RESCISSION HEATS UP AS BORROWERS HEAD BACK TO COURT TO USE SUPREME COURT REVERSAL

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

==============================

For lawyers only: Many homeowners are going back and digging up their notices of rescission. There are cases in state court, federal court and bankruptcy court that could be and probably are effected by the US Supreme Court decision that made it clear that TILA rescission was a unique statutory remedy and that the common law right of rescission should not be used to interpret the explicit statutory remedy that is TILA Rescission.
Borrowers/debtors are filing motions to set aside previous rulings by courts who assumed that the rescission was only effective when a court says so (the common law rule rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court) and that tender of the money was required for the rescission to be effective (also rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court).  The Banks have reacted predictably — trying to enforce the previously incorrect rulings of the court by virtue of res judicata, collateral estoppel or even “law of the case.” Remember that state laws and rules of procedures will affect the ability of borrowers to go back into litigation that has been concluded even if it is on false premises.

I would file a short reply saying something like “Defendants continue to argue a point not in issue in an blatant attempt to appeal to the Court’s personal views or inclinations. Plaintiff does not seek a free house and never did. Plaintiff’s goal is very simple: If the defendants were not the owner or representative of the owner of the debt, note and mortgage and lacked any authority to pursue collection or enforcement, then they should not be permitted to pursue a strategy in which the defendants get a “free house.”

The US Supreme Court made clear that the requirements of TILA are clear and must be strictly construed — apart from any common law notions of fraud or rescission. The Federal statute is clear in stating that the Plaintiff’s issuance of a notice of rescission produced two results: (a) the note and mortgage are nullified by operation of law (although the debt remains) and (b) if the “lender” seeks to contest the rescission, they must do so within 20 days by the Lender filing a lawsuit, which it is uncontested that the Defendants no such action was filed. If the note and mortgage were nullified by “operation of law” (quoted from statute) there is no logic or legal argument that can make it otherwise.

There is no authority that makes the notice of rescission void. “Lenders” may challenge it within 20 days and if they don’t they have waived their “defenses” or “Claims.” The point of the nullification of the note and mortgage by operation of law is to provide the borrower with the capacity to seek out alternative financing (to pay the existing debt to the “lender”) which could only be achieved if the Defendant’s mortgage and note were removed from the title chain. The 20 days in which the “lender” just sue to set aside the rescission has long expired. And the Defendants still have not filed such a suit. They have waived their defenses or claims regarding the rescission by operation of Federal law. These are not theories. They are explicit statements by the US Government aimed at leveling the playing field between borrowers and lenders, reinforced by the short opinion rendered by Justice Scalia for a unanimous Supreme Court. ”

It is not the borrower that must tender payments. It is the lender that must tender payment, disgorgement and reimbursement for every penny paid by the the borrower in connection with the loan including at closing and all monthly or other payments thereafter. Nothing could be more clear in the statute. And now the US Supreme Court has said exactly that — courts that apply common law rules to rescission are wrong when it comes to TILA rescission. The various “defenses” and “claims” of the “lenders” are waived unless they bring suit within 20 days from the notice of rescission. There are no exceptions in the Federal Statute.

The subject mortgage and note did not exist after the notice of rescission. That is the express terms of the law. Hence any action to enforce or collect under the terms of the note or mortgage or deed of trust were void, ab initio. No court would even have subject matter or personal jurisdiction to consider a controversy regarding a nonexistent note and a nonexistent mortgage or deed of trust. Further, the defendants were obligated to send a satisfaction of mortgage and canceled note to the borrower after rescission. Defendants are seeking to have the court ratify Defendant’s violation of the express provisions of the Federal Act. In essence they are arguing that even though the US Supreme Court says otherwise, that the notice of rescission should be ignored. There is no higher authority than the US Supreme Court. One is left to ask, upon what source of authority the Defendants rely that is higher than the US Supreme Court speaking unanimously.

26 Responses

  1. The promise to repay authorizes the fractional lending on/off balance sheet – the promissory note actually makes you a creditor to the alleged originator. The note is pledged as collateral – held for sale, and when sold to conduit, warehouse line and liability are retracted from balance sheet…

    Look at the new century write up – tells a great bit about the reserve accounts, and the reason to move away from traditional mark requirements on held to maturity assets…

    TSMIMITW

  2. I sit corrected. That material, which I take as accurate, says a change in law may undo the law of a case. That may be called, I forget, “emerging law”?, but still, If I had to pick a weapon, it would be new precedent because then I wouldn’t have to argue its applicability to my case.

  3. The banksters, with their well-organized network cartel attorneys and white-papers (aka how to game the system missives) are well aware that law of the case and so on may be overcome (but only if it’s done right).
    Law of the case generally refers mol to what’s been established in any particular case (the sky is blue, this is a fact, that isn’t, the court already ruled this way or that). Found this, thought I’d link it for those it may help in existing cases:

    “The “law of the case” doctrine, however, is one of policy only and will be disregarded when compelling circumstances call for a redetermination of a point of law on prior appeal. This is particularly true where an intervening or a contemporaneous change in law has occurred where former decisions have been overruled or new precedent has been established by controlling authority.[5]

    at fn 5 is a case to read which may have more info:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_case

    What I take that to mean as a lay person is if you appealed and lost because you weren’t able to raise, say, the SC tila ruling at the time in your appeal, because it’s now precedent established by controlling authority (SC), you could ask for reconsideration based on the new
    precedent.** I see that article refers to an appeal, but I don’t know why the same wouldn’t be true in the lower court. If you’re on your own, imo you can’t read too many cases on new precedent and reconsideration.

    **this is because the reconsideration won’t be made on the basis of a CHANGE in law during one’s litigation, but on a new decision based on EXISTING law. I think this is almost critical: If it were a change in law, to the extent something’s been decided in one’s case already, the new (change) law may not or would not help like new precedent. It’s this distinction between the two, 1) new law and 2) new precedent of existing law, that’s the reason the banksters are being entirely disingenuous as NG points out trying to rely on the law of the case and not readily acknowledging that new precedent (v new law) can turn the law of the case on its head. imo. They KNOW the difference this makes.
    lay opinions

  4. God i know im like an old record on here, i meant i rescinded and tendered to the RPI, ” minus equitible setoff” maybe that now makes sense but rescision as Alina points out is self enforcing if you like, the bank responded basically no you cant, it now appears, and i say appears ( remember nothing is how it at first appears especially in this particular mess, and it is) … That maybe yes i can.

  5. Thus is true – Neil states
    “The Banks have reacted predictably — trying to enforce the previously incorrect rulings of the court by virtue of res judicata”

  6. And i did rescind ( minus equitible setoffs – thus need the accounting) and i did note that in the lis pendens which was ” exponged” the intention is clear.

  7. This ” late assignment to the trust” is ridiculous, theres a famous robo signer by the name of Erica Johnsen Seck who is a very busy person working in many ” legal” capacities for the sweetheart team deutsche, hsbc, wells fargo , indymac ( one west buying ” certain ” assets” on being ” servicing rights”) so assigns after the liquidating and foreclosure yet the servicer claims they are ” lender” for tax business purposes. Many things happened to that ” asset” instrument aka my loan which was purportedly in a alt a deutsche trust
    Im having to work backwards now in court ( like peddling up hill backwards in the snow with no shoes, and no seat)

  8. Need some input.Judge in Santa Monica Court,Lisa Hart Cole,was accussed of running a real estate scam in her court in 2009 with another judge and then head of the bev hills bar,dismissed my case against Wells Fargo and then wants me to pay bev hills escrows attorney fees 20k,paid my lawyer 25k so far to dick me and move my case from downtown to her court and lie about it.Fabricated,forged,phony docs admitted in negative form from their attorney and saying that Wells Fargo paid my 2nd at closing when I had paid it 2 months prior and submitted the cancelled checks and statements showing a zero balance and WF had no proof,she could care less and is hell bent on stealing my home with the help of my lawyer.PLEASE HELP OF ANY SORT.HER RULING IS STILL A TENTATIVE RULING

  9. michael keene wrote something on the last post which I think people should see. I don’t understand everything he’s saying and I’d like to. Maybe others will. I don’t know if NG is still apprising everyone of new comments. My comments to mk and in general regarding the current f/c m.o. (mk was talking about swaps):

    By willfully withholding delivery of our loans to the trusts, the banksters may have had insurable interests, though I don’t know. I often holler about the UCC being default law. It’s looked to to determine the rights and status of parties when a contract has not been performed by its terms, generally.
    In this case, the PSA’s called for delivery of the loan docs, including the notes of course. The non-delivery imo,
    pursuant to the UCC, makes the party who paid for a note but didn’t get it a secured party and the party who didn’t deliver an indentured party.
    A question is: at that moment, who is the note’s holder entitled to enforce it? Maybe the non-deliverer, subject to the security interest of the secured party. So just take a normal deal, no trust involved. In that state of paid-for but not delivered, the borrower on the note defaults. Let’s say it’s the indentured party who may enforce (but don’t otherwise take my word for it because I actually believe the true answer is no one). So he enforces by way of foreclosure. However, the real estate which is the collateral for the loan has dropped in value by 200k, so there is a loss, right? He got 300k from the resale of the real estate after foreclosure. But, he still owes the secured party 500k, the amount owing on the date the secured party paid him for the note. One thing the secured party may not do imo is say ‘here, take this 300k in satisfaction of your security interest’. The UCC imo will find that the secured party owes the indentured party 500k. The secured party wants the amt he is and was entitled to on the date he paid for the note
    He wants the 500k he paid for. The secured party would sue for the missing 200k and barring a successful defense of laches or some such, he’d get it or at least judgment imo. At any rate, in the state of non-delivery, did the bankster, the indentured party, have an insurable interest? I don’t know. But I do think it’s safe to say that if
    non-delivery found him with an insurable interest, it would be a reason not to deliver. But even then, I only see a benefit if one of a couple things happens. One is if the indentured party is able to retain the insurance proceeds and not have to fork them over to the secured party. Another is that the insurer waived subrogation so he has no claim for recovery under the note (hard to have subrogation rights under party A if party B already has a secured interest. Party B’s secured interest is superior to anyone else’s subsequent claim)

    If you throw back in the fact that these are REMIC trusts, it’s a real disaster and cluster because the trust owns no loans because of non-delivery, has only security interests, and thus doesn’t meet the bar for its REMIC status. Individuals who thought they were in a tax shelter now owe taxes on any monies already received as loan payments and will or may owe steep taxes on the 300k (but maybe not if it’s a dollar for dollar return of (not ON) investment.
    So isn’t the real question here as it pertains to insurance or swap or like that: did the secured party have something to insure or was it just a bet? If it were just a bet, why not deliver?
    I believe I’m able to say non-delivery results in the status I’ve said, i.e., that one party pursuant to the UCC is a secured party and one is an
    indentured party. But I don’t know if 1) the secured party
    has an insurable interest or 2) who has rights to enforce in that
    circumstance, but I believe it’s NO one, so to be clear, I believe NO one may enforce against the notemaker until there is delivery to the indentured party (or the refund of its money?), and 3) that “MERS” accomodated the non-delivery including that 4) the non-delivery was willful and for reasons detrimental to everyone else, and 5) that mers aided the enforcement by those with no rights of enforcement (to the extent a secured party has no right to enforce), 6) as it relates to pre-late-assignments to trusts, that an employee of the assignee in any hat is not a party entitled to execute an assignment to her employer because of, if for no othe reason, a patent conflict of interests, and 7) MERS and MERSCorp are liable for all robo-signing done in MERS’ name, and 8) that they are both skating on this crime. There probably isn’t one among us who hasn’t been on the receiving end of their bs.

    As to late delivery or at least assgt, obviously since MERS Consent Order, the attempt is to now purport a late assignment to closed if not 86’d trusts, which they have unfortunately correctly calculated will take us some time to get around. We still haven’t gotten in front of the train.
    It’s really sad. All this work we’ve done and they just come up with another piece of garbage that’s allowed to pass and to pass as if all else done by them before didn’t happen (x evidenced by some slaps on the wrists). Only a handful of us have benefited by a lot of collective work. I hate to sound like a downer, but when looking at their acts, it’s almost unavoidable.
    lay opinions which I can’t say as humorously as that guy the other day
    e.tolle – still cracking me up

  10. I did not reblog this.

  11. Reblogged this on Alina's Blog and commented:
    As Neil Garfield says below, The U.S. Supreme Court stated emphatically that under the provisions of § 1635 (Truth in Lending Act), the consumer is only required to give written notice within the three year time-frame set out in the statute. Once the notice is give, the security interest is voided automatically. No ands, ifs, or buts. The Trust in Lending statute says what it means and means what it says. It is not for the courts to rewrite a law enacted by Congress.

  12. usedkarguy, if I may add to your comments. The reason that case is noteworthy is because stripping unsecured home debt has previously
    and vigorously only been allowed as to non-owner occupied properties.
    If a rental had a value of 300k, a first of 310k and a second of 50k, the debtor in a 13 could strip, i.e., 86 the second with not much more than a motion to do so. The 50k was 86’d as wholly unsecured and unsecured debt may be avoided in a bk. I can’t remember a thing this minute about cramming down the 310k first on a value of 300k. I forget the justification for rental props only, but do remember it had to do with the fact that the debtor received rent on the rental home.
    Because the ability to strip unsecured seconds has always been limited to non-owner occupieds, this is in fact something of great interest to many of us, esp those who got sucked into a first and second instead of a higher loan to value first. I won’t bore anyone with why lenders did that other than to recall it was to their own benefits. It’s grand that it’s being looked at now, but it’s also a pity in that values have risen, so some seconds will not now be wholly unsecured because they are still partly secured (by way of the property’s value). On the other hand, the higher values are generally good news for many homeowners.
    usedkarguy is right – if you can stand the payment on your first if you didn’t have to pay a second, it might be good strategy to move out and rent your house at least for awhile. As far as I know, this relief is available only thru bk and any seasoned bk attorney should be able to help you out for a consultation fee or whatever.
    The issue usedkarguy cites is a really big deal, so thanks. If anyone doesn’t understand this, but has an inkling it might be beneficial, legal advice would be a good thing and it shouldn’t cost much. You might want to wait for the outcome of those cases if you don’t want to rent out your house to strip the second, but still, getting prepared for the outcome (must I rent out to strip the second or may I stay and strip the second and thus your strategy) seems like a good idea.
    These are lay opinions

  13. On November 17, 2014, the court granted certiorari in a pair of cases—Bank of Am., N.A. v. Caulkett, No. 13-421, 190 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2014), and Bank of America, N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona, No. 14-163, 190 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2014), where it will consider whether, under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, a chapter 7 debtor may “strip off” a junior mortgage lien in its entirety when the outstanding debt owed to a senior lienholder exceeds the current value of the collateral. Section 506(d) provides that “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.” In Bank of Am., N.A. v. Caulkett (In re Caulkett), 566 Fed. App’x 879 (1 1th Cir. 2014), and in Bank of Am., N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona, 556 Fed. App’x 911 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a wholly unsecured junior lien is voidable under section 506(d).

    Another great way to force a cram-down using bankruptcy is to rent out the residence in foreclosure and get an apartment for awhile.

    It’s great to see the foreclosure rackets getting to the superior courts.

    And if you’re in Washington State get on your representatives’ and senators’ collective asses and help KAREN POOLEY move those legislators to action. Shame on you people there Washington.

  14. David points out
    “can we NOW send a RESCISSION NOTICE, AND IF THAT COMPANY IS AND HAS BEEN BK. WHO DO WE SEND IT TO??”
    Think about tne fact that a ” servicer” was liquidated and the fdic steps into the shoes… If you dont know who the real larty in interest is how can you effectively rescind or effectively do a ” modification”
    I think the liability ends with the FDIC. Hmm

  15. NG said on feb 2nd: “A thief can sue on the note he stole even if he forged a blank or special endorsement. ”
    Nope. I have to disagree. Look, if I may, once and for all we have to
    recognize an apparent conflict between UCC 3’s bearer provisions
    and FRCP 17’s injury requirment to invoke jurisdiction – OR- put it to rest for good reason. My position is and has been that a thief, as a person who has suffered no injury by a notemaker’s default, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court for lack of his own injury. And another thing – IMO these notes contain language which defines and LIMITS the party who may enforce them (I’m not looking it up this minute, but it says something like ‘anyone who takes this note by transfer AND IS entitled to payment’ may enforce)
    THAT, the lanugage in the note itself, is the first place any judicial body must look to determine enforcement rights. Right after that, for any issue unresolved, if any (and I see none), by that language, they may look to the default law UCC. A thief is not entitled to payment, so even by his possession of a bearer note, he is precluded from enforcement by the language in the note, THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT, and therefore reference to the UCC at least as to a thief isn’t necessary or relevant. As I’ve said before, as to a party who is not a thief (and least not known to be a thief), the ONLY reason imo to turn to the default law UCC 3 (as applicable) is for its definition of the word “transfer”. Again, without looking, I believe it says that a note is given to another WITH THE INTENT OF TRANSFERRING the right to payment.

    So my idea of the bottom line of this is:

    1) the language in the note first and foremost controls who may
    enforce the note against its maker

    2) the party in possession of a bearer note must have taken the
    note from the last guy “by transfer”

    3) with the intent of alienating his own right to payment and
    giving that right to payment to the transferee

    I’m not sure I’ve framed this quite right. Hope so, but it’s been awhile.

    However, we’re not done imo. IF these caveats in the note have been met, there is still another obstacle created by FRCP 17 and there are good reasons for this. The claimant MUST be the party who is injurred by the note’s non-payment. It’s about jurisdiction, more so than most of us even know. I remember a case wherein a foreign business, like in China, assigned its debt to a U.S. business for the purpose of trying to get jurisdiction in the U.S. (because the debtor defaulted). While the U.S. business appeared to be the rpii, the court ultimately found that
    the U.S. business was only to receive a small percentage of any amts recovered. ‘China’ HAD assigned the debt to the U.S. business with the intent of transferring the right to payment to it. However, even bearing that in mind, the court found that since the U.S. business would receive only a token amt of any recovery (with the rest going to China) that the U.S. business did NOT meet the injury bar of FRCP 17 and denied jurisidiction. The court held that it was China who was the party who would be injured by non-payment, since while it had assigned with the intent of giving the U.S. business THE RIGHT TO PAYMENT, it was nonetheless China which would suffer by the non-payment, having retained the lion’s share of any recovery.

  16. and the big question to all is.

    if someone found out in 2013 , about all this crap, on who what where money came from. as to RESCISSION. ) AND they got loan in 2005, but only now or past few yrs have learnd of all the fraud.

    can we NOW send a RESCISSION NOTICE, AND IF THAT COMPANY IS AND HAS BEEN BK. WHO DO WE SEND IT TO??

  17. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE WIRE-ADVICE OF CREDIT. THAT CAME FROM. DBTCO AMERICAS NYC.
    IS REALLY . DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO.AMERICAS.
    THE FEDWIRE ROUTING NUMBER. 021001033.

    ALL AM SAYING IS THAT I DONT THINK GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, COULD EVER PROVE THAT THEY LOAN ANY MONEY, EVEN A PENNY TO ANYONE, THAT THE MONEY CAME FROM A BANK ACCOUNT THAT THEY OWN. AND THIS DOC PROVES IT. AND WITH A SIGN AND DATED MORTGAGE NOTE THAT WAS PAYED TO THE ORDER OF THIS BANK WITHOUT RECOURSE, THE SAME DAY OF OUR SIGNING. SAY IT ALL.. TO ME IT SAY THEY SIGN OVER THE NOTE TO FUND THE MONEY, TO GET MONEY PER SAY. BECAUSE NO MONEY EVER CAME FROM THEM OR ANY BANK ACCOUNT OF GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION..

    INCOMING WIRE-ADVICE OF CREDIT,
    LAW OFFICE OF ACCOUNT # ****2739
    RICHARD J RAFFERTY PC
    MA IOLTA COMMITTEE
    19 NORWICH ST
    WORCESTER,MA 01608-2413
    DATE: 11/14/2005
    AMOUNT: $ 343,740.72
    TRANSACTION FEE $ 0.00
    GFX REF #: 20053180005600
    IMAD#: 20051114B1Q8384C005252
    OMAD#: 20051114L1LFB55C00003711140911FT01
    —————————————————————————————–
    Additional payment details are shown below:
    SENDER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION NAME: DBTCO AMERICAS NYC
    ABA: 021001033
    ORIGINATING PARTY(ORG) NAME: NOTHING THERE!!!!
    address: nothing there!!!!!
    BENEFICIARY PARTY(BNF) NAME:LAW OFFICE OF RAFFERTY
    ACCT# ****2739
    BENEFICIARY’S FIN.INST. (BBK) NOTHING THERE!!!!!!!
    REFERENCE FOR BENEFICIARY (RFB) 14900589117308
    ORIGINATOR TO BENEFICIARY INFO ( OBI )
    T ATTY REVIEW WILLIAM A MARSHALL SR
    9 RODMAN AVENUE SHIRLEY MA 01464
    BANK TO BANK INFORMATION ( BBI )
    this fax message is for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may
    contain CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED information. Any
    Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. if you
    are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by phone or
    fax AND DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THIS ORIGINAL MESSAGE.
    LIKE I SAID BEFORE, ANY AND ALL CHECKS CAME FROM OUR ATTORNEYS CHECK BOOK…EVEN THE CHECK THAT WAS SENT TO OTHER BANK TO PAY OFF EQUITY LINE . THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SEE THAT WOULD SAY SHOW THAT GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AS OUR LENDER IN ALL DOC’S , GAVE ANY MONEY IN FUNDING THIS LOAN.
    I WILL BE ASKING FOR ALL THAT IN MY COMPLAINT. IF THEY CANT SHOW A ACCOUNT THAT ANY MONEY THEY SAY CAME FROM THEM TO FUND THIS LOAN, ITS A SHAM… THAT GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SHOW WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM.

  18. To many people who didn’t close were defaulted on loans they applied for but didn’t close. One of them being my own ddaughter who ended up with a half FHA and half conventional when she bought a house a year after her FHA approval….. Except they closed a conventional. When they did buy. To top that disaster…. They bought a foreclosure as their first home in 2007.

  19. Application.

  20. @db – I think i get what you’re saying about gmac using your credit, not theirs, to secure funding. That may be a problem for them because I think it’s true that banks may not use someone else’s credit (like yours) to borrow money. What do you mean the funds came from Deutsche Bank “Trust”?
    Are you saying or implying that on top of everything else, the funds came from investor funds in a fund for which Deutsche was the trustee? I’m not capable of doing much more on that hummer than recognizing an impropriety. I can’t articulate the so what of that. All I can think to say is to try to add a little to what you said early in your comments. If you had to sign the note before Deutsche advanced the funds for closing (so Deutsche didn’t advance funds to GMAC after you signed the note), it probably has ramifications against the transaction, but I can’t frame them and I don’t know anyone who can. I disagreed with NG the other day about funding source for short. A situation like this might lead to me rethinking my impressions of funding, but I just don’t know enough to rattle off any ‘so what’ and the rethinking would be a whole lot of work that I’m not up to. But it would start something like this: GMAC had a contract with Deutsche to borrow money on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that GMAC had to generate a note (a receivable?) in order to draw on the line of credit established in the contract. Once that note has been created, GMAC may (and does) draw on the line and those monies are then used to fund the loan(?) That’s about as far as I can get. It does seem significant that Deutsche’s (or whomever’s it is) money is only available AFTER the note has been executed by the borrower. But I
    personally just don’t know. I can really only say fwiw that I do believe that a bank may not use someone else’s credit to borrow, if that’s what’s going on. Sorry I’m no help!

  21. I ask myself how one could sell servicing rights (unearned fees) in advance of the service?. Any comments?

  22. I am thinking they used the mortgage note to fund the note. Any comments? It would explain how I became a borrower. For a larger amount than the note my husband signed.

  23. YOU STATED THIS, johngault, on February 4, 2015 at 1:31 pm said:
    NG: “If the money came from someone else, then the paperwork should have disclosed that and more importantly the note and mortgage should have been made out in favor of the source of funds. ”
    I’d like to see you support that because I don’t believe what I think you intend by that statement. I’ve cautioned 10 times about contracts between the named payee and the source of funds for those funds. Generally it’s a line of credit for which the loans become security until transferred and delivered. Actually, because of those contracts, the money DIDN’T come from someone else. A lender is free to make loans
    with funds it has itself borrowed. The payee pays interest on those funds mol by way of the price differential. But, I do believe a contract must exist to evidence the payee’s loan or as you say, it could be deemed someone’s else’s money but even then, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the loan is invalid. This isn’t to say fwiw that I don’t see the
    “impropriety” of investor funds trickling down to the closing table and all the ensuing ramifications, whatever they may be.

    . my mortgage and note is payable to gmac mortgage corporation. in 2005. but money came from deuscher bank trust, because i have the the INCOMING WIRE-ADVICE OF CREDIT STATEMENT FROM THE LOCAL BANK FOR ATTORNEY THAT DID CLOSING AS IT WENT INTO HIS ACCOUNT. THEN HE MADE CHECKS FROM HIS ACCOUNT FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS.
    THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THIS…GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION COULDNT LEND MONEY TO START WITH, AND DIDNT HAVE THE MONEY WHEN THEY SAY THEY DID. REASON.
    IS THAT THEY USED MY MORTGAGE NOTE TO SECURE THE FUNDS, WITHOUT MY MORTGAGE NOTE. THEY DIDNT HAVE MONEY..GET IT. SO ALL ALONG BEFORE THE CLOSING THEY SHOP FOR BEST RATES FOR THEM TO GET MONEY USEING YOUR CREDIT. NOT THERES.
    IF YOU LOOK AT ANY MORTGAGE / AND NOTE ITS STATE’S THE FOLLOWING ON THE DAY OF YOUR CLOSING..
    1/ In return for loan that i HAVE received, i promise to pay u.s. $ 350,000 to the order of lender. lender is GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION.
    NOW THERE WAS NO MONEY THAT WAS GIVEN THAT DAY..NO MONEY CHANGE HANDS..PUT THE NOTE SAY’S DIFFERENT.
    IT SAY ( HAVE RECEIVED )
    SO THIS CORPORATION HAD NO MONEY, IT USED OUR CREDIT AND SIGN MORTGAGE NOTE TO GET A LINE OF CREDIT FROM ANOTHER BANK….GET IT. USING THE BORROWER CREDIT AND SIGN MORTGAGE AND NOTE TO FUND OUR OWN MORTGAGE AND NOTE. REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    SO THEY TAKE A SIGN MORTGAGE AND NOTE REALLY JUST THE NOTE. TAKE IT TO FEDERAL RESERVE OR TO THE TREASURY, AND GET UP TO 30 TIMES THAT AMOUNT IN CREDIT FOR THEM TO USE FOR ANY PURPOSE. SO ON A 350,000 DOLLAR NOTE. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION RECEIVED A AVAILABLE CREDIT LINE OF 10,500,000.00 THATS ( MILLION DOLLARS). NOT BAD HA.
    THEN SOLD IT MANY TIMES AFTER THAT, FOR THE FRAUDLENT APPRAISELS THEY DID AS IN MIND IT WAS 500,000 DOLLARS, I HAVE DOCS SHOWING THIS BEING DONE IN THE SEC DOCS SHOWING THEM SELLING 1027 MORTGAGES IN A SECURITED MORTGAGE TRUST . SELLING THEM ALL AT THE FRAUDLENT APPRAISEL PRICES. WHAT A SCAM. SO WITH USING THE BORROWER CREDIT/AND HOMES THE BANKS HAVE NO MONEY.
    DJABELANGER@HOTMAIL.COM

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

%d bloggers like this: