decision points back to the origination of the loan. This decision follows a similar decision in the 4th circuit. It all comes down to what actually happened at closing? And we don’t actually know if the decision to allow rescission indefinitely on second mortgages will extend to the first mortgage if it is all part of the same transaction. The result of rescission is that all payments of every kind must be returned to the borrower plus interest and attorney fees and potentially treble damages. All payments mean closing costs, fees, costs, expenses, principal interest, escrow and anything else. If the “lender” doesn’t do that the mortgage lien is expressly invalidated by operation of law, which is the same as being subject to a recorded satisfaction of mortgage. TILA is back!! — at least until the Supreme Court gets to weigh in on this ongoing dispute.
TILA requires only a clear statement and communication that the borrower wishes to rescind the transaction. The statute is clear that the burden shifts to the “lender” to either agree to rescission or sue to disqualify the rescission that must be supported by allegations and proof that the lender violated disclosure requirements at the time of origination of the loan. To be sure, there is a loophole created by the courts — that the rescinding borrower have the money to give back to the lender. But that is exactly what is going to cause the problem for Foreclosers. If the borrower can show some credible source of funds, the “lender” is screwed — because the lender is not the party who was named on the note and mortgage.
So the offer of the money will immediately cause an inquiry and discovery into the question who actually was the lender? We certainly don’t want to give the rescission money to the named party on the note and mortgage when the source of funds was a party with no legal relationship to the named “lender.” The facts will show that the mortgage lien was never perfected —and that therefore rescission under TILA is potentially unnecessary.
Either way, the debt turns up unsecured and can be discharged in bankruptcy. The problem for Wall Street is how they will explain to investors why the investors were not identified as the lenders in each closing. The answer is that Wall Street Banks wanted to use those loans as “assets” they could trade, insure, hedge and even sell contrary to the prospectus and PSA shown to pension Funds and other investors who advanced funds to investment banks as “payment” for mortgage bonds underwritten by those banks.
When the limelight is focused on the original closing, Pandora’s box will open for the bankers. It will show that they never used the money from investors to buy bonds issued by a REMIC trust. It will show the trusts to be unfunded. It will show the unfunded trusts never bought or funded the loans. It will show that the disclosure requirements and the reason for TILA (borrowers’ choices in the marketplace) were regularly violated.
That in turn will lead to the inquiry as to the balance of the loan that is now due. Rescission means giving back what you received. But what if, by operation of law, you have already given back some or all of the money? The investment banker will be hard pressed to describe itself as anything but the agent of the lender investors. As agent, it received payments from insurance, hedges and sales to the Federal Reserve. How will the Wall Street Banks explain why those payments should not be applied to reduce the account receivable of the investor lenders? How many times should the lender be paid on the same debt?
Remember that there is no issue of subrogation, contribution or other claims against the borrower here. They were expressly waived in the contracts for insurance and credit default swaps. Hence the payments should equitably be applied to the benefit of the investors whose money was used to start the false securitization scheme under false pretenses. Once the investors are paid or considered paid because their agents received the money from third party co-obligors, what is left for the borrowers to pay? Will the court order the borrower to pay “back” a lender who never made the loan?
Dreamli Zs 6:22pm Sep 28
Court Decision Gives Lenders A Headache, Borrowers An Ace In The Hole
A court ruling gives borrowers an unlimited deadline for rescinding second mortgages
Filed under: AMGAR, CASES, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: banking, foreclosure defense, rescission, TILA, truth in lending |