Details on Rescission Found in CFPB Regulations

12 CFR 226.15
 (d) Effects of rescission. (1) When a consumer rescinds a transaction, the security interest giving rise to the right of rescission becomes void, and the consumer shall not be liable for any amount, including any finance charge.
(2) Within 20 calendar days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return any money or property that has been given to anyone in connection with the transaction and shall take any action necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest.
(3) If the creditor has delivered any money or property, the consumer may retain possession until the creditor has met its obligation under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. When the creditor has complied with that paragraph, the consumer shall tender the money or property to the creditor or, where the latter would be impracticable or inequitable, tender its reasonable value. At the consumer’s option, tender of property may be made at the location of the property or at the consumer’s residence. Tender of money must be made at the creditor’s designated place of business. If the creditor does not take possession of the money or property within 20 calendar days after the consumer’s tender, the consumer may keep it without further obligation.
James L. Macklin, Managing Director
Secure Document Research(Paralegal Services/Legal Project Management)
Agent for Charles T. Marshall, Esq. (SBN 176091)
917 Tahoe Blvd #201 A
Incline Village NV 89451

109 Responses

  1. Seeking information on whether or not Neil said anything about TILA rescission after the Trustee Sale of home. Fraud and forged assignments not discovered until after the Trustee Sale and when fighting off an unlawful detainer case.

    Secondly, what if one is still discovering who the institutions are that invested in REMIC trust and supposedly are receiving or had received proceeds from my loan payment. Do I send them a TILA rescission too?

  2. This is interesting – it’s about money and who’s got it.

    http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/fdic/fdic.html

  3. Jg: And therefore none of that is true…..

    Gene: Of course it is. I cut and pasted it from the internet.

  4. gene: For proper “recording” it would involve the original lender to record, then get the document back, create an assignment to the Sponsor,

    jg: um, no. The original lender’s assgt to the next guy was executed and then recorded concurrently (well, one minute later) with the deed of trust. So that takes care of that one. No one had to wait for recordation of a prior assgt to execute the next one. All they had to do was make sure the recordations were recorded in the proper series of events, i.e., b’s to c didn’t get recorded before a’s to c.

    gene: This had to occur within a period of time of approximately 30 days for the loan to make it into the Trust by the Closing Date.
    Clearly, this was an impossible task.

    jg: there’s nothing clear to me that it was an impossible task at all. I
    can readily agree it posed some challenges, but it wouldn’t have been
    “impossible” to meet them. Since MERSCorp and it’s buddies chose to stand on the money alleged to be saved by NOT recording in their initial propaganda, and decidedly not share what is now being asserted as a fact (including here and now by you), that’s the one they should be stuck with in any manner it matters. They didn’t tell anyone ‘hey we just can’t meet the demands of the agreements we’re going to craft for securitization’; they chose to market their plan as one which would save those in the chain a lot of money. But their plan didn’t work and they began to take yet more “short-cuts” and by all appearances, found ways to use their plan to further profit at others’ expense. This business plan they came up with wasn’t a good one, initially well-intentioned or not. As a result, they’ve demanded (and gotten) the law turned on its head to save them from the ramifications of their poor business plan and the illicit acts it’s spawned. They’ve lied and cheated and stolen and all but killed a global economy in pursuit of the implementation and defense of this poor plan. They’ve dashed the hopes and dreams of many good people by making loans to those known to not qualify and their concerted acts found even people who did qualify with the loss of the only security they had, the equity in their homes. It doesn’t stop there. They’ve undermined the sanctity of our land records. And still we’re not done. They’ve done something really bad imo: they’ve undermined the faith of many in both our judicial system and our government. For those of us who care, that’s a very big loss. We have become an oppressed nation like never before.
    No one touched by their poor business plan and its consequences is going to be moved by a claim that it would’ve been impossible to timely record assignments, especially when they constructed contracts calling for just that, or if not, one way or another, their intent to avoid recordation was not made clear in those contracts.

  5. gene: 1993 saw a huge refi boom due to interest rates dropping down into the low 7’s, and even into the 6’s.

    jg: actually, in 93 – 95, 5% fixed 30 was available at maybe a point.

    gene: At that time, everyone was refinancing out of loans made in the 80’s with 9% rates.

    jg: true

    gene: The recorders could not keep up with the loans and recording a loan and then getting the documents back could take several weeks to three months or more, and this was on just one recording being done.

    jg; not true. There was minimal delay in recordation. This is industry
    blabber and propaganda, the intent of which is obvious. I’m going to suggest your info is hearsay and affirmatively state that mine isn’t.
    There’s no reason for that gang to backtrack on this, but if need be,
    they would. Just like now there are claiming the borrower is not an intended third party beneficiary, a stance with which their “MERS”
    propaganda was rife when they sought endorsement for MERS and participation in securitization.

  6. I recently learned that claims may be made in a counter-claim which otherwise couldn’t be made in one’s own claim because of the statue of limitations. Imo, this could resurrect loan origination claims, for instance, for which any SOL is otherwise up. (I don’t know if this would extend to rescission available pursuant to TILA. Maybe only if one also recently discovered their basis for a tila claim and couldn’t reasonably have known of it earlier. Maybe it would. (I don’t know because I think tila is a special animal) Might be worth it for some people to try to find out. But importantly, as to the topic here, we’re talking counter-claim and defenses, not instigation of one’s own complaint.

    There’s also some case law out there which calls any foreclosure attempt the complaint and so allows the borrower to posture as the defendant in court even though the borrower brings the judicial involvement (which would permit ‘defenses’ and counter-claims which would otherwise be barred by the SOL), but I can’t find what I had .We need every inch we can get.
    Actually, this non-applicability of the sol is a biggie imo. This is taken from a case:

    “The deadline for filing a cause of action depends on whether the
    action is filed as a counterclaim or as a separate action for
    affirmative relief. Under Texas law, a party may file a counterclaim even though, as a separate action, it would be barred by limitations so long as the counterclaim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the basis of the lawsuit. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.069(a).
    The purpose of section 16.069 “is to prevent a plaintiff from waiting until the adversary’s valid claim arising from the same transaction was barred by limitations before asserting his own claim.” Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 281.

    “Keep on rockin’ in the free world”. An old mantra from the H-A days: ‘Don’t let someone else’s low trip evict you from your own.’

  7. I hadn’t seen in re Zitta for a couple years, so though I’d take a peek and see whaddup. Last I knew, BAC was cowing because the debtor-in-possession had successfully avoided the dot because there was no
    recorded assignment. (taking a page from NG’s book, I’ll say I talked 3 – 4 years ago about this avoidance and the danger of non-recordation). I was just about thrilled to see that the court made a distinction about the language in the note, about which I’ve made an issue. This is from the bk court because in its exhuberance to appeal, BAC had filed a Notice of Appeal (after only a minute order)and had not waited for the court’s written order. The bk court took the opp to further support its findings in its memorandum decision (in re Zitta):

    “The Weisband Court next states that a holder of a note is a “real party in interest” under FRCP 17 because, under the Arizona Revised Statute (“ARS”) § 47-3301, the note holder has the right to enforce it.
    Weisband. at 18. Relying on a decision from a bankruptcy court in Vermont, the Weisband Court next opines that “[b]ecause there is no federal commercial law which defines who is a note holder, the court must look to Arizona law to determine whether [movant] is [such] a holder. ” Id. (citing In re Montagne 421 B.R. 65, 73 (Bankr.D.Vt. 2009)). Finally, the Weisband Court states that under Arizona law, a holder of a note is defined as, inter alia “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.” Id. (citing ARS § 47-1201(B)(21)(a))………….

    The Note attached to the Motion for Relief from Stay stated that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., had provided the financing to the Debtors so that the Debtors could acquire the real property
    located at 5100 East XXXX XXX (sic) Lane, Flagstaff, Arizona (“Property”)…..

    The NOTE further stated that anyone TAKING THE NOTE “BY TRANSFER AND WHO (WAS) ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS under [the] Note [was] called the “Note Holder….”.

    The Note Holder, ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION IN THE NOTE is the party that is entitled to receive the payments under the Note, because it has arguably paid ….. for the transfer of the note.”

    The only reason, as I’ve said, to look at the UCC might be for its definition of the word “transfer” (and that’s only if its meaning as used in an agreement is not clear).

    UCC transfer:

    a) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument.

    (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument.

    (c) Unless otherwise agreed, if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a specifically enforceable right to the unqualified indorsement of the transferor, but negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the indorsement is made.

    (d) If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee.”

    So my version of what a note says is that a ‘note holder’, or otherwise is entitled to come after us, is one who

    a) has taken the note by transfer with the intent of giving the transferee the right to enforce AND

    b) is entitled to payment

    What makes either of these true as to a guy who is in poss of a bearer note? Nothing. IMO the NOTE’s language is a caveat which puts a restriction on the ‘class of people’ who may enforce THESE notes: we’re assured imo that a thief can’t and won’t in fact be able to come after us. So, also imo, banksters are entitled to no presumptions and must demonstrate that they meet the caveats in these notes. They’re trying to do that in the “MERS” assignments by including assgt of the note (as if), why they further recite that consideration is being given, and that the amt of the consideration is sufficient. I’m not sure that plugs this hole or any others.
    And yes, I know this is ONE case, but if one judge noticed the distinguising language in these notes, maybe others will or can be helped to see it.

    tidbit in case some don’t know it: the note must have the place of its
    execution on it. That’s for determination of which state’s adaptation of the UCC will resolve any issues IF need be. I don’t know why else if there’s a why else.

  8. Hey, any guys here ahead of the class on securitization: All the agencies, GNMA, FNMA, and FHLMC, guaranteed payment on their
    certificates. F & F (fnma for sure) must make 4 payments and then may repurchase.
    GNMA will only pay the issuer, whom to get the benefit of gnma’s insurance must also repurchase. If the loan is foreclosed without that repurchase, the issue foregoes the ben of gnma’s insurance. (They’re not repurchasing; they posture the trust is that party and use the alleged and non-existant imo credit bid of the trust to f/c. I ‘dare’ say this because I’ve yet to see an issuer as the named plaintiff in a f/c action. And as to a F or F loan, which would be a conventional loan,
    “A paper” or “A- paper” within the agencies’ loan limits (i.e., not jumbo and not quality-wise below “A-“) F or F should be the foreclosing party UNless someone else legitimately purchased from F of F. There’s nothing wrong with that, but where then are the assignments?
    A party may NOT assign a debt for the purpose of the assignee invoking jurisdiction (like was tried in the China deal a week ago) nor may a party who is no more than a debt-collector assert itself as the rpii.
    So why did the agencies guarantee payments? Well, okay gnma, on fha and va loans has always either insured or guaranteed the loans for the ben of the lender, but not F & F – F & F were themselves once known as the “secondary market”. Their role was buying the loans so lenders had more moolah to originate new loans. Is it that the agencies sought to create new money for themselves (as lenders had done with THEM) at the cost of the guarantee, which turned out to be a bad bet?

    Did they do itb ecause their quasi-govt as govt agencies (I forget) and had to to issue and sell securities? If this isn’t why, then why’d they do it? What I’m looking for is a reason why banksters on non-agency loans would also guarantee payments. I remember that AIG installed computers and or computer software in lenders’ office so they’d use AIG for whatever the heck they were buying. I have to believe this stuff is sec’n 101 or 102, but we by and large aren’t equipped to answer what may be dispositive questions, unfortunately.

    Could F or F authorize the servicer to foreclose for them? Maybe, probably even, but that would be non-j only, because when they get to fed juris, Rule 17 kicks in. Course the banksters prefer fed juris when litigating, because then they can try to use Rule 12 to get rid of us,
    all the while withholding info they’re to fork over without request pursuant to Rule 26. Their failure to do this is rank.

    Gene, (at least) Boyko isn’t fair (yes, we remember “Your honor, you don’t understand”). That was apples and oranges. The notes at issue weren’t endorsed and I think there were no assgts outta “MERS”. But
    after the MERS’ Consent Order, Boyko and its ilk may have helped set the banksters’ gears in motion to assert ‘where needed’ that article 3 was the bomb, robo-signing, phony endorsements, and ultimately out of time assgts to trusts.
    As we find ways to overcome their bs, they just come up with new bs. I do agree we should be doing more. I wouldn’t agree we CAN’T be doing more. Well, we’re not lawyers and we don’t have
    “white papers” written by those who know how to game the system, nor for lack of adherence to Rule 26 do we know things we should.

    We care about the money allegedly paid in the current assgts of the notes and dots because late assgt or not, the trust has to be the party who will suffer by the note’s non-payment, at least in fed juris. “IS it?”
    An assignment imo doesn’t evidence this. So what if any presumptions are they entitled to, which of those can we overcome, and how do we make them demonstrate it’s the trust that will suffer by the note’s non-payment??

  9. GENE, reason am asking, is i have been dealing with gmac/res-cap/ and now ocwen. past 5 yrs. still havent been to court, they tried to ,put said we would file suit , because i had a investigation on them with hud, a hud suit at time, so they stop the pending sales date.

    now its been another10 months and have hurd nothing from anyone.

    but i have followed the gmac/rescap bk. and if you didnt it also had about 5 other banks, and over 500 trust included in it also as bk.

    bk was in 2012 may,
    first assignment on record in reg/deeds office. AUG, 2012, shows mers to gmacm BLA BLA trust.

    AS YOU KNOW, all involved ,all banks included in this bk, had to give complete documents on what assets they own as of bk DATE. MAY 2012.

    I SPENT HUNDREDS OF HOURS GOING THROUGH ALL ASSETS OF GMAC MORTGTAGE ,LLC, ALSO RESCAP, RESIDENUAL ASSET MORTGAGE ,

    NOTHING THAT THEY STATED THEY OWN, MY MORTGAGE WAS NOT IN ANYTHING. BECAUSE THEY DID HAVE SOME MORTGAGE , BUT NOT MIND.
    QUESTION

    SO HOW COULD ANYONE, IN AUG, 2012 4 MONTHS INTO BK, HOW COULD MERS ASSIGN ANYTHING FROM GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/ AND BY THE WAY NEVER EXSISITED AFTER 2006 AS A CORP/ AND NEW GMAC MORTGAGE .LLC NOW WAS IN CHARGE, BUT THAT CHANGED IN 2009/ WHEN ALLY WAS NOW IN CHARGE,

    ANYWAYS. HOW COULD MERS GET ANY. AUTHORITY FROM A CORPORATION THAT DIDNT EXSIST IN 2012, TO ASSIGN MY MORTGAGE FROM MERS TO THIS FAKE TRUST. ??

  10. GENE,

    NUMBER 6/ YOU STATED GMAC/RES-CAP WITH BK NOTHING CAN BE DONE??

    WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT.

  11. gene said:
    “If the loans never made it into the Trust, then why have not the Investors like PIMCO never made this argument? It would be a slam dunk, and contrary to the excuse you would find on this website, it is not because the Investors would suffer REMIC tax consequences. The Trustees and lenders would have to cough up for that also.”

    That seems logicial, doesn’t it, and the part about coughing up the taxes is true enough. But, the banksters would have affirmative defenses, such as laches. There are more I forget just now. The investors accepted money on the deal as if there had been performance (delivery) , and by way of contract law, that works against them. We, the people here, including me, lack the contract law savvy
    to handle some issues. Still, don’t you agree the current assgts of both the notes and the dots to the trusts does one of two things: stand as evidence they weren’t previously transferred or are rather ‘odd’ at this date if they were? Remember, those assignments are dated as current events.
    XX Bank is the trustee for YY trust. Does his alleged membership
    (never evidenced I add) in MERSCorp mean the assgts needn’t have been recorded at the alleged time of the event of the assgt to the trust
    pre-closing date? If that alleged membership has no bearing, because it isn’t the trustee who has the beneficial interest in the loans, as a matter of fact, not just MERSCorp’s rules, shouldn’t those assgts have been done and recorded? If it’s so that the trustee’s alleged membership in MERSCorp has no bearing on the matter (since, again, it isn’t the trustee with the ben interest), there is no notice of the assignment as there would need to be. There doesn’t maybe need to be exactly, but for one thing, the trust’s interests could be avoided by a bona fide purchaser, including a bk trustee, as I recall was done in re : Zitta in AZ. As far as the consumer goes once the assgt is done and recorded, I recognize this still doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to overcome the late assignment, which argument, as you point out, hasn’t been well-received, even as it should be.** Further, “MERS” (the software program) as far as we can tell, has no authority to assign the note. Yet, there is recitation of that act in every assignment where MERS is alleged to be the transferor. That’s why I’ve suggested homeowners request an answer (a more definitive statement:
    which is the reliance in the claim being made – the current assignment or article 3 bearer provisions or ?) The MERS assignment
    being done as a current event has the recitation of consideration, which would only be for the note. Why are assignments being done which purport that the transferor, MERS, is the recipient of consideration for the note? Why do they recite that consideration is being paid to MERS (or anyone)? Significantly, if mers were the trust’s agent, there would be no consideration due between an agent and his principal TO recite.
    Words mean things.

    I don’t mind when I’m not agreed with. But I think it’s appropriate to
    factually undermine my arguments all the same.

  12. Christine – nicely said.

    Gene and Rock, please share all your victories for us or better yet start your own blog.

    The recent SCOTUS decision did in fact validate NG even if it did take years.

    There area people who have won, just because you don’t know who they are.

    The rule of law is the rule of law. Period. If the judiciary fails to follow it is another story.

    Sometimes it takes someone to not give up like most do in order to be victorious and to have made the right argument.

    And for the record, I have been doing this over 5 years. I have argued in front of the appellate court and that’s all I’m going to say.

    Enjoy your forum to share your beliefs on someone else’s dime. Now I know went I stayed away from here.

    To many opinions…..

  13. @ Gene,

    Thank You I will read that one. Thus far it has escaped me.

    The point I am trying to make is:

    We need to tell the whole story. Frankly, I feel the most important part has yet to gain any traction anywhere: DERIVATIVES FRAUD.

    I used to speak to Professor Peterson when I was first placed into foreclosure on a rental property we owned, even while the loan was current.

    Shortly, thereafter, the attorney we paid to represent us on the closing of our primary residence died. When I retrieved the file I was astounded to discover the evidence therein that was withheld from us by “fraudulent concealment”.

    In fact, when I told my attorney I wanted to sue the mortgage company he told me, while the evidence was obviously readily available in his own file, “Just sign the three mortgages”, “you don’t have any evidence”, “the mortgage companies do this sort of thing all the time”.

    When I first read, “Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration’s System of Land Title”, it appeared to me that someone had finally begun to explain the truth…

    This is particularly true because, from personal experience, I know the note and lien are gone… I destroyed thousands.

    Since then, I have been to any number of attorneys and it is absurd to the point of criminal.

    For the most part, they take what money a distressed borrower may have left to provide for their family with the false assurance that attorney will defend against foreclosure.

    When I talk to you I try to maintain an even keel, but, parroting the GSEs and CRA as the culprit is simply half-truth.

    In my experience, the banks and the lawyers gamed the system and while it is true some borrowers also exploited the system, they were aided by the bankers and the lawyers.

    I have this conversation a lot; sometimes I am even known to accost homeless people with it.

    In my view, the status quo is untenable and it isn’t the government that has destroyed our financial center: It is, instead, the banks.

    In the meantime, I agree with E. ToLLe, I also miss Katherine, the summer, the beach and unrequited love…

  14. Rock and Gene,

    People don’t have to follow NG. They choose to go for the shiny stuff, not realizing that every shiny thing isn’t gold and that one is particularly toxic.

    More interestingly, people who lost everything still come here to post nonsense while being incapable of analyzing what went wrong in their own case and why they lost (other than, of course “all judges are corrupt and all attorneys are incompetent…” After a while, that got really old). There is no bigger NG defender than someone who used his theories and lost. Go figure!

    Bob G. had it right: this blog isn’t meant to help people win. It is the cheapest therapy couch people can flock to and that, they do! And it is a reasonably lucrative endeavor for NG, to supplement his retirement. Waste of time and energy for serious fighters but I would venture to say that everybody else wins even if he loses: everybody got what he wanted the most.

  15. Its a sad day for Americans when the law has been so convoluted that that it itself must be litigated to interpet its meaning. The laws conflict with one another. Attack the mortgages under state law in the jurisdiction where the property is located.

    Gene and Rock…. Your input is valuable….please don’t stop.
    But let up on Neil … He does occasionally make valid points.
    Your input is more valuable on the criminals who lost us the Gentleman’s agreement with the World Bank and the loss of the dollar as the Worlds reserve currency.

  16. Gene said, “Writing and posting several thousand words on everything that occurred is not for this website.”

    Thank God we finally agree on something.

  17. Rock,

    You are correct about the waste of time posting. It just ticks me off about how NG gets away with this stuff.

  18. michaelkeane,

    This issues are going into the tome I am writing. What I posted here was just a general background, nothing more. Writing and posting several thousand words on everything that occurred is not for this website.

    You want an interesting look at the thought processes of the banks, read the Kristen Grind, The Lost Bank, The Story of Washington Mutual. The book gets right the greed factor and how it was all about growth, bonuses, commissions, and ignoring the risks. I know this is true due to the conversations that I have had with top people in banks, and in actions that I have been involved in, sitting in on depositions, trial strategy sessions and discovery.

  19. Gene, what’s really sad is how most of the people on this blog have no clue what they’re talking about, and its basically a waste of time trying to explain it to them. They’ve been duped by the forensic/securitization auditors and the ridiculous legal theories promoted by the likes of Garfield, et al. You are also correct in the fact that Garfield has NEVER won a case, nor have the lawyers in the cases he was involved.

    I commend you in trying to educate people who can’t read or understand court citations, but you’re wasting your time, that’s why I only comment when I see egregious nonsense, but even that turns out to be a waste of time, which I won’t waste any more of mine.

    Best of luck.

  20. I have no axe to grind with anyone on LL, or anywhere on the planet for that matter, save for several thousand so-called representatives who show up occasionally in D.C. to spend our money giving away the constitution to lobbyists who haven’t even entertained doing anything for the benefit of America and her citizens. Oh, and there was Kathrine and that whole unrequited love deal at the beach that summer….but that’s another story. But I do take issue with a few posters here for the following reasons, as well as for the apparent disdain they have for the average borrowers plight, as well as ridicule aimed at the website host’s graciousness for letting this whole site function daily on his dime.

    Making a point is one thing. Making a point with heavy snark is quite another. But making a point based on legal quicksand with heavy snark is unseemly at best.

    ______________________________________________

    On February 12, 2015 at 8:55 pm, bobhurt said:

    “So, what do you advocate, Neil? A free house, or free money? The rescission requires a lawsuit because unless the court orders it, the lender or oobi (owner of beneficial interest in the note) will refuse to nullify the deal.”

    * * *

    Uhm, the Supreme court clearly ruled out the necessity of a lawsuit on behalf of the borrower, possibly due to finally getting that anyone unfortunate enough to have Countrywide as a lender has been tied up hard and brutally raped for long enough. Which would seem to strip the “oobi” of the power to nullify a ham sandwich. Maybe you meant doobie? It would appear that you, like our bank regulators and senators, give way too much authority to the FIRE sector.

    _______________________________________________

    On February 12, 2015 at 3:42 pm, Rock said:

    “…., if there is a TILA violation on a nonpurchase agreement ie. refinance, you have 3 years from closing to file rescission notice. However, a few courts have found tolling in few very rare cases.
    Lastly, most courts will throw out your case if you can’t show you can pay back the money lent.

    All of the above can be backed up with cases.

    Warning DO NOT listen to anyone that can’t back up their posts with an abundance of cases.”

    * * *

    Rock, I don’t get it. For the second time you’ve pasted a case from 2009 to bolster your argument against a 2015 Supreme Court case. What am I missing? It makes me think that you do in fact have JD behind your name….only it’s not in caps and stands for ‘just diddlin’. You can spend the next decade pasting a plethora of cases here which can all be defeated by just one post that points to the Supreme Court’s recent take on Jesinoski. You’re between yourself and a very hard place. I’ll therefore take the only sound advice you’ve given and choose not to listen to you.

    _______________________________________________

    On February 14, 2015 at 2:17 pm, Gene said:

    “When you send in a rescission, the lender can dispute it. Then the lawsuit will have to be filed.

    FYI, since the ruling came down, I have been involved in several conference calls with homeowner attorneys doing TILA actions since 2007. All agree that the lender can dispute and do not have to cancel the security interest.”

    * * *

    Uh….hey Gene….you might want to spend the rest of your Sunday calling all the attorneys and (former) homeowners you’ve worked for coming clean about your ignorance of the Jesinoski decision. Or give me their numbers….I’ll gladly do it as a public service. Ridding the planet of public menaces is a righteous act. You can thank me later. And btw, I’d bet the farm that John Gault has forgotten more about MERS than you’ve copy and pasted all decade.

    Self anointed experts in a field without any real certification is akin to a farmer scattering manure, save that the farmer will have something to show for it at the end of the day.

    For a nicely balanced analysis on the Jesinoski decision, one that shoots down each of the poorly written arguments above, read Ronald Mann, Opinion analysis: Shortest opinion of the year explains TILA rescission right here.

  21. You are correct Rock……the transaction can be ratified by the beneficiaries. However it must be ratified by ALL the beneficiaries.

    Just say NO!

  22. Rock,

    I posted about the HSBC issue solely because there is a question to it in some states. Nothing more. I know the arguments that the lender will use and even in questionable states, it would likely win.

    I do fully agree that they are wasted arguments and anyone attempting to use them deserves to lose their case.

    “The only arguments that are successful is the attack of the mortgage transaction for breaches, errors, tortuous conduct set-offs etc., etc”

    You are correct here as well, but the arguments had better be clear, concise and able to beat the SOL. Frankly, in all too many cases, I can show in various ways that the borrower was also complicit in the transaction, and I don’t mean the stated income argument.

    Every case is fact specific….

  23. @ Gene,

    Certainly you have part of the story right.

    I feel you should do a better job explaining the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were privately-owned and privately-traded companies prior to government conservatorship in 2008.

    You say repeal of Glass-Steagall was a “huge mistake”, but I feel you should link the GSEs as private companies owned by the very same bankers that proactively abandoned responsible lending practices in order to “take interest in the higher interest rate returns”.

    I feel you should also explain that President GW Bush limited loan ownership of the monsters they created to 30 days before the fraudsters passed off their multitudinous deceits to any number of third parties…

    In particular pension plans in the US and Europe…

    I also feel that insurance companies were enlisted specifically because they didn’t share the capital reserve restraints of the predators facilitating bogus mortgages in order to enrich themselves to the detriment of everyone else on the planet.

    I also feel you should explain borrowers and investors alike were defrauded by manipulation of the interest rates even as accepted title transfer recordings were abandoned altogether, as, “Clearly this was an impossible task”.

    You are also beyond mentioning that the banks took the difference between what was promised- insofar as interest rates, number of loans etc. – and what was described as actually delivered at closing…

    ON THE FRONT END, AFTER THE PASSING OF 30 DAYS!

    Of course, even the most intellectually blunt among us, by this time, realize we were never “loaned” anything by the bank claiming origination, and, instead, third parties, altogether unknown to us, while aggressively concealed from us, provided the tertiary funds necessary to this scam.

    Frankly, the story, as you tell it, is simply one-sided.

    The GSEs and the private banking elites that created the deliberate “Boom-and-Bust Cycle” were ONE-AND-THE SAME prior to Hank Paulson and his pals in their impersonation of Chicken Little.

    Moreover, you fail to mention Goldman Sachs, among others, specifically created pools of garbage in order to bet against them while proactively selling the same pools of garbage to their investors.

    These same people defrauded the 1300 or so US municipalities out of billions in recording fees…

    And now they are complacent enough in their deceit to suggest the rest of the world languish in AUSTERITY… For, to elucidate the deceits would simply just not do… After all, or so they feel, “the rest of humanity needs the financial titans to keep order and promote sound practices in the financial sector…”.

    WHAT A JOKE.

    They also defrauded towns in foreign countries while manipulating interest rates through LIBOR rigging and the like.

    By any stretch of any imagination they have destroyed themselves utterly through SUBPRIME LENDING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY DERIVATIVES FRAUD- “BOOM-AND-BUST”.

    By any stretch of any imagination, they have done so according to their own rules.

    My wife loves fossils… oftentimes I joke with her and say, “anybody can dig within the earth and fashion evidence suitable for portrayal of creatures in Hollywood movies”.

    After all, if Michelangelo wanted to chisel T-Rex into existence, it would have been well within his ability to do so…

    I think the argument that minorities and the CRA and Barney Franks have destroyed our common financial well-being, requires a certain mind-set in order to effectively begin chiseling the truth…

    It is the same mind-set that would absolve vast, lumbering herds of lawyers and bankers from the crimes they committed and continue to commit…

    It is the mind-set of a fossil.

  24. Barryisafraud.

    1. I am not a bankster. I don’t give a damn who is right or wrong. I only care about what is right or wrong. In fact, I have done more for homeowner defenses than you will ever know. Rock has also been on the homeowner side.

    2. You haven’t got a clue as to what is going on with the SCOTUS decision. The strategies have already been formulated. Some have been used previously in cases and been upheld.

    3. As to the “automatic” process that you are hoping for, just imagine this. Everyone rescinds, whether they have legitimate material violations or not. Under your scenario, the lender returns all funds and cancels the security instrument. What happens if you don’t tender or return the property? Or more important, what happens if your allegations are false, or not done prior to the Statute of Limitations running out? The bank has to file a lawsuit to unwind your false claims.

    Do you seriously think that courts will allow rescission without allowing the lender to contest if prior to executing the rescission process? If so, you are seriously deluded.

    4. As to your claims about who “sent” the money not being named on the documents, you haven’t got a clue about Warehousing Lending and the Purchase and Sale Agreements involved. If you did, you would understand why these are false arguments that go nowhere. I have been involved in cases where the Purchase and Sale Agreements were a point of contention in bank v bank cases, and I can tell you that NG and your interpretations are wrong.

  25. Once the “alleged creditor” returns the money and rescinds the security instrument, the money “allegedly” owed, is unsecured.

    It really isn’t that difficult.

    Forget trying to argue securitization, etc. Was the entity who sent the money named on the docs? If not, you received no notices from the lender as required. It’s pretty simple.

    They have been trying to hide this since day 1. Do you honestly think they going to start saying oh, here we are?

    If they do, it opens up another whole can of worms.

    They will deal with the few who challenge in this manner that deal with everyone. It’s just a cost of doing business…

  26. Rock, STOP THE NONSENSE!

    can read you read or understand basic English?

    You continue to post a 5 year old case that essentially has been overturned by the highest court in the nation.

    @David – you are absolutely correct….

    And if the current pretender wants to fight it, they can file a lawsuit and prove up.

    Rather than dealing with the 3-year statute and more than likely equitable tolling, it is my opinion it will be easier to argue the 3-day rescission right because you never received the notices from the “true lender” who funded the loan at closing.

    And remember they are the ones who have to file the suit within 20-days, not you.

    They will have to show the escrow instructions and who was the Fed wire originator. As we know, in probably 90% of the “loams”, they can’t. They will never file a suit. To my knowledge I’ve never seen or read a case where they have….

  27. Those that can Tender the loan will expose the fraud upon the court.
    In California there are lots of people that can tender. Especially those in the Coastal area of California.

    NEVER AGAIN

  28. david, I see where you have been misled. Again, the homeowner must tender the amount borrowed, not property; so common sense dictates the language “tender reasonable value” applies ONLY to property not mortgages.

    MOORE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, 597 F.Supp. 2d 612, 616 n.2 (E.D. Va. 2009) (in a mortgage refinance transaction, consumer must tender the loan proceeds, not the home.)

  29. Johngault,

    To understand the use of MERS and/or use of UCC, you have to go back to the refi boom of 1993.

    1993 saw a huge refi boom due to interest rates dropping down into the low 7’s, and even into the 6’s. At that time, everyone was refinancing out of loans made in the 80’s with 9% rates. The recorders could not keep up with the loans and recording a loan and then getting the documents back could take several weeks to three months or more, and this was on just one recording being done.

    Traditionally, homeownership percentages had been in the mid 50’s. It slowly crept up to the low 60’s though the GSEs and with Bush and Clinton, they wanted to increase homeowner percentages to about 67%. (It ended in 2006 at 69%.)

    The GSE’s were taking greater market share from banks and other Investors, but their regulations prevented them from taking too much risk on loans at the time. This left a huge “underserved” market based upon Presidential demands, and then programs like the Community Reinvestment Act.

    At the same time, Wall Street began to take interest in the higher interest rate returns that the new loans would demand for risk. Also, bank consolidations were occurring across the country. Now, banks and Wall Street would be lending across the country and the process of securitization began to be considered in earnest.

    For securitization to work and for loan default risk to be lessened, each securitization pool needed loans of all various types of risk, and spread across the country. That way, if property values dropped in California only, a pool with loans across the country would not suffer nearly as bad as one with most or all loans in CA. The problem was that with an ever increasing demand for mortgages, the issues of recordings taking so long that was encountered in 1993 could not happen.

    Trusts could contain from several hundred to several thousand loans in them. (The largest I have seen was over 8000 loans.) There may be upwards of 1000 different counties where properties existed involved. For proper “recording” it would involve the original lender to record, then get the document back, create an assignment to the Sponsor, get it recorded and back, then an Assignment to the Depositor, get it recorded and back, and then once more an Assignment and recording to the Trust. This had to occur within a period of time of approximately 30 days for the loan to make it into the Trust by the Closing Date.
    Clearly, this was an impossible task.

    In 1993, a working group of the banks, Wall Street, various banking organizations and the GSE’s was created to resolve the problem. They came back in 1995 with numerous recommendations, including the development of MERS, the use of UCC, endorsement of Notes in Blank or Specific, and the various Agreements to be developed. In 1996, MERS itself went operational. (Later, in a huge mistake, Glass Steagal would be repealed.)

    Without this process, the money to promote the new homeownership decrees could not have been available. Homeownership would not have been increased to 69%. And quite frankly, probably only a few people who post on this website would ever have been approved for a mortgage loan.

    Everything worked fine as long as home values increased at a reasonable rate, which was 3 to 5%, no more than the rate of inflation. However, after the 2000 Hi Tech Crash and then 9-11, the place that investors went for profit was in real estate. The Fed lowered interest rates, creating further demand, and we saw the stage set for the Bust beginning in 2006 with increased loan defaults.

    And I will stop there…..

  30. did everyone really read what was posted. SO AGAIN IF ITS BEEN 10 YRS FROM CLOSING , BUT JUST FOUND OUT OVER PAST YEAR OF ALL THE FRAUD IN OUR MORTGAGE, 3 DIFFERENT NOTES, STATING A BLANK ENDORSEMENT, ON WITH NO ENDORSEMENT, THEN ONE WITH A DATED AND SIGN ENDORSEMENT BACK IN 2005 FROM DAY OF CLOSING SHOWING A FINIANCIAL INSTATUTION NOT ON ANY PAPERWORK OR HAD NO KNOWLAGE OF.

    SO I SHOULD BE A ABLE TO RESIN THE WHOLE DEAL, RIGHT

    (2) Within 20 calendar days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return any money,

    or property that has been given to anyone in connection with the transaction and shall take any action necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest.

    (3) If the creditor has delivered any money or property, the consumer may retain possession until the creditor has met its obligation under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. When the creditor has complied with that paragraph,

    WHEN THE CREDITOR HAS COMPLIED!!!!!!!

    SO ONLY WHEN THEY ( CREDITORS) PAY YOU THE BORROWER ALL MONEY THEY HAVE GOTTEN SELLING YOUR MORTGAGE/NOTE 10 TIMES 20 TIMES OR MORE FOR THE FRAUDULENT, APPRAISAL PRICES. AND PAY YOU BACK ALL PAYMENTS MADE. THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL YOU THE BORROWER HAVE TO TENDER ANYTHING. BUT WAIT, LOOK AT BELOW.

    TENDER ITS REASONABLE VALUE!!!!!!!!!

    the consumer shall tender the money or property to the creditor or, where the latter would be impracticable or inequitable, tender its reasonable value.

    At the consumer’s option, tender of property may be made at the location of the property or at the consumer’s residence. Tender of money must be made at the creditor’s designated place of business. If the creditor does not take possession of the money or property within 20 calendar days after the consumer’s tender, the consumer may keep it without further obligation.
    James L. Macklin, Managing Director
    Secure Document Research(Paralegal Services/Legal Project Management)
    Agent for Charles T. Marshall, Esq. (SBN 176091)
    917 Tahoe Blvd #201 A

  31. @ johngault,

    I believe the foreclosure was meant to go forward under the MERS because the MERS doubles as an accounting for each time the loan was … eh … ehem … transferred.

    Each time it was traded electronically, fees were attached. Beyond those fees to the SEC, CFTC, etc., I believe remittance reports described which loans were in default and therefore ripe to bet against.

    This is why We need to get to the bottom of the DTCC and DTC in order to unearth the derivatives taken against our names and ability to pay the mortgage.

    That is where the real money is.

    Of course, once a payment got missed, solicitation went out to distressed borrowers to skip at least two more in order to be eligible for HAMP modifications etc.

    Neil Barofsky, as Special Inspector General for TARP, describes that no such criteria were ever part of the program… so … the servicers gamed the system that way, telling the borrowers to skip 3 months and thereby, according to standard boilerplate language in the PSAs, they were afforded the opportunity to describe the loan as in default…

    Once there, TARP, insurers, guarantors etc. paid the loan.

    We now know the loans never entered legitimate trusts and the investors didn’t know whether the loans were performing or not…

    And from personal experience, on one of our properties, I know Bank Of America put us in foreclosure while the loan was current.

    So… the MERS, I believe, became the final arbiter among those working the scam as to what derivatives were taken and who is owed money from the spoils.

  32. Gene, most of your comments are on point, however, arguments about when, or if the notes made to the trust on time is basically another wasted argument.

    Tran v. Bank of N.Y. (S.D.N.Y., 2014) (“courts considering EPTL § 7-2.4 have held that “even if it is true that the Notes were transferred to the trust in violation of the trust’s terms [after the closing date of the trust], that transaction could be ratified by the beneficiaries of the trust and is therefore merely voidable.”); Scomparin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Scomparin) (Bankr. N.D. Cal., 2014) (“Specifically, if the Loan was not placed into trust, then whomever possesses the blank-endorsed Note memorializing the Loan is entitled to enforce the debt. Cal. Comm. Code § 3301.”).

    The only arguments that are successful is the attack of the mortgage transaction for breaches, errors, tortuous conduct set-offs etc., etc..

  33. Michaelkeane,
    HSBC as Custodian is different that HSBC as Trustee for Wells originated Trusts. Check Section 2.02 of the PSA. Search Edgar for the PSA and other documents. You have to also review the Master Trust Agreement, the Master Servicing Agreement, and the Purchase and Sale Agreement. (Yu can also get the documents from the SEC.)
    One of the biggest mistakes people make is just looking at the PSA. The other Agreements are just as important if not more so, because they set standards that cover the PSA.
    If you do not know the Trust your loan is in, under a RESPA Qualified Written Request, a lender or servicer must provide you with the name of the Investor. They do not have to provide you with the Agreements.
    Here is something that will tick people here off……generally securitization audits are crap and will not get you anywhere. Most people are not competent to do them, and do not understand the State Laws that apply. For example, you would be arguing as a 3rd Party Beneficiary and most states do not allow the argument.
    If the loans never made it into the Trust, then why have not the Investors like PIMCO never made this argument? It would be a slam dunk, and contrary to the excuse you would find on this website, it is not because the Investors would suffer REMIC tax consequences. The Trustees and lenders would have tto cough up for that also.
    I work with attorneys who were part of the CALPERS MBS lawsuits and am working with others who are involved in even bigger things. I can tell you that every Investor and their law firms say that the argument of the loans never making it into the Trust or going in too late are false. (They are looking at the Wells/HSBC issue.)
    Where the focus now is on the Servicing and Modification Processes of Servicers. That is where homeowners should be fighting. Check out the CFPB/SunTrust Settlement for a bit of info. (And on this note, I absolutely cannot say more about that subject.)
    Do not go into court and argue many of the points you keep reading about on this blog. They do not work unless there are some specific issues that set the case apart from all others. Also be careful about the “new and wonderful rulings” that NG proclaims, like the recent Missouri case. When you see rulings like it, the rulings are done on very case specific items and will not apply in most circumstances. When you see these “claims”, think Ibanez v US Bank, Glaski v B of A/Chase and others. Each time these cases came out, it was a “new beginning” for homeowners. Of course, nothing changed. (Look what happened later with Ibanez to see what I mean, also with the Judge Boyko rulings out of Ohio. No one ever mentions this.)

  34. And because I don’t want them resting on their laurels, let me ask again: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON WITH MERScorp’s
    SEVEN YEAR CONTRACT WITH GENPACT? They sure buried that
    sucker in a hurry.

  35. from barryisafraud (some kinda name you got there!):
    “BTW – in order to transfer the note into the trust if done correctly, the note has to be destroyed when it’s converted into a bond. You can’t have both in commerce.

    At that time the collateral is no longer as well…”

    Well, said another way?: the note is destroyed AFTER it’s transferred to a trust or is that not accurate? I was on this three or so years ago and gave up because well, it looked like a heck of a lot of work for me since it’s beyond my ken. i got there again a few days ago, though. My reasoning was that one promise can’t give right to two sep and distinct obligations, the borrowers to pay the note and somebody else’s to pay the certificates. I have zero doubt notes were destroyed, either because of electronic commerce enable by MERS or because of this premise or both. I think the evidence or at least indicia is in the rash of lost note affidavits when this whole bs started, which rash was ultimately shut down by consumers and courts.
    You know of course, this is a turn this whole deal on its head proposition. I can only say what I’ve said about 2 sep and distinct
    obligations, which for all I know is another way of saying “you can’t have both in commerce”. Got anything else for us?

    Now, here’s the thing, mr barryisafraud. I can believe that this is true and SOMEbody decided it was ‘best’ for some reason not to acknowledge this for a season. But 1) it’s been years and 2) it’s still the hell going on with new loans. So, really, what the heck? If you know more, I think you should spill it. You know what? Yes, I think it’s business / commerce, but I also think it’s beyond most of us here,
    certainly beyond me except as I’ve said. I have been trying to get at it from any angle I’m capable of, which is why I’m interested in real reasons they didn’t want recorded assgts to the trusts (for instance).

    “The note is converted into a bond…you can’t have both in commerce”. That’s it?
    Is it more appropriate to say it’s replaced by a bond or do you literally mean converted, for instance? If you can’t or won’t spill, how bout an arrow?

  36. Yesterday, I said:

    “The original reason those guys wanted the notes endorsed in blank was to accomodate foreclosure by “mers” ” and I went on to describe
    their m.o. and its rationale (all dep on their interpretation and posture that article III was or could be the bomb).

    I’m wondering why it was so damm important to f/c in mers’ name? Let’s just say the agreements called for X and X got done. Part of X was recorded assignments to the trusts. Why didn’t they want recorded assgts to the trusts (heck, they actually tried to do BLANK assignments – remember? – which courts said “Nah” to.
    WHAT problem would this (recorded assgts) have created if things were to be done straight after that?
    Their rules said if the ben interest in a loan were assigned to a non-member, that event triggered the necessity of an assgt to that non-member (because ‘mers’ can’t (even purport) to act for merscorp’ non-members).
    next let’s say a loan is a part of XYZ Trust (assgt got done and recorded) and ‘BONY XX’ is the trustee.
    BONY XX, whatever that is, purports to become a MERSCorp member. First and foremost, what IS BONY XX? I don’t know. Is it a legal person, a thing, a structure, an entity such that it’s capable of contracting? Is BONY XX separate and distinct from BONY? Whether or not this is sophomoric, I don’t know the answer and I sure would like to. Does anyone know?
    Can anyone say with a degree of certainty what psa’s generally say about enforcement / foreclosure, the who why where when? I have some stuff, but Lord knows I don’t want to try to find it. Anyone? I would really appreciate any assistance in getting these answers, particularly about what is BONY XX and what the psa’s say about enforcement /
    foreclosure.

  37. Which is why I am on record for consistently advising people against filing BK as a defense to FC. Once that card has been played and lost, this is it.

  38. Everyone, go read the decision again.

    Once you rescind they have to give all the money back including what was paid to third parties. They have to cancel the security instrument.

    When they do the note becomes unsecured. That means you can discharge it as an unsecured debt in BK.

    In any event, how are they going to collect it if they can’t prove they gave you any money. They will never disclose the money trail.

    The only way they can fight it is to file for a declaratory judgment which means they once again have to prove the money trail and the current pretender lender would have to show how they got the note, etc

    Quit over thinking and forget all the bad decisions before this one. The were bad and you can go back and get your due justice.

    Do not fall for all the banksters on here saying it doesn’t work like that.

    BTW – in order to transfer the note into the trust if done correctly, the note has to be destroyed when it’s converted into a bond. You can’t have both in commerce.

    At that time the collateral is no longer as well…

  39. The formula to bust a rat for underdisclosing the APR by 1/8 of 1% is actually not as complicated as you think. Next to a title abstract its one of my favorite TIL weapons of mass destruction..

  40. oops! Sorry, steve, because that was a good catch!

  41. Christine @ 6:02, second para. Yes, you’re right – I forgot about the payments! i believe the ‘refund’ includes the amt of all payments. And I think your assessment of the unlikelihood of accuracy in determining the amt to refund is spot on. All a consumer may do, that I can think of, to get her own determination of that number is to get out the final good faith estimate (and the HUD 1 settlement statement), and find the items that have an asterisk next to them on the gfe. They are supposed to have an asterisk next to them because those are numbers which are to be included in the calculation of the a.p.r. If one’s gfe doesn’t have the asterisks, or if one never got a final gfe at closing (and that’s big trouble for lenders), then at least look for things on the HUD 1, like origination fee, points, prepaid interest collected (will show a per diem amount from like dec 1st to dec 17th on the left, with the amt in the dollar column on right), other ‘garbage’ (industry term btw) fees like loan doc fee, funding fee, closing fee, title insurance, and so on* and call that your first no. Then, get out your check book and determine the amt of your made payments and add the two together.
    *I can’t really say which all monies from the HUD 1 are to be refunded. Some are clear, like points and prepaid interest, but I’m personally not clear on the others and don’t want to give a bum steer. But you’ll itemize your accounting, so if you’ve included one errantly, you can just remove it.
    But I think christine’s point was more the lender’s difficulty in coming up with a number for the reasons she cited, prob one of the reasons they’re gonna holler like stuffed pigs. Shouldn’t (key word) be the CONSUMER’S problem.

  42. @ John Gault,

    Actually, “Steve” pointed out the 4506T form. It wasn’t me.

    credit where credit is due. Thank You, Steve.

  43. @ eTolle and @ john gault,

    Thanks for your answers and the tone of your comments generally.

    I frankly despise the bankers and lawyers that do their bidding.

    As We all know, there have been very real human consequences to this criminal behavior and the sooner We prosecute these … ehem … people, the better.

  44. @ gene,

    You wrote :

    Here is a hint for some of you. If you have an HSBC Trust that was created through Wells Fargo, read the PSA. It requires Recorded Assignments to the Trust by the Closing Date.

    On one of my loans HSBC claims it is custodian for Nomura asset something or other trust and the servicer is ASC which I have come to discover is Wells Fargo.

    I have an attorney and I am sure he can find the PSA. At the same time, I would appreciate any advice you may be willing to share.

    For example, what type of audit will prove most beneficial?

    Also, I have learned the loan never entered the trust until years after it was closed. Is there some other type of voodoo you can suggest to help me become better organized… audits? … title seraches? for example.

  45. the name of the word I forgot is the “cap”. It’s the word for the max adjustment to the note rate in any ONE adjustment period (3 mos, 6 mos, 1 year). The ‘ceiling’ is the max adjustment to the note over the life of the loan. So fnma has a 2% cap and a 5 or 6% (I forget) ceiling.

  46. SC, my point exactly.

  47. NG: “…..the consumer shall tender the money or property to the creditor or, ** where the latter would be impracticable or inequitable, tender its reasonable value.***

    First of all, I admit I don’t fully understand all of d(3) in NG’s post.
    But the part above I cited cracks me up, if I do get that part. It’s saying if it isn’t equitable to tender the amt owed, one may tender the reasonable value. That to me says if you owe 600k on your house,
    after rescission and the lender has performed, you could instead tender the current value or less of your home (because the value is less than you owe) IF you could establish that tendering the 600k would be impracticable or inequitable. I don’t know what a court (if that’s where you end up over this) might accept as evidence of either one of those, just that the door’s open. But, two things come readily to mind: 1) if you didn’t qualify (and btw, thanks michael keane, for that reminder of the 4506 the borrower signs: it was well within the ability of the lender to ascertain if the borrower’s income was what was on the loan app, which they should do, anyway), that might be a reason not to tender the full amt due, 2) if one could demonstrate that the appraisal was inflated to accomodate the loan amt. Actually, a third reason might be as “set off” for the tila violation.

    I said earlier I thought the legislators wanted the act to have teeth. I noted in NG’s post that the word “consumer” is used, not “borrower” and imo, we should stick to using this word. The truth in lending act is one of consumer protection:

    “5 U.S. Code § 1601 – Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

    a) Informed use of credit

    The Congress finds that economic stabilization would be enhanced and the competition among the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of consumer credit would be strengthened by the informed use of credit. The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost thereof by consumers. It is the purpose of this subchapter to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices.”

    When we get a loan with an errant disclosure, such as the a.p.r. or amt financed, we’re deprived of our right to a meaningful disclosure of the credit terms (to me, read cost of credit). Why is the a.p.r. so important?
    Well, it’s like this: if you call lender A and he says oh sure I have a 30 year fixed at 5% and then you call lender B and he says oh sure I have a 30 year fixed at 4.5%, based on that, you’d prob go with lender B.
    However, lender B ends up charging you 3 points for the 4.5%. Those 3 points impact the cost of the loan (credit) and must be considered in the determination of at least two things: 1) the a.pr. and 2) the amount financed, both disclosed on the TIL Reg Z form. If lender A had NO points, it’s likely his 5% was actually cheaper money than B’s.
    Though Gene disputes it, most inaccurate a.p.r. disclosures will be found in teaser-rate a.p.r.’s. The reason is that it’s (like any a.r.m.)
    a more complex determination. The calculations have to look at
    the rate for x amt of years, and it assumes the current index to which the loan is tied (libor, etc.) remains the same (the calculation makes this assumption), has to determine the a.p.r. with that legit assumption,
    for a time certain (I forget how many years), but using the margin (the amt you are going to get nailed for plus the index rate: 3 month arm = libor index in three months is at 2.75% (assumption) and your ‘margin’ over the index is 2.5% = 5.25% at first rate adjustment in three mos. As I said, this (the rate) has to be calculated out for so many years (actually life of the loan I think, but a “ceiling”** will be a factor, and then it has to be calculated to compute the a.p.r. on that throwing in points, fees, prepaid interest, etc. Now, given that the libor rate was rigged, if your loan were ‘tied to” the libor rate, the calculations would be wrong for sure if your loan were originated when the libor rate was rigged. I don’t know that much about teasor rate ceilings, how much they were in comparision to the original note rate. On sub-prime predatory loans, probably a lot. *** There are generally 2 important factors for arms, one I forget and the ‘ceiling”. The one I forget is the name for the max adjustment in any given adj period (3 mos, 6 mos, 1 year). The ‘ceiling’ is the name / word for the max adj to the initial note rate over the life of the loan.
    The a.p.r is the big ticket when comparing the cost of money from one lender to another. Lender A may offer a start rate at 2%, while Lender B offers a start rate at 3%, both for, say, 6 mos. But A has a margin of 3.25% and B has one at 2%. That means that each time your rate
    adjusts on A’s money, it will be at a rate higher than when B’s rate
    adjusts – all down the line over the life of the loan, til they each reach
    their max “ceiling” per your agreement on the amt of the ceiling with the lender. Some of the things which majorly affect your cost of money, the a.p.r., are the index, the margin, the one I forget (the name of any adj in an adj period), the ceiling (the max note rate over the life of the loan),
    points, fees, and prepaid interest.
    If the a.p.r. is off, you weren’t given info by which to make an informed decision from one lender to another. It doesn’t matter if you shopped loans or NOT. You had to be given the right a.p.r., etc. in the disclosure.

    ***FNMA and fhlmc by comparison allow (or did) a max of 2% per annual adj and either 5 or 6 (the ceiling) over the life of the loan. The idea is that a borrower’s increased income (7.5%?) can keep up with the increases. Sub-primes, where qualification income-wise was a consideration at ALL even as to the teasor start rate, doesn’t consider whether or not your income can keep up. They’re predatory.

  48. Deb. …they sold the loans for more than the principal.

    Christine….that is if you can squeeze a written payoff out of them.

    PS. …2Yrs into the loan I demanded payoff… Yikes!

  49. While im at it on here. As for calculating the debt amount try 90,000 usd between the trustees deed and the 1099a. Thats 90k not 9$ 90 ninety AND both docs issued on SAME day.
    God is good.

  50. Christine this USSupreme court decision the HIGHEST COURT is huge IMNAHO. ( in my non Attorney humble opinion)
    Jesinowski V countrywide Home Loans inc.
    United States Supreme Court judge J Scalia delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court
    Everyone should read it.

  51. “I got a loan for 300k. On my HUD 1, there is a 1% loan origination fee, 3000.00. I paid 2 pts = 6000. I was charged 1289.17 in prepaid interest. I don’t readily know about the cost of title insurance, doc prep, closing fee, funding fee, but my money is on they have to be refunded. These are at least some of the amts the lender must refund to me to comply with the provisions of tila if I rescind and btw, these are some of the things which impact the annual percentage rate, the thing which if it’s off by more than 1/8% (or someone said 1/4 for X type loans and I don’t know about that) is cause for rescission because it’s a tila violation.”

    If my understanding is proper, every single monthly payment since closing must also be refunded to borrower, which creates an enormous conundrum for servicer, as the agent for lender: since not one mortgage accounting is correct, interest and principal have been often misapplied, escrow accounts are loaded with errors, suspense accounts are being created left and right without rhyme or reason, etc…, servicers and/or whoever was served with the rescission demand is in a bind: how can they comply with refunding what they cannot adequately calculate?

    Come to think, rescission might actually be a pretty good strategy… especially if tender on the part of borrower is dependent upon lender/agent returning money first…

  52. So they say ” no you cant it only applies to refinances ” ( yes they said i could not actually rescind, they being the servicer they being same party that is named on the trustees deed upon sale ( foreclosure) as WAS the beneficiary and then issued a 1099a as ” lender” the lender issues a 1099a i believe the servicer is not the lender, anyhoo in the mean time, whoosh under power of sale that happens , and thats the next issue, unauthorized parties sub the trustee..( in my case)

    Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, Mass: Supreme Judicial Court 2011.
    ” where a foreclosure sale occurs in the absence of authority, ” there is no valid execution of the power, and the sale us wholly void.
    So if you rescinded they cant argue authority either way after the 20 days perhaps.

    Im pro se. not legal avdice just sharing info to help others Research if its pertinent to you own case. consult an attorney in your State.

  53. Note that many of us did tender , do you not need an accurate payoff need amount to attempt to get a refinance with another lender ….

  54. gene: “When you send in a rescission, the lender can dispute it. Then the lawsuit will have to be filed.”

    I don’t think so, Gene. Can you support this? Now, your support might be found in certain courts’ interpretations of tila or some inappropriate and unallowable equitable consideration, but aren’t they errant
    if this right to dispute the rescission isn’t called for in the act itself? I’m on they have to do it and the obligation to do so isn’t discretionary for the reasons I’ve cited.

  55. michael keane:
    “Both the statute and the regulation cast the creditor’s step-2 duties as conditions precedent to step three: if it does not comply, the consumer’s obligation to tender does not arise.”

    That imo is the whole enchillada. Of course we can all hear the banksters’ pleas: But your honor, this obligates us to release our collateral AND to return points, origination fee (prob), prepaid interest (and) so on with no way of knowing we’re going to see any of the 300k we gave the borrower (in the form of paying off the orig loan – these are refinances which qualify for rescission). If the law is followed, they have to Suck It UP and yes, I’m laughing since they have had us for so long with all their tricks (and of course that’s being nice) and our ignorance of the law.
    Just in case anyone doesn’t know what this means about what the lender has to return IMO, it’s like this MOL (note the imo and mol):

    I got a loan for 300k. On my HUD 1, there is a 1% loan origination fee, 3000.00. I paid 2 pts = 6000. I was charged 1289.17 in prepaid interest. I don’t readily know about the cost of title insurance, doc prep, closing fee, funding fee, but my money is on they have to be refunded. These are at least some of the amts the lender must refund to me to comply with the provisions of tila if I rescind and btw, these are some of the things which impact the annual percentage rate, the thing which if it’s off by more than 1/8% (or someone said 1/4 for X type loans and I don’t know about that) is cause for rescission because it’s a tila
    violation.
    Yep. That’s the way tila was deliberately written. It’s the one time the borrower is sort of in the driver’s seat or has any power. It’s not a defense for non-performance by the bankster that the borrower has not demonstrated an ability to tender after the bankster performs. In fact,
    if a bankster goes to court having not performed, he doesn’t come to the court with clean hands; HE is in violation of his own obligation and the court shouldn’t if not cannot entertain his suit because HE is the one who is in violation by not returning moolah* and not releasing the collateral instrument. He has no basis for his suit and IMO his suit should be dismissed (he has NO cause of action since the borrower didn’t have to do anything: the borrower’s duty under tila isn’t triggered until AFTER the lender performs). Once the lender PERFORMS his own obligation, THEN he may sue for the borrower’s ensuing obligation. Tila didn’t provide the lender a safety net (which is what they want) for the borrower’s performance once the lender has performed. The lender may do what we all know about: go to court to enforce their rights. Like I said, suck it up. They’ve more than got that coming.

    *don’t get thrown by the “money or property”. It just means anything of value given by the borrower to the lender in consideration of the loan.
    Your lender might have been some guy you know and you gave him your dad’s old watch as part of the deal for making you the loan.
    It doesn’t mean the house.

    Why did the legislation craft TILA this way? I don’t really know but
    it appears they want the law about the a.p.r. and so on to have some
    real teeth. (This involves our most precious assets, after all.) If it didn’t, lenders wouldn’t take their obligations to make truthful disclosures seriously.

    THESE ARE LAY OPINIONS – ask a lawyer

  56. Three Cheers for Gene………. 💝💝💝

  57. Well Said E. ToLLe!!!

    I’m sure there are a few of us still hanging on and fighting.

    Let’s not forget the lack of media attention to this historic case…They are as complicit as the judges, even now, just like crickets!

    Why?

    The TBTF would crumble because if the nation knew we would have a revolution on our hands. That’s why they are preparing for the day which will come, and unfortunately, SOON!

  58. On the other side of this legal equation, for those of you applauding and thanking the SCOTUS for their decision on rescission, ask yourself if this isn’t just a wee bit too little and a whole lot too late? This crisis has been going on for what seems like forever now, with hard core ramifications on borrowers being felt throughout this century….where in the hell were any of the justices up and down that timeline, save for protecting the banks at any and all costs? Criminality has been the norm in every court room across the land….forgeries, perjuries, lies at every turn, and the SCOTUS years later gives an interpretation on rescission that anyone in their right mind, unless it’s a bankster mind, would have thought was the only viable interpretation. The banks have to adhere to delivering the necessary legal paperwork or face the consequences as already written in law? Whaaa? Oh the humanity!

    So, why did it take over a decade for the court to settle what would seem like a first semester law question? If any of us bothered looking, we’d notice that even a crude Crayon drawn timeline graphing the number of rescission cases nationwide would show that the Everest top a half decade ago has now turned into a tiny stream trickle. How many families have been introduced to the curb in the interim? Was that a feature or a bug? The Very Serious people know that the problem will go away eventually, no matter how many homes are taken. It’s just another needed degree of necessary austerity in their playbook.

    And what happened to Kemp? You remember….the case that had the potential to blow this whole criminal enterprise to the moon and back by exposing the non-mortgage backed status of the entire planet’s pension fund…where’d that whole deal end up? Swept under the courtroom rug? Shhh! Move on now. These issues are just too big to address, you know…upset apple carts and poor old Humpty Dumpty and campaign contributions out the ass. Just keep in mind, TBTF and TBTJ doesn’t automatically equate to Too Big To Lynch.

    The case in question, Jesinoski v. CW, was originally argued in MN where the courts, all the way up, have bent over backwards like flexible Yogis to grant the banksters every wish. The banking industry, as a whole, lifted its gluttonous head out of the government’s catered trough long enough to say about the Jesinoskis, “….the couple’s position would cloud title to properties and force creditors to sue borrowers instead of trying to work with them.” Now that’s some classic comedy crap if I’ve ever heard it. At least it would be if the knee jerking wasn’t followed by sheriff departments across the land tossing families from what used to be their homes, like a scene out of a modern day Dickensian novel. God bless us every one, indeed.

    So go ahead and thank the hand that takes from you, the same one that pillages your family and all that you’ve worked for. That’s the way it’s been for decades now. Just keep one eye open to current events, for from Greece to Ukraine to Peoria, cracks are starting to show in the elite’s Handbook of Taking. They’ve overreached, and the cracks are showing. Be prepared to stand up and defend the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of attacking banksters.

  59. Gene says, “FYI, since the ruling came down, I have been involved in several conference calls with homeowner attorneys doing TILA actions since 2007. All agree that the lender can dispute and do not have to cancel the security interest.”

    My aren’t you special.

    I rest my case on just how damaged your clients are when hiring you for alleged advice. If you can’t read a simple case for the in-your-face ruling within, how’s a client supposed to fare listening to your drivel?

    Maybe if there were fewer self-appointed “experts” in the field of foreclosure defense, the tide would have turned ages ago.

    And btw Gene, the topic at hand has zero to do with Neil Garfield’s win-loss record. Stick to the topic, which is your glaring ineptitude.

  60. The lender can dispute it by filing a lawsuit…

    Who cares about TILA lawsuits since 2007. SCOTUS said they all got it wrong. Period. End of story.

    Rescission statutes are different than TILA.

  61. Yes, it’s amazing how many experts are here and are still making the comments that what SCOTUS has ruled in a unanimous decision won’t happen.

    The ruling is pretty simple to follow. No where does it say the borrower has to do anything other than send the notice. After that, it’s on the pretender to file the lawsuit fire declaratory judgment and prove up. Not to difficult to follow, unless you work for the banks. I’m not sure how name attorneys will put their license on the line to lie for the banksters, especially when they will have to show where the money came from at origination.

    FOLLOW THE MONEY!

    This is a game changer!

  62. Etolle.

    When you send in a rescission, the lender can dispute it. Then the lawsuit will have to be filed.

    FYI, since the ruling came down, I have been involved in several conference calls with homeowner attorneys doing TILA actions since 2007. All agree that the lender can dispute and do not have to cancel the security interest.

    Of course, Father Neil knows best.

    BTW, why not ask him to reveal the all the lender counter defenses? Also, with all the successes that he claims to have had, why not reveal the results, instead of claiming with each one, that they are protected by confidentially agreements?

  63. Oh and Gene, practically everything you say there is wrong. Such as:

    “2. TILA rescission is not automatic. The lender can challenge the rescission and then it is up to the homeowner to challenge by filing a lawsuit.”

    Did you read the court’s decision? It’s very clear that the lender must comply with the rescission process, and if they have a problem they can file suit against the borrower, not the other way around.

  64. “I am preparing a Damage Analysis for a homeowner to be used in a mediation hearing.”

    Yes, I too would like to see how severely damaged a homeowner would be following your advice. Irreparably, no doubt. Not pretty.

  65. Wow, talk about a mess of arguments.

    Most of what Johngault is saying is correct. Pay attention to him. For other things:

    1. In the course of normal lending operations, the lender does not have a fiduciary duty to a borrower. Only in a very few cases does a fiduciary duty exist, and this is extremely. (A broker does have a duty in most states.)

    2. TILA rescission is not automatic. The lender can challenge the rescission and then it is up to the homeowner to challenge by filing a lawsuit.

    Most of your so called forensic auditors don’t know how to run a TILDS to determine material violations. That includes NG’s own staff. I have reviewed a few of their audits and found major problems. Certified Forensic Loan Audits is even worse. All of them should read Fed Commentary which explains the law.

    For rescission, once the lawsuit is filed, yes, case law allows for the judge to change the order. Appeals Courts have upheld the rulings.

    3. The whole issue of the Trusts and whether the loans made it into the Trust depends upon the wording of the PSA, UCC Code and the New York Trust Law. Recently johngault asked “where does New York Trust Law specifically state that recorded assignments are needed?” Like when I have asked that question, he did not get a response.

    4. Here is a hint for some of you. If you have an HSBC Trust that was created through Wells Fargo, read the PSA. It requires Recorded Assignments to the Trust by the Closing Date.

    5. MERS has now been upheld by most State Supreme Courts. Others to go, but they will rule in favor of MERS as well.

    6. GMAC and those issues, especially with the BK will never go anywhere.

    Here is the real question for you? Has anyone on this website won a real victory with final ruling using NG’s arguments? If so, I want to see the documents, the filings, etc.

    Now, back to real work. I am preparing a Damage Analysis for a homeowner to be used in a mediation hearing.

  66. @ johngault,

    I’m not a lawyer and half the time I don’t know what you guys are talking about, but, wouldn’t it be fair to say the lender has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the parameters of the deal?

    In other words, once earnest money hits the table, isn’t the contract fully executed based upon the borrower’s reasonable belief he is buying what he was promised?

    As such, isn’t it incumbent upon the lender to preserve the deal formed at the inducement?

    I once knew an attorney that had a fiduciary responsibility to protect a trust that was set aside by a developer so that the funds within were used solely for real estate development.

    The attorney later faced threats of disbarment because he used those funds to other purpose.

    I guess it is a stretch, but, if a borrower is promised a loan and then executes the contract on that promise and gives money, isn’t it true the lender has a fiduciary responsibility to that deal?

    And, if so, how can the lender be absolved of fraud of bait-and-switch?

    After all, the borrower believed he was purchasing a loan; nobody ever told him his loan purchase was to be used as leverage to enrich third parties to the deal.

  67. Bad Boys Bad Boys what you gonna do when they come for you?

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/02/13/video-osceola-foreclosure-reviews-could-lead-to-criminal-charges/

    NEVER AGAIN

  68. “Pursuant to the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement,
    each Seller* sold, transferred, assigned, set
    over and otherwise conveyed to the Depositor, without
    recourse, all the right, title and interest of
    such Seller in and to the assets sold by it in the Trust Fund….In connection with such sale, the Depositor has delivered to, and deposited with, the Trustee or the Custodian, as its agent, the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned: (i) the Original Mortgage Note, including any riders thereto, endorsed without recourse.”

    So who is the guy who should be the last endorser on a note going to a trust?
    *this to me just says there are diff parties who were sellers to the depositor…..?

  69. Oh hell. The original reason those guys wanted the notes endorsed in blank was to accomodate foreclosure by “mers”, though they didn’t make this clear (shock) in the psa, as I recall. In order to foreclose in mers’ name, merscorp said the servicer had to be in poss of the note end’d in blank. They said they would fine anyone who didn’t have poss of the note for foreclosing in mers’ name, but that was toothless and a joke, since on info and belief, they did zero diligence to ascertain
    the location of the note. I’ve often said the last thing in the world mers wanted was an agency relationship. That’s, for one, because agents may not appoint sub-agents or allow anyone else to perform the tasks they’ve agreed to perform, except adminsterial ones, like, oh, say typing. Well, they tried to plug that hole by calling the servicer-employer their own officer (so that guy wasn’t a sub-agent) and then later by allowing even non-members to designate their employees as mers-officers, all courtesy of Hultman’s alleged resolutions.

    The servicer designated one of its employees a ‘mers’ signing officer, so relying on article 3 bearer provisions, if the servicer’s “mers’
    officer” had possession, acc to them, that was possession by mers, which also alleged to be the beneficiary of the collateral instrument. This illegitimate m.o. was shut down (and evidenced) by the MERS Consent Order in ’10 or ’11. But as we can see, banksters found other ways to make use of the blank endorsements, again relying on article 3
    bearer provisions (as if the psa’s purchase and sale agreements didn’t exist). They maybe can if they’re not in fed court. But when they’re in court, they’re subject to rule 17’s jurisdictional requirements – their own injury. Plus I still contend fwiw that the language in the note has its own definition / restriction of a ‘holder’ – one who has taken by transfer and has the right to payment. That doesn’t describe a party who’s in mere poss of a bearer note. Hence the assgt of the note in the dot assgt, which passes silently like a ship in the night.

  70. i sit corrected again. The reason a trust agreement calls for all endorsements on the notes (in addn to the purchase agreement) is so that the trust may have some assurance there won’t be anyone else’s claim to the note. However, the fact that the agreements, created by the banksters, provided that the final endorsement from the depositor could be in blank instead of TO THE TRUSTS to me is indicative of intent, the banksters’ intent to make use of those blank endorsements for their own benefit. According to what I’m reading, the last endorsement was to come from the depositor and no one else. I can’t tell yet if that’s a material condition (I think it is) and would be a breach if the depositor is not the last endorser, i.e., the party selling to the trust. Anyone?

  71. steve: “Why didn’t the lender use this form to verify the loan application prior to its approval? Wouldn’t this in a sense make the lender a representative?”

    jg: I suppose the lender could’ve gotten tax returns using that authorization, but they didn’t want to. I’ve always thought the reason they wanted it was to nail the borrower for fraud on the app at a time which might suit them. Course, that was in the old days, before
    ‘lenders’ starting filling in borrowers’ financial info so the borrower
    qualified on paper and before not-even-stated-income loans (that part of app is blank!) No, I don’t think that would make the lender a rep, like say it makes one’s accountant when a DIFFERENT form is used. I don’t think from memory that form authorizes the lender to talk to the irs, only to get one’s returns.

  72. @ johngault

    Curious. The broker has a fiduciary to serve the client in his or her best economical interest. True.

    However, for the lender, the borrower does sign the 4506-T Form – ‘Request for Transcript of Tax Return’

    Why didn’t the lender use this form to verify the loan application prior to its approval? Wouldn’t this in a sense make the lender a representative?

  73. 1) “Borrower reasonably relied to borrower’s detriment upon the representations and good faith estimates and the duty of the mortgage broker and “lender” to act within their duties as fiduciaries and representatives of the borrowers in executing….”

    Stop!!! A lender does NOT owe a fiduciary to a borrower. He owes him only the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

    2) “Even if the rescission notice is well founded, a court can still require the borrower to show an ability to tender before forcing the lender to return funds and void a security interest.”

    Hate to argue with an apparent authority like jdsupra, but this is bench law. It may even sound reasonable, but reasonable has no place in the application of the Truth in Lending Act. imo. Even if someone found 13 cases which say this, I’d still call it bench law. I know something of tila by my education and I had reason to look at it more closely some years ago. That reason was that some yeahoo idiot attorney took 30k from a homeowner for a tila case, what he knew about tila could fit on a pin head, and it p.o.’d me royally. His arguments were as sound as saying a lender has a fiduciary with a borrower. At any rate, I’m staying on bench law. This act is founded on equitable principles, maybe, but what seems reasonable after rescission isn’t one of them. When the words and the meaning of statutes are clear, courts may not interpret or apply them at will. There are often other statutes and rules which come into play about a particular matter, but I believe tila is pretty much, if not entirely, self-contained.

  74. @ Shadowcat,

    Yes. I am duly chastened and stand corrected.

    shadowcat is correct. please forgive me it was weak moment… lol.

  75. You feel I am correct? I am correct! Just saying….

  76. @ david belanger,

    Shadowcat I feel is correct- “notice to the agent is notice to the principal”.

    For my part, on one of my properties I am going to name each party individually based on the evidence I have in hand.

  77. @ david belanger,

    I also found this one from this site but forgot which article it came from:

    NOTE: THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION AND RESCISSION THAT COULD BE SENT: (1) THREE DAY NOTICE OF RESCISSION, (2) THREE YEAR NOTICE OF RESCISSION AND (3) GENERAL CLAIMS NOTICE OF RESCISSION OR NULLIFICATION. IN ALL CASES, THE NOTICE SHOULD CONFORM TO STATE LAW AS TO FORM, SUBSTANCE AND METHOD OF MAILING. GENERALLY IT SHOULD BE SENT CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. IN ADDITION, A FILING OF LIS PENDENS OR NOTICE OF PENDENCY TOGETHER WITH YOUR NOTICES AS ATTACHMENTS WOULD GUM UP THE WORKS ON THE PROPOSED SALE AND PROBABLY FORCE THE ACTION TO CONVERSION FROM NON-JUDICIAL SALE TO JUDICIAL SALE. THE ADVANTAGE IN CONVERTING TO JUDICIAL SALE IS THAT THE TRUSTEE OR “LENDER” MUST FILE A COMPLAINT AND ALLEGE THINGS THAT WILL EXPOSE THEM TO LIABILITY BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE. IT KEEPS THE BURDEN WHERE IT BELONGS — ON THE “LENDER.”

    The three day rescission letter should go out to everyone you know or think has anything to do with this loan. The pretender lender who is on the note, the mortgage broker, the trustee, any attorneys, any name you have for mortgage servicer, aggregator, investment bank, SPV, etc. Even if they respond with ‘we have nothing to do with this loan’ you have narrowed it down. More likely you will get a more tentative (we are looking into it) because they don’t know whether a specific loan is tied to a specific pool, SPV or mortgage backed security.

    The point being that failure to disclose the real parties in interest at the loan closing and failure to disclose the fees paid to those real parties behind the curtain that the borrower didn’t even know was there, they deprived the borrower of the knowledge of who he should send his rescission letter or other claims and objections to.

    They can argue that the rescission letter is effective if sent to the pretender lender. But is it? And if they do argue that, have they opened yet another door? How do we now that beyond them just saying it? At best they have placed the borrower in the untenable position, now having discovered that there was a real lender and that the lender he had at closing was a pretender lender paid a fee for pretending to be the lender in what is referred to in the industry as a table funded loan of not knowing who to pay, not knowing who has authority to communicate with him, and not knowing for sure to whom he should address objections and claims.

    By having insurance contracts, credit default swaps, cross guarantees, and buyback provisions as the ‘note’ moved through the chain of securitization, combined with the right to replace one loan with another, all mixed in with the fact that the buyback/substitution requirement is rarely enforced, there is no way for them to know with certainty whether the specific loan, even if initially assigned to a specific pool, is still in that pool, or has been supplemented with another note, or has been satisfied by one of the third party guarantee contracts.

    In addition, the overcollateralization and reserve pools, and the hierarchical pledges between divisions (tranches) of the SPV corporation means that contractually, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people had their loan payment assigned to pay off your payments if they were in a tranche below the one to which you were assigned without your knowledge or consent.

    And even if you did make payments, your payments might just as well have been allocated to other loans in tranches above the one your loan was assigned to. With the AIG Federal reserve bailout, there is no question that there is insurance coverage on a lot of these loans. Why should ANYONE get paid twice? Is AIG asserting the right to recover under the note and mortgage? No!

    In a letters to all the same parties a general rescission letter should go out under the three year rule under TILA, and then a third rescission letter even more general should allege rescission or nullification, something along these lines:

    General Claims rescission Letter TO ALL PARTIES

    LETTERHEAD

    DATE:

    SENT CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

    RE: BORROWER’S NAME AND ADDRESS
    LOAN NUMBER(S)

    Dear TRUSTEE (NOTE TO READER: SEPARATE LETTER TO EACH OF THE PARTIES AT CLOSING AND ANYONE ELSE YOU HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY DISCOVERED WAS IN THE SECURITIZATION CHAIN.

    I HEREBY EXERCISE MY RIGHTS TO RESCIND THE LOAN TRANSACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY UNDER THE THREE DAY RULE, THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION, AND UNDER THE USURY AND GENERAL CLAIMS THEORIES AND CAUSES OF ACTION. BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE THE TRUE LENDER AND USING SUBTERFUGE TO HIDE THE FACT THAT THE “LENDER” AT CLOSING WAS PAID TO POSE AS THE LENDER WHEN IN FACT AN UNDISCLOSED UNREGISTERED THIRD PARTY HAD RENTED THE CHARTER OR LENDING LICENSE OF THE “LENDER “, THE LIMITATION ON MY RIGHT TO RESCIND WAS EXTENDED INDEFINITELY. UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, THE MORTGAGE IS NOW EXTINGUISHED AND YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE TRUSTEE DEED HAVE TERMINATED. I hereby rescind the above referenced loan and/or declare it to be null and void and demand treble damages for the face value of the note, on the grounds set forth below:

    1. Appraisal fraud: The original loan transaction and application were falsified by the ‘lender’ (the party named at closing as the beneficiary under the Trustee or the mortgagee, and the party named on the promissory note that was allegedly secured by the mortgage or terms of the deed of trust), its agents, servants and employees as to fair market value of the property, the borrower’s ability to repay and the prospective terms and fees associated with the loan. At the behest and direction of the ‘lender’ the property was appraised at a much higher amount that was warranted by good appraisal practices conforming with industry standards. All parties at the loan closing, other than the borrower(s), were aware of the appraisal fraud and directly and intentionally withheld this vital information from the borrower. The borrower reasonably relied upon this appraisal, believing that the ‘lender’ was at risk and had performed due diligence and conformed with underwriting practices conforming with industry standards, when in fact the ‘lender’ was not at risk, the loan was in essence ‘table funded’ and the real lender was hidden from the borrower. Not only did the borrower not know about the existence of the real lender, but the real lender’s identify and contact information were withheld at the loan closing so that the borrower was unaware of any of the realities of the closing, nor that the ‘loan closing’ was in fact part of a scheme to issue a negotiable instrument that would be issued by the borrower (by trick and deception) and later converted to other uses and terms, including allocation of payments inconsistent with the original terms of the note and inconsistent with the reasonable expectations of the borrower. The over-appraisal conformed with an illegal scheme to defraud investors in certificates of asset backed securities that were similarly overvalued. In both instances — the appraisal of the property, and the appraisal of the securities, the true parties to the entire transaction paid and directed ‘independent’ third parties to lie about the quality and value of the ‘investment.’ For the borrower, the scheme shortened the expected life or duration of the loan transaction, and taking the appraisal fraud into consideration, along with the many undisclosed fees, resulted in an exponentially higher cost of the loan than what was estimated or disclosed prior to or at closing. Borrower was induced to pay more for the property and borrow more on the property than the property was worth.
    2. Fraud in the inducement: Borrower reasonably relied to borrower’s detriment upon the representations and good faith estimates and the duty of the mortgage broker and “lender” to act within their duties as fiduciaries and representatives of the borrowers in executing a loan that was vastly different from the loan the borrower was promised or reasonably believed to be the case at the loan closing.
    3. Fraud in the execution: Borrower reasonably relied upon the representations and good faith estimates of the parties at the loan closing and was tricked into issuing what became a negotiable security from which the participants received fees and profits far in excess of their normal remuneration. The participants at the loan closing knew that the borrower believed that the borrower was merely entering into a loan closing when the borrower, without his knowledge or consent was in fact issuing what would be used as a negotiable security to commit fraud upon other third parties.
    4. Usury: The appraisal fraud resulted in an undisclosed cost of the loan, in addition to the loss of earnest money, costs of closing and after-purchase expenses and costs that raised the cost of the loan well above standards set in this state for usury. No exemptions apply because (1) the real lender was not a bank or other registered or chartered lender nor even a party registered to do business within this state and (2) the transaction was in fact a securities transaction in which the rights of rescission were ignored and undisclosed.
    5. PAYMENT: The “lender” was paid in full before, during or immediately following the loan closing by an agent of the real lender. To this was added a fee of approximately 2.5%. If there was or is a party that is a holder in due course of the note and who has not been paid by reserves, overcollateralization, credit default swaps, insurance, or cross guarantees, then demand is herewith made for the name(s) of such holder(s) in due course and their contact information.

    PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY!

    SINCERELY.

    BORROWER(S) SIGNATURES AND ADDRESSES
    OR ATTORNEY FOR BORROWER

    Obviously this second form letter is more indicative of fraud and, as such, it seems likely a distressed borrower in possession of actual material evidence of fraud would find it better suited to their situation.

  78. The bottom line is Escrow didn’t close.

  79. Notice to the agent is notice to the principal. Simple! I like Simple! I love Fee Simple! Its as Simple as that!

  80. The bottom line is at close of escrow sale can the Banksters deliver the goods. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.

    N-O.
    NEVER AGAIN

  81. @ david belanger,

    Hello. I encourage you to read the following article from this website.

    Foreclosure Defense: Rescission Letter, Demand Letter
    Posted on May 29, 2008 by Neil Garfield

    I am not an attorney. I am a builder.

    If I recall the article correctly, Mr. Garfield explains you should send rescission and demand letter to anyone and everyone you feel is associated with your loan.

    He also explains you should strengthen your position with the acquisition of an attorney and a “securitization audit”.

    One of my friends from grammar school recently died and I believe the stresses associated with his GMAC mortgage and subsequent foreclosure contributed to his death.

    One of the questions he and I felt pertinent to his situation was: How in the world did his loan transfer from GMAC while it was in receivership as part of a structured bankruptcy?

    That may be a question you are also willing to pursue in regard to your own situation.

    In the meantime, we have all chosen a difficult path, even as, for some us it was a path preordained by others we should be forced to bear the brunt of their sociopathic greed.

    There are a great many things to know and each case presents differing variables. I suggest you make every effort to find a lawyer.

    While you are about it, it seems likely someone has delivered you with an intent to foreclose… as a result, I suggest you start there.

    I realize you are upset, as are we all. I can only suggest you don’t take the bait and react to those on this site willing to excite you or attempt to beat you down…

    Find your paperwork… make a list of the servicers, title company(s), appraiser(s), law firm(s), originators, etc… then, send them your rescission and demand letter.

    Certify it and keep a file of their responses. Thereby you will begin to narrow in on your target.

  82. But isnt that minus the amount of interest paid by the borrower?So the total amount borrowed minus all interest,thats what I believe but its a moot point when the judge rules in favor of the servicer as most do.Our lawmaker have decided that banks do not have to follow law and we have let them get away with that.

  83. Next time anyone gets asked if that’s her signature, maybe something like this would be helpful? Ask for clarification of the question: “Are you asking me if that’s a copy of my signature or are you asking me if that’s my original wet ink signature?
    Unless the note has been established as thee original (and how would that be without expert testimony unless one inadvertantly helps them along?), all a borrower could really attest to is that it looks like her signature, but not whether it’s wet ink or not.
    We’re not qualified to know the diff between a (good) copy and an original, so we shouldn’t help them along (while being truthful, of course).
    Judges should take note of an entire answer, but if and since they don’t, we have to make sure our answer – one sentence – can’t possibly be read to establish our signature and or the document as the original. If someone shows you a note and says is that your original signature or says this is the original note and asks if that’s your signature, you can honestly say (in ONE sentence) that you can’t tell if it’s a copy or an original, but it appears to be your signature or a copy of your signature – you can’t tell which. If you think it’s your signature (copy or not), make the issue and answer in one sentence about not being able to tell if it’s your original signature or not.
    Or, if thee question is posed like this: I have here the original note. Is this your signature? You might object to the form of the question – it assumes a fact NOT IN EVIDENCE. I would object and do anything but acknowledge the signature as my original wet ink signature. (An attorney may have a diff take on how to do this)
    They are using our own testimony to establish the doc before us as the original note – without this, they would have to establish it as the original in another way and good luck on that one (not impossible but costly) – expert testimony, chain of custody, etc.

    And speaking of which, when banksters contend they have the original note, we have been ignoring the chain of custody to our detriment, I think. And current claimants generally can’t authenticate endorsements without great ado and imo they have NO way to authentic an endorsement by an entity which is toast (there are those pesky rules of evidence again). Which brings up this question (to me, anyway): for this known inability to authenticate all endorsements on a note, is an article 9 sale and assignment contract a better bet for authentication of an event? If and since PSA’s call for both, WHICH is the reliance in ascertaining that notes are transferred to trusts (had things been done properly) – the endorsed note, the PSA, or its alleged assgt in the asst of the collateral instrument?
    Which is the claimed reliance of a trust and which is the claimed reliance in bringing non-j f/c and which is the reliance in court?
    And fwiw, we need to keep telling courts it’s the banksters who want a free house. “The plaintiff has called me (or implied that I’m) a dead-beat (f they did) and yet, by all appearances (or calm specifics), it’s the plaintiff who is trying to use this court to award it a free home by (name their bs succinctly, like avoiding all rules of evidence as to their claim – but one may have to here cite what is being avoided). I, on the other hand, made an agreement (if you are not contesting that you made an agreement to SOMEone) to defend my title for the lender in the dot on p. __ para __ and accordingly, I have an obligation, my own interests aside, to ascertain that the claimant is in fact a successor in interest to my lender and is a party entitled to the relief it seeks.
    The plaintiff may establish that I’m in default of any agreement I entered right after it demonstrates its lawful invocation of this court’s jurisdiction (which includes establishing an agreement and evidence of its own injury).”

    These are STRICTLY lay opinions and NOT legal advice – ask a lawyer.
    .

  84. Michael Keane, may i ask question.

    with the following below, WHO do i send the notice of rescission to. i still do not know , who what were.??

    CHRISTINE, I DO HAVE DOC’S FROM THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE, SHOWING MY MORTGAGE AS PAYED OFF IN FEB,2,2006, AFTER 1 PAYMENT MADE,
    THEN I ALSO HAVE THE SEC DOC’S SHOWING THEM SELLING MY MORTGAGE FOR THE 500,000 DOLLARS WITH 1027 OTHER MORTGAGES.
    FUNNY ISN’T IT. ALSO LETS SEE, FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE WAS IN AUG, 2012, K , GOT THAT.
    FROM MERS ACTING FOR GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,( NO LONGER IN BUSINESS AS OF 2006!!! . FUNNY ISN’T IT…
    SO WERE DID MERS GET THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN FOR ANYTHING AS GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/ WAS NO LONGER EXSISTING IN 2012??
    THEN COMES THE QUESTION ON WHO DO I SEND RESCISSION TO?? WHY. AS I HAVE MY MORTGAGE NOTE, THAT WAS SIGN OVER THE SAME DAY WE SIGN MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE, TO SOME TRUST/BANK THAT WE DID NOT KNOW LENT
    THE MONEY. BUT FOR 6YRS WE HAVE BEEN PAYING GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, 2500 A MONTH.
    BUT THE WAY I SEE IT THEY DID NOT OWN OUR MORTGAGE/NOTE. AND THE RECORDING IN OUR LAND RECORDS SHOW IT WAS PUT ON OUR RECORDS, NOT UNTIL
    11-14-2005, AND IT WAS PUT ON BY GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,
    BUT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,SIGN OVER WITH OUT RECOURSE, AND DATED IT 11-8-2005 TO THIS NON-BANK/TRUST COMPANY.
    SO HOW COULD THEY PUT THIS MORTGAGE ON MY LAND RECORD???
    TRUST CLOSED, FEB,27,2006. SO HOW COULD THE TRUST NOW TAKE THIS MORTGAGE??? HUM
    BUT BEST OF ALL, AS I WROTE PRIOR, GMAC MORTGAGE SIGN MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE TO ANOTHER BANK/TRUST AS OF THE SAME DAY AS WE SIGN AT CLOSING. HUM FUNNY!!
    SO ALL I’VE DONE FOR THE PAST 4 YRS, 6HRS A DAY IS DIG AND DIG AND DIG.
    I CAN SAY THIS. I DO NOT OWE ANYONE ANYTHING. THEY OWE ME. MILLIONS.
    AND AS A VETERAN FOR OVER 6 YRS IN IN INFANTRY , ANYONE COMING ON MY PROPERTY. WELL LETS JUST SAY, I HOPE THEY DONT TRY.
    SO WHAT YOU SAY??

  85. I think it has been said before and may best be summed as follows:

    Toby Fernsler, on January 23, 2015 at 11:59 am said:

    I found this on TILA and tendering back property:

    According to the Act and Regulation Z, the rescission process should proceed as
    follows:

    Step One: By operation of law, the security interest automatically becomes void and the consumer is relieved of any obligation to pay any finance or other charge.

    Step Two: The creditor has twenty days from receipt of the consumer’s
    cancellation notice to return (or credit back) any money or property given to anyone, and to take any action necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest.

    Step Three: After the creditor has complied with the preceding mandate, the consumer is to tender back to the creditor any money or property received. 15U.S.C. § 1635(b); Reg. Z §§ 226.15(d)(1),226.23(d)(2).

    Both the statute and the regulation cast the creditor’s step-2 duties as conditions precedent to step three: if it does not comply, the consumer’s obligation to tender does
    not arise.

    http://quiettitleaction.com/Rescission%20of%20Closed-End%20Mortgage%20Loan%20Transactions.pdf

    In the meantime, I cannot say it enough: Go to your attorney’s office and demand his/her file on the closing of your house; do it particularly if you feel you were taken advantage of.

    I cannot say definitively you will be rewarded with material evidence of illegal behavior, I can only say that is precisely what happened in one of our cases.

  86. If you listen to Neil’s show last night TILA is totally different than rescission. The rules under TILA are different than those under the normal rules of rescission for a consumer transaction.

    SCOTUS agreed!

  87. The bad thing about having a headache is I tend to get crabby….. David you should have listened to Christine….. To bad you want be joining the Winning team.

    Has anyone heard from Ivent aka Linda? We are worried about her. Linda please make contact with us…..

    Carry on Rock……

  88. oh rock, your cases are from 2012 2013, are you that stupid, oh forgot your a rock.

    supreme court would over rule all state,fed courts, that is why all home owners need to file class action on this .

    and hundreds of thousands of homes owner are now going back to court.

    so please crawl back under the rock, rock. we all know you work for banks.and they are shitting in there pants now. hahahahaha

  89. Wow I’m not getting this at all.
    1. Can a fraudclosed house still send rescission.
    2. Can one with a modification ?
    3. Can you send 9 years after closing ?
    4. You get all payments made and hand back the keys ???
    Sorry I’m slow , I just don’t get the point of rescission.

  90. No barryisafraud, Garfield and Macklin are serving it.

    http://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/Opinions/Published/10-44610%20%5B11-2024%5D%20Macklin%20DJH-2%20DBNTC%20MSJ%20Mem%20Opin%20and%20Dec%205-24-13.pdf

    Like I said, if you want to lose your home listen to the likes of Garfield, Macklin, Edstrom, et al

  91. Not familiar with ROCK. Been off the boards for several years..

    To busy fighting banksters….

    Big MSJ heading on Tuesday. Let’s see if California courts will finally stop believing the nonsense attorneys are arguing even though their own filed recorded docs say something different.

    The TILA SCOTUS decision is huge and levels the playing field against the prejudiced judiciary…

    Off to file some docs at the court house…

  92. Hey David.. Can you lower your voice? I am starting to get a headache.

  93. HEY ROCK, STOP HIDING UNDER YOUR ROCK,HERE FOR YOU

    The Jesinoskis satisfied the requirements of TILA by mailing a notice of their intent to rescind within three years of obtaining their loan. The Court’s also noted that TILA eliminated the common-law rule that a borrower must tender the proceeds received in a transaction for rescission to occur.

    So what does all this mean? We think this: A borrower’s letter notifying a lender of an intent to rescind is itself the rescission. The loan is cancelled at the moment notice is given. In other words, rescission is not effected by a court, it is accomplished with a letter.

    The lender’s choices upon receiving a rescission notice will be either to accept the rescission or dispute it. If accepted the lender must return all payments and terminate its security interest. The borrower then must tender the loan proceeds to the lender. Should the lender wish to contest the rescission notice, it should send a letter so stating to the borrower.

  94. Yes, but this assumes the pretender lender files the declaratory suit within the 20 days to fight the rescission.

    I’m also not sure the SCOTUS decision gave the courts that latitude to make a homeowner tender, in fact, they said they didn’t have have to.

    TILA is not the same as normal rescission as Neil pointed out on his show last night.

  95. We need Rock He keeps us from going to sleep. Plus he gives us an insight on how the banksters think.

    NEVER AGAIN

  96. You’ll have to excuse Rock. His knees get all weak and his heart goes wildly palpitating whenever there’s a ruling favoring the borrower….

    From JDSupra:

    Remember, courts have the discretion to not only determine whether there is a proper basis for a rescission notice but also to reorder the creditor’s and debtor’s obligations in the event rescission was proper. Even if the rescission notice is well founded, a court can still require the borrower to show an ability to tender before forcing the lender to return funds and void a security interest. How all that works will be judge dependent but based on the language of this case fewer courts will require plaintiff to tender loan proceeds before the lender must satisfy its duties.

    One thing is certain: The three years to file limitations defense is gone.

    http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-supreme-court-just-held-that-tila-re-32133/

  97. Rock has left the building…lol

  98. FOR YOU ROCK,

    We agree with the Sixth Circuit’s well-reasoned opinion in Barrett and hold that the remedies associated with rescission remain available even after the subject loan has been paid off and, more generally, that the right to rescission “encompasses a right to return to the status quo that existed before the loan.”
    Congress enacted TILA “to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a). As is relevant to this case, TILA mandates for borrowers involved in “any consumer credit transaction . . . in which a security interest . . . is or will be retained or acquired in any property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom credit is extended” a three-day period in which the borrower may rescind the loan transaction and recover “any finance or other charge,” earnest money, or down payment previously made to the creditor. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a), (b). In the context of “[a] refinancing or consolidation by the same creditor of an extension of credit already secured by the consumer’s principal dwelling,” the right of rescission applies only “to the extent the new amount financed exceeds the unpaid principal balance, any earned unpaid finance charge on the existing debt, and amounts attributed solely to the costs of the refinancing
    In addition to creating the right of rescission, TILA requires creditors “clearly and conspicuously” to disclose to borrowers their right to rescind and the length of the rescission period, as well as to provide borrowers with “appropriate forms . . . to exercise [their] right to rescind [a] transaction.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). The Federal Reserve Board (FRB), one of the agencies charged with implementing TILA, has promulgated an implementing regulation, known as Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226 et seq., that, among other things, requires creditors to disclose the following elements to borrowers:
    (i) The retention or acquisition of a security interest in the consumer’s principal dwelling.
    (ii) The consumer’s right to rescind the transaction.
    (iii) How to exercise the right to rescind, with a form for that purpose, designating the address of the creditor’s place of business.
    (iv) The effects of rescission. . . .
    (v) The date the rescission period expires.

  99. Quite obvious the banksters are concerned and worried. The game may be about up!

    The only concern is it might cause another collapse. That’s ok. Let it happen and send the banksters to see Madoff. He was a rookie compared to what they have gotten away with.

    Maybe some attorneys will represent “deadbeat” homeowners now. They can sue to get the money returned after the 20 days.

    Finally payback!

    SCOTUS, you screwed up on ObamaCare but you got this right. I know you’ll get it right when it comes back a second time….lmao

  100. Rock… Did you mean to say the Borrower (Not the homeowner) must tender the amount borrowed not the property? There is a difference.

  101. So I guess Neil and Jim are drinking the same koolaide. Please post where in the decision the court said the borrower had to tender before the rescission…

  102. OK ROCK, WERE IS YOUR, EXPERTISE COME FROM ?? MINE IS WORKING FOR SECURITY AND EXCHANGE, NY NY.

  103. Anybody defending the Banksters is the one who is trying to get us to drink the KoolAid.

    Rock Cocaine is very dangerous to your health

    NEVER AGAIN

  104. barryisafraud, the SCOTUS case said nothing other than no lawsuit by the borrower was necessary, everything else remains the same.

    You need to spit out the Kool-Aid before you whole brain turns to mush; stop listening to the other nitwits that frequent this site posting misleading information.

  105. CHRISTINE, I DO HAVE DOC’S FROM THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE, SHOWING MY MORTGAGE AS PAYED OFF IN FEB,2,2006, AFTER 1 PAYMENT MADE,

    THEN I ALSO HAVE THE SEC DOC’S SHOWING THEM SELLING MY MORTGAGE FOR THE 500,000 DOLLARS WITH 1027 OTHER MORTGAGES.
    FUNNY ISN’T IT. ALSO LETS SEE, FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE WAS IN AUG, 2012, K , GOT THAT.

    FROM MERS ACTING FOR GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,( NO LONGER IN BUSINESS AS OF 2006!!! . FUNNY ISN’T IT…

    SO WERE DID MERS GET THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN FOR ANYTHING AS GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/ WAS NO LONGER EXSISTING IN 2012??

    THEN COMES THE QUESTION ON WHO DO I SEND RESCISSION TO?? WHY. AS I HAVE MY MORTGAGE NOTE, THAT WAS SIGN OVER THE SAME DAY WE SIGN MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE, TO SOME TRUST/BANK THAT WE DID NOT KNOW LENT
    THE MONEY. BUT FOR 6YRS WE HAVE BEEN PAYING GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, 2500 A MONTH.

    BUT THE WAY I SEE IT THEY DID NOT OWN OUR MORTGAGE/NOTE. AND THE RECORDING IN OUR LAND RECORDS SHOW IT WAS PUT ON OUR RECORDS, NOT UNTIL
    11-14-2005, AND IT WAS PUT ON BY GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,

    BUT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,SIGN OVER WITH OUT RECOURSE, AND DATED IT 11-8-2005 TO THIS NON-BANK/TRUST COMPANY.

    SO HOW COULD THEY PUT THIS MORTGAGE ON MY LAND RECORD???

    TRUST CLOSED, FEB,27,2006. SO HOW COULD THE TRUST NOW TAKE THIS MORTGAGE??? HUM
    BUT BEST OF ALL, AS I WROTE PRIOR, GMAC MORTGAGE SIGN MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE TO ANOTHER BANK/TRUST AS OF THE SAME DAY AS WE SIGN AT CLOSING. HUM FUNNY!!
    SO ALL I’VE DONE FOR THE PAST 4 YRS, 6HRS A DAY IS DIG AND DIG AND DIG.
    I CAN SAY THIS. I DO NOT OWE ANYONE ANYTHING. THEY OWE ME. MILLIONS.
    AND AS A VETERAN FOR OVER 6 YRS IN IN INFANTRY , ANYONE COMING ON MY PROPERTY. WELL LETS JUST SAY, I HOPE THEY DONT TRY.
    SO WHAT YOU SAY??

  106. Rock, that is no longer true. SCOTUS ruled last week the borrower does not need to tender and does not need to file a lawsuit. The courts have been incorrectly applying the TILA statute for years. BTW- this was a unanimous decision, not split amongst the parties. Huge victory for the homeowner.

    Moore needs to go back to court if they can and get it reversed.

  107. must tender the amount borrowed….

    So what is the point ??? I don’t understand.

  108. The above is from Reg. Z.

    Don’t be misled, the homeowner must tender the amount borrowed, not property.

    MOORE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, 597 F.Supp. 2d 612, 616 n.2 (E.D. Va. 2009) (in a mortgage refinance transaction, consumer must tender the loan proceeds, not the home.)

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: