FDCPA Claims May Extend Beyond 2 Year Statute of Limitations

And another analysis from one of my trusted “anonymous” contributors who really know what is going on:

FDCPA also has a 2 year SOL for most states, and most judges go back to the supposed transaction from which it stems (The supposed home loan, as to when clock starts ticking). Many homeowners can prove the claims of the Servicers having an interest in the loan is false, therefore the REMIC Trust is false, and therefore there was no 2 year lapse traceable back to a defined transaction, FDCPA claims should not toll either.

So what that means to me is interesting in two scenarios:

A.) Every letter you receive to Modify a loan from a “Servicer” (i.e, become indebted further to someone you never owed in the first place), is really a disguised new loan, because the original debt never existed with them. Therefore as a new loan, it falls back under TILA and REG Z, and they have violated it all over in a “mod”, starting the TILA clock ticking again, as well as violating the FDCPA all over again.

B.) If it is a straight collection notice, this, coupled with your monthly billing statement, violates a few things:

– The Servicer has already violated TILA’s payment processing requirements: Payment Processing—12 CFR 1026.36(c)(1)
– The Servicer has already violated Periodic Statements for Residential Mortgage Loans—12 CFR 1026.41
– Each new collection notice, since it is in fact not traceable back to a real world loan transaction, and is being sent by someone with no interest to collect from you, is in fact a separate and distinct “roll of the dice” or “fishing expedition” to extort money from a stranger fraudulently, with the threat of a debt that was never owed them. This seems to me that every notice is unique (you never know which one the person it is sent to will cave on and send the fraudster money for, they all are usually for ever increasing $ amounts, therefore the amounts they are trying to collect is unique) and much like a lottery ticket, the bogus bill collector is playing a numbers game to see which ticket might “hit”. In this sense, I don’t think you can claim the FDCPA ever tolls, which is important given the wide latitude of claims the FDCPA allows for.

Also important, look at which claims allow for Joint and Several liability. If you are just suing Chase that is one thing; But you sue Chase as Servicer, the Trustee of the REMIC, LPS as agent, and the Law firm they used to effectuate a scheme, you just quadrupled your claim amount (Not sure which claims allow for this, but you get a good $180K hit, quadruple it, your close to a Million right there)..

70 Responses

  1. johngault,

    The way I found about the lpmi was while in foreclosure a woman from the insurance called me to find out what was going on. One way to verify is I went to the SEC website and under 2006-5 trust was a file called Ex.41 (I think it was called Ex.41, this was years ago). In the file lists all loans by zip, amount, ins. I simply did an edit/find with the browser to find my loan. At the top of the column the insurer was MGIC. Calling them I was told Wells Fargo and AHM did have a policy.

    I think 129(c) is the recent ability to repay rule

    https://www.aba.com/Tools/Offers/Documents/silver%20freedman.pdf

    My lender settled out of court with the investors. The SEC settled out of court. The DA wouldn’t go after the broker. So to my understanding, what are or what good are criminal action defenses when nothing was being done years ago?

  2. Steve, I just got around to looking at p. 81 (re: criminal and see that it also say that a tila violation of section 129(c) may be a claim in recoupment. In other words, it may be asserted as a defense at any time:

    “Moreover, TILA provides that when a creditor, assignee, other holder, or anyone acting on such a person’s behalf initiates a foreclosure action on, or any other action to collect the debt in connection with, a residential mortgage loan, a consumer may assert a violation of TILA
    section 129C(a) “as a matter of defense by recoupment or setoff” (TILA section 130(k)).
    There is no time limit on the use of this defense, and the amount of recoupment or setoff is limited, with respect to the special statutory damages, to no more than three years of finance charges and fees.”

    i have no ideal what section 129(C) is. But so far, it looks like the a violation of this section is the only one which provides a defense by recoupment or setoff beyond the SoL expressed in the act. Also looks like the amt of recoupment of set off is limited to the amt that would’ve been available on a claim made on the last day of the 3 years. The assertion of such a counter-claim or defense may result, in addn to any offset or recoupment, in one staying in one’s home longer while that amt is determined, the issue is “sorted out”, AND it may lead to discovery, long and short.

    This is also instructive:

    “A higher -priced mortgage loan (whether or not it is a HOEPA loan) having a prepayment penalty that does not conform to the
    prepayment penalty limitations ( 12 CFR 1026.32(c) and (d) and 12 CFR 1026.43(g), subject to certain exclusions) is also subject to a three
    -year right of rescission.
    Transactions exempt from the right of rescission include residential mortgage transactions (12 CFR 1026.2(a)(24))

    jg: my money is this refers to a purchase money loan

    “and refinancings or consolidations with the original creditor when no “new money” is advanced”.

  3. steve: “The lender also had a lender paid mortgage insurance policy in place without my knowledge, so they collected on that.”

    I’m surprised you found out about that. Anyone who got a loan over 80% ltv who wasn’t aware of private mtg ins (on HUD 1 settlement statement, in payments, etc) most likely got one of those “self -insuring” loans. The cost of the ins premium is built into the rate. I don’t know who insures those. They did that because no regulated pmi co. should insure less than A- paper loan like teaser-rate loans, no qual loans, and so on. My guess is your loan was a stinker.

  4. Thank you Rock,

    I learned the hard way through a couple of worthless audits. I thought it was District Attorneys job for criminal wrongdoing but they told me, at the time, it would require a lawsuit and to go find a lawyer.

    After foreclosure, when the lender got the house back and re-sold it why would the tender rule apply?

    The best way to explain this: The house cost 350k. I put down 64k plus closing cost etc. totaling 77k. The lender foreclosed two years later and auctioned for 240k. What was owed at the time was 285k but I’d say 10k was added late fees. The lender also had a lender paid mortgage insurance policy in place without my knowledge, so they collected on that.

    If the borrower had the investment of down payment, closing cost, material upgrades (sweat equity) which adds up I don’t understand that after foreclosure the matter is just dropped and the borrower would have tender after the lender already recoup their losses.

    i don’t know how much those lender paid or principal mortgage insurance policies pay but in some cases it might show the lender making a profit and the borrower still has to tender?

    Doesn’t make sense.

  5. Steve, to answer a little more succinctly your three day notice of cancellation question, someone could use common law rescission. The only problem with that remedy, it is the exact opposite of a TILA rescission. The rescinding party must tender first.

    Also, to answer your question regarding “criminal actions,” it is quite common to find criminal wrongdoing in mortgage transactions, but as I’ve repeated on numerous occasions that is only accomplished by a thorough examination of the whole transaction; not some useless forensic or securitization audit. There is only one firm in the country that I know of that provides that service, they’re quite expensive, but worth every penny.

  6. @ johngault,

    Yes, I’m a building contractor but I’m no legal expert on mortgages.

  7. david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on March 11, 2015 at 9:17 am said:

    and to christine,
    as you say you have won a case??? so lets see the case you won , for a homeowner or maybe your self????
    so lets see it????

    What for? You’re hellbent on pursuing tangential issues that have nothing to do with homeowners while being belligerent about it. Instead of spending so much time posting nonsense here, you’d be ahead of the game just going to Justia and researching “Breach of contract by mortgagee, conversion” or googling the same. You’d see what a winning case looks like.

    Yes, David. I did win. By doing exactly what I have been advocating for 5 years: don’t wait to be in default to do your homework. Look for the accounting errors as soon as your income takes a dive and you risk to be in default. And don’t stop paying until AFTER you have sued. Lastly, attack first, simply because of the well known prejudice of judges toward the plaintiff who, as everyone with half a brain knows, “would never initiate a lawsuit unless being wronged”. The one who files first is in the driver’s seat. Enough time has gone by for people to smarten up. They won’t do it coming here.

  8. Deb,

    “…so cool it post positive useful stuff despite your obvious contemp for Mr Garfield,..”

    I did. I posted a lot of practical help that nobody is following, even though I invest a lot of my time teaching people to write decent (and relevant) QWRs, timelines and simple letters. You don’t know the hours I spend on the phone and e-mail, listening to the stories and helping people zero in on what the real issues of their case are. I also used to post names of very good attorneys with proven records but everyone knows that “all attorneys are only after your money and they don’t understand securitization. And besides, all judges are corrupted”.

    They don’t have to: homeowners’ fight has nothing to do with securitization. And I don’t have contempt for NG. I just have a real problem with a lot of what he posts, allegedly purporting to help homeowners even though it is completely irrelevant and has born no fruit. All I have asked from NG is ONE lousy case won on his theories (and not reversed on appeal). Can’t find one. What I can find is lawsuit after lawsuit being crushed by increasingly irritated judges referring to Garfield and writing over and over why what he says cannot fly. What I find is road kills giving banks arguments against homeowners and judges a favorable ear toward them by default!

  9. Rock does present persuasive authority that the right of rescission under tila only applies to refis (and it may apply to seconds*). 30 years ago I knew tyes or no like the back of my hand. oh, well. I think if the ror applied to purchases, it could involve people outside the lender and the borrower and that’s why it doesn’t apply to purchases. I mean, if you rescinded the loan, it could impact an innocent third party seller. TILA wouldn’t be created with any potential to upset a purchase or in any manner lead to a claim against a seller by anyone. I didn’t say this very well, but I think I yet conveyed what I meant. fwiw.

    *if it applies to seconds, when a first and second are made concurrently on a purchase, would it apply to the second? got me. Maybe because it’s purchase money, even tho a second, it wouldn’t.

  10. steve, do you contract for home improvement?

  11. steve, no, but it looks close enough for govt work. the one I found was
    “only” 181 pgs and slightly easier reading, i think. I haven’t read all of either. Maybe you’ll be our expert.

  12. johngualt – ” google “tila from the OCC” ” You mean this link

    http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/comptrollers-handbook/truth-in-lending-handbook.pdf

    I notice on page 81 it states, ” Criminal actions are not subject to the TILA one- year statute of limitations. ”

    How does that work? The DA’s or DOJ didn’t investigate in the crisis. How do show criminal actions in a mortgage?

  13. Deb, I also concede. I do suck.

  14. e.tolle’s not a parrot. But even if he were, he’s an entertaining one.
    Some others provide unintended comic relief, but aren’t nearly as much fun.

  15. No, that intent I posited for the the truth in lending act can’t be right.
    But I still believe the answer is in the act. Someone just needs to read the whole stinking thing. If you don’t want to do that, but are considering a rescission, in addn to needing an att who gets it (good luck), you might want to google “tila from the OCC”. It’s informative and not too dry a read. It won’t link here.

  16. fwiw, I’m fairly certain the right of rescission created by tila doesn’t apply to purchases. It isn’t rocket science, tho, as the act itself must identify to what it applies (right?) I have to velieve it does in there somewhere, but if not, the purpose of the act would imo be instructive.
    Without reviewing, I’d say the purpose of the act, l and s, is to
    protect consumers in transactions impacting their homes and it’s not one’s home until one has bought it.
    But, even if the right of rescission for violations pursuant to tila isn’t applicable to purchases, that doesn’t mean some other law doesn’t create that right – or – that some other law doesn’t provide causes of action and remedies for those tila-type violations. even if it isn’t rescission per se. But if foreclosure has been filed, imo one may posture as the defendent (because a claim has been made against him for breach of contract) and therefore avail himself of counter-claims in recoupment and defenses which otherwise are defeated by the SoLimitations. As to refi’s, I don’t know if a tila violation qualifies as
    a (recoupment) counter-claim or defense beyond the three years even if one meets the “or should’ve known” caveat for exceeding three years. So I would only list a tila counter-claim or defense as an alternative for relief *with any other of my counter-claims or defenses, at least until someone here can answer that question – which may be first impression for all I know.
    *As I understand this stuff, one may assert various defenses and they may be divergent, meaning that we may prevail on one to the exclusion of another.

  17. Steve, like I said E.Tolle is a parrot, which is part of the problem; parroting others nonsense instead of independent research. You at least take the time to verify, losers don’t, and then wonder why they lost their home.

    Again, I didn’t write the law, take it up with congress.

  18. Rock,

    E. Tolle only provided the link. Not the statement.

    I am also NOT talking about the right of recession. I’m talking about the notice of cancellation. I know as a contractor I have to provide the client a three day notice of cancellation. Why would a residential mortgage be an exception?

  19. BTW Steve, I already showed you the law and gave you a court case to back it up.

    Problem is there are too many parrots, legal illiterates, and scammers posting misinformation confusing the facts for people with legitimate questions.

    Again, transactions to purchase or construct a residence are exempt. 15 U.S.C. § 1602(w).

    Section 125(e)(1) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e)(1), however, specifically exempts a residential mortgage transaction as defined in Section 103(w) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1602(w). That section defines a residential mortgage as “a transaction in which a mortgage, deed of trust, purchase money security interest arising under an installment sales contract, or equivalent consensual security interest is created or retained against the consumer’s dwelling to finance the acquisition or initial construction of such dwelling.”

    “Accordingly, it is apparent that there is no right of rescission under Section 125 of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635, when the transaction at issue is a purchase money mortgage.” In re Tomasevic, 275 B.R. 86 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 2001)

  20. Steve, first of all E.Tolle has no clue what he’s talking about, he’s just another parrot.

    The answer to your last question is quite simple–because its the law.

  21. Charles and Rock

    I understand it applies to refinancing. The quote I posted is from the link ‘ E.Tolle ‘ provided ( 2nd paragraph 2nd sentence).

    “The statute allows a borrower to rescind ANY residential mortgage transaction until three days after the lender provides the disclosures that TILA requires”

    I may not be able to send out a recession letter but my question is was I to receive a Notice of Right to Cancel at the origination?

    There’s no dispute whether the lender did or did not provide me one. I have a copy of my loan on CD from my lenders Bankrupt Trustee. There is a page called ‘ Document Funding Checklist ‘. In the list the Notice of Right to Cancel is marked N/A.

    From my understanding all contracts require the three day notice of cancellation. Why are principal purchases the exception.

  22. Steve, I see you didn’t get your question answered regarding TILA disclosures.

    TILA’s Disclosure Requirements

    As I’ve shown before, TILA does not apply to loans that a mortgagor takes out to purchase their principal residence. However, it does cover any other loan sought that involves the principal residence (i.e. refinancing). Such loans are subject to TILA’s disclosure requirements.

    Among the required disclosures:

    For credit transactions with a fixed rate of interest:
    the APR and amount of regular monthly payment;

    For any other credit transaction, the APR of the loan, amount of regular monthly payment, a statement that the interest rate and monthly payment may escalate, amount of the maximum monthly payment – based on the maximum interest rate

    These terms include but are not limited to things such as the finance charges expressed as an annual percentage rate (APR), and the total of all loan payments. Finance charges are defined under 15 USC 1605 as, the sum of all charges, payable directly or indirectly by the borrower such as interest rate, discount rates, and origination fees.

    Every charge must be disclosed as either part of the “amount financed” which is equivalent to the amount provided on behalf of the borrower or as part of a “financed charge” representing the dollar cost to the borrower. The financed charge includes what was paid directly or indirectly by the lender. The APR is calculated by adding the interest rate and the financed charges, which provides the actual interest rate paid annually.

    The type of loan determines the proper set of disclosure requirements. For instance, a closed-end loan (one for a fixed term of years) has different requirements from an open-ended loan (one for no fixed term).
    TILA Violations

    Most violations of TILA occur because of incorrect disclosure and understated finance charges. If your lender failed to make the proper disclosures, you may have a claim for actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees.

    Under TILA, the lender must also give the borrower (and spouse) two copies each of their right to rescind their mortgage agreemen. Failure to provide all borrowers with fully signed copies of disclosures or less than two signed copies of the 3-day notices of right of rescission can lead to TILA violations.

  23. And further the 20 days means they cam file a straight forward rebuttal/ declaratory relief and that should therefore be the end of it – but yet they did not argue their point and it is not because they did not understand tila reg Z or rights of rescission its more like no standing perhaps and they would be exposing themselves into a dangerous
    argument perhaps since they vear a burden of proof .

  24. AND THE JUDGE MIGHT SAY TO YOU, WHY NOW ARE YOU COMING TO THIS COURT AFTER 10YRS AFTER YOUR CLOSING ON YOUR MORTGAGE.

    WELL YOUR HONOR IT WAS UNTIL 2014 THAT I GOT A FULL AND COMPLETE COPY OF MY CLOSINGS DOC’S FROM CLOSING ATTORNEY, AND THIS IS WERE I FOUND OUT ABOUT, THAT I WAS GIVEN ANY DISCLOSURES FROM THE REAL PARTY THAT FUNDED THE TRANSACTION.

    SO I BELIEVE I WAS DEFRAUDED ON, AND BELIEVE I VE BEEN PAYING NOT THE LENDER OF THIS TRANSACTION. SO EVEN IF ITS BEEN 10 YRS YOUR HONOR, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW, OR COULD OF KNOWN OF THIS CRIME.

  25. and again to rock, and others,and christine,

    The question before the Court was what steps the borrower has to take to rescind within the three years.

    But if the lender doesn’t provide the disclosures – or if the borrower claims that the lender doesn’t provide the disclosures – then the rescission period well might continue for three years after consummation of the transaction. At that point, the right to rescind definitively ends.

    1/ KEY WORDS- (DOESN’T PROIVDE THE DISCLOSURES,)

    2/ ( OR, IF BORROWER CLAIMS THAT THE LENDER DIDN’T PROVIDE THE DISCLOSURES. )

    3/ THE OTHER KEY WORD- CONCUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTION.

    4/ SO IF LENDER DIDN’T OR MAYBE DID PROVIDE THE DISCLOSURES NO ONE KNOW’S THIS TO BE TRUE FACT’S AND THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW IF IT IS TRUE FACT IS THE ( LENDER ) MOST ( FILE , ) NOT THE BORROWER, TO FIGHT THE ALLEGATION, THAT YOU SAID, THAT YOU NEVER RECEIVED ALL THE DISCLOSURES AT THE CLOSING THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER TILA. AND BY DOING SO.

    5/ THIS TRANSACTION IS NOT ( CONSUMMATED. )

    6/ SO AGAIN THE ( LENDER ) HAS TO GO TO COURT, TO PROVE THAT THEY DID GIVE ALL REQUIRED DISCLOSURES..

    CANT GET PLAINER LANGUAGE THEN THAT.

    AND THEY MOST DO IT, IN THE 20 DAY PERIOD.

    IF NOT,

    THEY LOSE ALL RIGHTS OF DEFENSE, AS YOU,

    AS HOMEOWNER WILL FILE AFTER THE 20 DAYS, TO GET ALL THE FRAUD MORTGAGE AND NOTE OFF YOUR LAND RECORDS

    BECAUSE IF THEY DONT FILE IN 20 DAYS, EVEN IF THEY SAY IN THIER HEAD, ITS BEEN 5 YRS 8 YRS, 10 YRS 15 YRS.IT DOESNT MATTER, THEY MUST FILE.

    AND IF THEY DONT FILE, THEY ARE AGREEING TO WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE. THAT IT WAS ALL FRAUD.

    EVEN IF THEY GO TO COURT TO FIGHT YOU GETTING ALL RECORDING ON LAND RECORDS AS FRAUD,.

    YOU SAY, YOUR HONOR, AS OF WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT JUST SAID, THEY HAVE 20 DAYS TO FILE A CLAIM, AS THEY DID NOT FILE IN THE 20 DAYS, THEY WERE AGREEING TO ALL THAT WAS SENT TO THEM, OR IF THEY DIDNT AGREE WITH THE RESCINDING, THEY HAVE TO FILE A CLAIM, AND STATE AND SHOW THE COURT WHY RESCIND WAS NOT VALID.

    The lender argued that the borrower hasn’t rescinded unless it actually initiates litigation.

    Not so, the Court held today.

    The statute explains, in terms the Court regarded as “unequivocal,” how “the right to rescind is to be exercised:

    It provides that a borrower ‘shall have the right to rescind, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so.’” Because that language “leaves no doubt that rescission is effected” by the borrower’s notice, the borrower does not also need to sue within the three years.

    The rest of the opinion swept aside all of the lender’s arguments as pointless in the face of the language.

  26. and to christine,

    as you say you have won a case??? so lets see the case you won , for a homeowner or maybe your self????

    so lets see it????

    or just say goodnight. all of us have been trying to help others , without cost. that’s what ameircans do to help each other, so lets see the american spirit come out in you.

  27. bravo, bravo, and a BIG BRAVO, TO E’TOLLE

  28. I concede npv – humans are gregarious creatures, yes, we are supposed to help one another we are useless standing alone we need to work towards a common goal especially when facing a challenges discussed on here and bitching about who is right us a stupid waste of time unless its constructive and its nit gern is my point. I definitely would not comoare myself to a hyena or pack animals kill or be killed, though they do have just cause they need to survive, i thought we evolved mire than a hyena, so no, thats not me but you are correct that we all have a strong survival instinct and as a mother then yes i concede – in part . Oh and you suck.

  29. Deb, I disagree. The human being is clearly a pack animal, and as you can see by the many blogs on mortgages alone, we are incredibly social, smart /stupid, handsome/ugly, pre-menstrual,hormonally stable, etc…

    One thing we all are is opinionated, right or wrong. Like you said; “It’s a blog”. As such, Christine has the same right to spew her take, just as you, yours.

    I personally like Hyenas. They work well as a team, and the pack/community is put before the individual mutt. A team of mutts is what built America, despite the viper banks nipping at their cute little hyena ankles.

    “Wouldn’t you like to be my neighbor?”

  30. Christine im no pack animal and neither are the others, i just cant see the point in putting down any effort to try to help in any way we can. Look we all made mistakes but its not garfields fault, and no, the whole truth is not always told on here in my humble opinion truth is kinda subjective – as in your truth my truth and THE truth ( gods) though since we are not groomed and coached and corrupted in our thinking as our opposition , most come here with a pure heart without the resources and we get pummelled into the ground in our efforts? After taking a beating also in court and denied our rights we thought we had like due process and equal treatment, so what if i for one , feel better getting my info- and thats all it is info, as factual as i can make out, into print, heard the saying express dont repress, may i add try not to depress, lets keep a sense of who we were before this went down, i would like that girl back – before all this hapoened to me, and as we read between the lines on here i get that others deal with the same. So thats my last word on that, i think you can be nice christine, so cool it post positive useful stuff despite your obvious contemp for Mr Garfield, Now this next point ill make is crucial – you do not see behind this little ” blogg spot” our cases have history and have particularties that its impossible for you to critique because you dont have all the facts, so, could ya be nice, neil created something and its not all bad , people read this and take away what they see as helpful after a while its easy to see whats not, helpful, but most of all it raises the public awareness of the people who want to at least try, probably without any resources to pay an attorney, and those that could for a while anyway, ate freakin noodle soup in order to pay one. I do advocate fighters to get an attorney if possible , a really experienced one, preferably in a class action..by the way i believe thats the next wave of forclosure litigation, borrower class action, its huge oppertunity for attorneys of our States to lift their head to that colorful sky and fight for their lifes work- the rule of law and above all justice. Im off my soapbox now thank you.

  31. Steve you should have been give a copy when you when back to sign the rescission 72 hours later, but rescission are only on refinances.

  32. “The statute allows a borrower to rescind any residential mortgage transaction until three days after the lender provides the disclosures that TILA requires”

    Quick question

    Does anyone know what the disclosure page is or looks like? Should we have been given these copies at closing?

  33. Deb?

    Something bit you? I thought better of you than to join the pack. Read those posts and count the winners, for Pete’s sake!

  34. Christine use that passport ok. You won so bugger off. People do not need your approval to blogg where the heck they want to , though God knows why you take it all so seriously its a blogg site, a blogg.

  35. E TOLLE- attaboy.
    Rock, whaddya say to that broadside?
    Let us know, we are all waiting with bated breath, as we await the great Rock, and his legal pontifications.

  36. Rock, I know you must feel the very ground quaking under your feet, that is, if in fact you’ve actually read the transcript from Jesinoski. Every one of your replies grasps more and more at smaller and smaller branches, dooming you and your bankster cohorts to one nasty ruling, for once in a blue moon. But don’t try and misconstrue their findings on this blog. Here’s what went down according to Ronald Mann, at scotusblog.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/opinion-analysis-shortest-opinion-of-the-year-explains-tila-rescission-right/

    The question before the Court was what steps the borrower has to take to rescind within the three years. The lender argued that the borrower hasn’t rescinded unless it actually initiates litigation (Rock’s stated view on this blog). Not so, the Court held today. The statute explains, in terms the Court regarded as “unequivocal,” how “the right to rescind is to be exercised: It provides that a borrower ‘shall have the right to rescind, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so.’” Because that language “leaves no doubt that rescission is effected” by the borrower’s notice, the borrower does not also need to sue within the three years. The rest of the opinion swept aside all of the lender’s arguments as pointless in the face of the language.

    Given the uphill battle the lender faced with the language, its only hope of prevailing was to put the case in some context that would make the result seem too unpalatable to tolerate. In my view, the strongest point the lender presented looked to the historical structure of rescission. Specifically, rescission at law required the borrower to tender the entire amount of the loan, while rescission in equity would have required a judicial decree. Countrywide suggested that a Congress concerned about practicalities could not have intended to remove both of those avenues for rescission and allow it to occur by a simple notice. This would allow, the lender emphasized, frivolous claims of rescission from borrowers motivated to avoid foreclosure as a response to their extended nonpayment. Think “deadbeats.” In the background, given what we know now about the recordkeeping propensity of entities like Countrywide, those claims will be most difficult to rebut three years after the fact.

    Certainly a well-presented argument, but not enough. The Court responded: “Nothing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a congressional Act must be construed as implementing the closest common-law analogue.”

    So Rock, your attempt at rewriting history here will do you no good. You’re plainly on the wrong side of this debate. Go back to your bank branch and count change.

  37. Im in agreement Davidb – if they want to argue then they file for declaratory relief- maybe they are not entitled to file for declaratory relief, for some reason 😳
    anyhoo the act is self enforcing – 20 days

  38. All of you who lost your home ( in non juducial state) study the ” trustees deed upon sale” i think the apple doesnt fall far from the tree in as much as if the trustee subing the trustee lost control of the asset and a few robosigners later tada we have a trustees deed upon sale then we have a series of “wild” deeds recorded, and complete slandering of the public land records, and it is a misleading record for the next fool who buys a post foreclosure – sorry a bit off topic but not really, because it boils down to who says you are obligated to pay as in debt owed and who calls themselves the ” beneficiary” the thing is it traces back to the original sin if you like.
    Again – just thinking out load not a lawyer.

  39. IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW LONG IT BEEN, IT COULD BE 5 YRS,8 YRS, 10 YRS 15 YRS,.

    THEY MUST FILE SUIT AGAINST YOU TO DEFEND THEY HAVE RIGHT TO YOUR MONEY,LOAN,MORTGAGE ,NOTE. .

    THEY HAVE TO TELL JUDGE LOOK ITS BEEN 10 YRS , AND THEN THE STORY BEGINS,.

    AND IF THEY DONT FILE WITH COURT IN 20 DAYS, THEY LOSE ALL THERE RIGHTS OF DEFENSES.

    JUST AS THEY HAVE DONE TO ALL OF US FOR 15 YRS NOW.

    USSC SAID THAT WAS NOT THE LAW.

  40. ROCK,

    what YOU dont UNDERSTAND, is this.

    no matter right or wrong if you SEND OUT A RESCIND LETTER,

    they most by law EITHER TO EXCEPT IT AS TRUE FACTS AND IF THEY DO EXCEPT IT AS TRUE FACTS, THEN LOOK OUT.

    or FILE SUIT TO TO DEFEND AS NOT TRUE FACTS. THAT WHY A HOMEOWNER DOES NOT HAVE TO FILE SUIT.

    ITS that SIMPLE.

    IF THEY DO NOTHING IN 20 DAYS, THEN THE HOMEOWNER CAN GO TO COURT AND SAY I RESCINDED THIS DEAL AND THEY NEVER DENIED IT OR EXCEPTED IT. BUT THE LAW SAYS .I WIN AND BY THE WAY JUDGE THATS WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ALSO SAID ID THE LAW.

    THEY LOSE PERIOD. BUY BUY.

  41. A rescission is only on monies borrowed on a refinance as there is no rescission on a purchase. The period is 72 hours and as most had some monies going to the borrowers it was standard to have the borrowers pick up the checks and sign the rescission document at that time. So I am somewhat confused as to all this talk about rescission.

  42. Rock, on March 10, 2015 at 4:56 pm said:
    E. ToLLe, I said the homeowner had to return all monies lent after the bank returned all monies paid.

    Again, 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 all money that they have made on selling your note mortgage,

    and terminate its security interest.

    The borrower then must tender the loan proceeds to the lender. or fair value.

    Should the lender wish to contest the rescission notice,

    it will send a letter so stating to the borrower. Then either the lender or the borrower may file a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the notice was valid. right.

    no way. any borrower filing this would be stupid.

    Also, if the borrower defaults, the lender will file a foreclosure action or initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings as appropriate for that state. The borrower would then assert rescission as an affirmative defense to foreclosure or in a declaratory judgment action to halt a nonjudicial sale.
    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.

    you need to READ THE LAW. SO SO SO WRONG.

  43. Rock thinks he is so smart but he is just a tool of the banks. If in cases we seen in a Holm v. Wells Fargo or re:Franklin if the allege holder cannot prove that they originated or purchase the loans that they are modifying and a modification is given, they not dealt with existing debt but have created a new contract for debt, as the actual holder of the old debt in Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) stop existing on Sept 25, 2008 when in fact all there assets were sold, and therefore could not pay the principal and interest payment of the securities that WaMu created and sold.

    Ginnie Mae MBS are not created by Ginnie but are created like the VA & FHA loans under a loan guideline, where its the lender who are lending the monies and not Ginnie, FHA or VA. After Sept 25, 2008 it was impossible for WaMu to act for itself because they no longer existed, so another entity like MERS, JPMorgan or Wells could not represent the “failed bank” as declared by the FDIC.

    The Notes are a contract between two parties in the lenders and borrowers, in which both parties have rights, however once the Notes are signed endorsing them in blank and physically relinquish as all Ginnie Mae pooled loan are, they it transfers the blank Note to that entity who physically possesses it under UCC3, however if that entity that in possession want to call the loan due, and it is not the originator of the loan it must show proof of purchase when it is demanded under UCC9.

    Here we are over 6 year later and instead of simply providing a receipt of purchase, the banks are providing DocX and MERS forgeries instead. If you had legal documentation you who not pay some outlaws to forged millions of titles!

  44. [PDF]EXECUTION COPY RMBS TRUST SETTLEMENT …
    bankrupt.com/misc/ResCap_RMBSTrustSettlement.pdf
    This RMBS Trust Settlement Agreement is entered into as of May 13, 2012, by and … Purchase Agreements and/or other agreements governing the Trusts (the “ …

  45. E. ToLLe, I said the homeowner had to return all monies lent after the bank returned all monies paid.

    Again, 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 will send a letter so stating to the borrower. Then either the lender or the borrower may file a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the notice was valid. Also, if the borrower defaults, the lender will file a foreclosure action or initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings as appropriate for that state. The borrower would then assert rescission as an affirmative defense to foreclosure or in a declaratory judgment action to halt a nonjudicial sale.

    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.

  46. 12-12020-mg Doc 320-2 Filed 06/11/12 Entered 06/12/12 00:00:34 Exhibit 2
    Pg 8 of 39

    EXECUTION COPY
    -7-

    ny-1040888
    ARTICLE VII. RELEASES.

    Section 7.01 Releases. Except as set forth in Article VIII, as of the Effective Date, with
    respect to each and every Trust for whom the Trustee accepts the compromise contemplated by
    this Settlement Agreement, the Investors, Trustee, Trust, and any Persons claiming by, through
    or on behalf of such Trustee (including Institutional Investors claiming derivatively) or such
    Trust (collectively, the “Releasors”), irrevocably and unconditionally grant a full, final, and
    complete release, waiver, and discharge of all alleged or actual claims, demands to repurchase,
    demands to cure, demands to substitute, counterclaims, defenses, rights of setoff, rights of
    rescission, liens, disputes, liabilities, losses, debts, costs, expenses, obligations, demands, claims
    for accountings or audits, alleged events of default, damages, rights, and causes of action of any
    kind or nature whatsoever, whether asserted or unasserted, known or unknown, suspected or
    unsuspected, fixed or contingent, in contract, tort, or otherwise, secured or unsecured, accrued or
    unaccrued, whether direct or derivative, arising under law or equity, against ResCap that arise
    under the Governing Agreements. Such released claims include, but are not limited to, claims
    arising out of and/or relating to (i) the origination, sale, or delivery of Mortgage Loans to the
    Trusts, including the representations and warranties made in connection with the origination,
    sale, or delivery of Mortgage Loans to the Trusts or any alleged obligation of ResCap to
    repurchase or otherwise compensate the Trusts for any Mortgage Loan on the basis of any
    representations or warranties or otherwise or failure to cure any alleged breaches of
    representations and warranties, (ii) the documentation of the Mortgage Loans held by the Trusts
    including with respect to allegedly defective, incomplete, or non-existent documentation, as well
    as issues arising out of or relating to recordation, title, assignment, or any other matter relating to
    legal enforceability of a Mortgage or Mortgage Note, or any alleged failure to provide notice of
    such defective, incomplete or non-existent documentation, (iii) the servicing of the Mortgage
    Loans held by the Trusts (including any claim relating to the timing of collection efforts or
    foreclosure efforts, loss mitigation, transfers to subservicers, advances, servicing advances, or
    claims that servicing includes an obligation to take any action or provide any notice towards, or
    with respect to, the possible repurchase of Mortgage Loans by the applicable Master Servicer,
    Seller, or any other Person), (iv) setoff or recoupment under the Governing Agreements against
    ResCap, and (v) any loan seller that either sold loans to ResCap or AFI that were sold and
    transferred to such Trust or sold loans directly to such Trust, in all cases prior to the Petition
    Date (collectively, all such claims being defined as the “Released Claims”). For the avoidance
    of doubt, this release does not include individual direct claims for securities fraud or other
    disclosure-related claims arising from the purchase or sale of Securities.
    Section 7.02 Release of Claims Against Investors. Except as set forth in Article VIII,
    as of the Effective Date, ResCap irrevocably and unconditionally grants to the Investors a full,
    final, and complete release, waiver, and discharge of all alleged or actual claims from any claim
    it may have under or arising out of the Governing Agreements. For the avoidance of doubt,
    nothing in this provision shall affect Ally’s rights in any way.
    Section 7.03 Agreement Not to Pursue Relief from the Stay. The Institutional Investors
    agree that neither they nor their successors in interest, assigns, pledges, delegates, affiliates,
    subsidiaries, and/or transferees, will seek relief from the automatic stay imposed by section 362
    of the Bankruptcy Code in order to institute, continue or otherwise prosecute any action relating
    to the Released Claims; provided, however, nothing contained herein shall preclude the
    1

  47. INFORMATIONAL NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY FILING BY
    RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC AND CERTAIN AFFILIATED ENTITIES
    DATE: August 10, 2012
    TO: Holders (“Holders”) of those certain certificates, notes, or other securities
    issued by each of the securitization trusts listed on the attached Schedule A
    (each, a “Trust” and collectively, the “Trusts”)
    THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT IS OF INTEREST
    TO THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE ABOVE LISTED CERTIFICATES. IF
    APPLICABLE, ALL DEPOSITORIES, CUSTODIANS AND OTHER
    INTERMEDIARIES RECEIVING THIS NOTICE ARE REQUESTED TO EXPEDITE
    RETRANSMITTAL OF THIS NOTICE TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNERS
    IMMEDIATELY. YOUR FAILURE TO ACT PROMPTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH
    THIS PARAGRAPH MAY IMPAIR THE CHANCE OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS
    ON WHOSE BEHALF YOU ACT TO CONSIDER THE MATTERS DESCRIBED IN
    THIS NOTICE IN A TIMELY FASHION.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Residential Capital, LLC (“ResCap”) or its affiliated entities serves in one or more
    capacities with respect to each Trust, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) currently
    acts as trustee or indenture trustee of such Trusts (the “Trustee”) pursuant to the terms of certain
    pooling and servicing agreements, indentures, and related servicing agreements (collectively
    referred to herein as the “Transaction Documents”). This notice is intended for those persons or
    entities that hold a security, note, or certificate issued in connection with a Trust.
    Bankruptcy Filing of Residential Capital, LLC and Certain Affiliates
    Please be advised that, on May 14, 2012 (the “Filing Date”), ResCap, together with
    certain affiliated entities (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions for relief under
    Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Cases” or the “Cases”) in the United
    States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) before
    the Honorable Martin Glenn. The Debtors’ Bankruptcy Cases are jointly administered for
    procedural purposes only under In re Residential Capital, LLC et al., Case No. 12-12020 (MG).
    The Debtors filed various motions to authorize them to continue to conduct their
    businesses in the ordinary course during the Bankruptcy Cases, including filing several motions

  48. “HEY NEIL, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE, so under the res-cap/gmac mortgaes and 5 other banks, the insurance as we know paid all trust claims at 100 percent…..”

    Hey, David. I need to catch up. How do we now this? I missed it being gone for awhile.

  49. Not only rogue attys but shills for the banks/servicers. Waste of time and energy.

  50. I said: “Generally the note is overdue or there would be no plaintiff, right?”. That’s true, too, but what I meant is the alleged sale and assignment is done post-default.

  51. HEY NEIL, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE, so under the res-cap/gmac mortgaes and 5 other banks, the insurance as we know paid all trust claims at 100 percent…..because of the remic tax problem. so any remic trust has been pay off in full.

    (ii). Reason for Calculation of “Weighted” Claims

    30. At the time the Plan Support Agreement was agreed to, the RMBS Trustees
    contemplated that servicing damage claims of RMBS Trusts whose Servicing Agreements had

    been assumed would be paid first, in full, from cash distributed on the Units distributed under the

    Plan on account of the RMBS Claims.31 Thereafter, it was learned that a priority distribution of

    cash proceeds would adversely affect the REMIC status of the applicable RMBS Trusts.

    To
    avoid such an adverse tax effect while at the same time honoring the priority nature of a
    servicing damage claim where the Servicing Agreement has been assumed and assigned,

    Art.IV.C.3(c) and (d) of the Plan implements the concept of an RMBS Trust’s total “weighted

    claim.” In order to calculate the GMACM Weighted Claim of an RMBS Trust, the GMACM

    Recognized Cure Claim is valued at 100%, and the GMACM Recognized Original R+W Claims,

    the GMACM Additional R+W Claims and the GMACM Recognized Unsecured Servicing

    Claims, if any, are valued at percentage distribution available from the GMACM Pool .

  52. I can’t really speak well to why something violated the fdcpa. I wouldn’t personally say my claim or counter-claim or defense is based on who funded the loan, because as I’ve said, I’m not sure it matters as to a HDC – the alleged bad act isn’t evident on the face of the instrument. Isn’t that the bar? (I forget) Without discovery, wouldn’t such a claim get pitched on mtns to dismiss or for sj? But, as a reminder, a holder in due course (to the extent article 3 even applies to these secured transactions) and I’m still on what is recited in the note as the bar for enforcment:

    “The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) defines a holder in due course as one who takes an instrument for value in good faith absent any notice that it is overdue, has been dishonored, or is subject to any defense against it or claim to it by any other person.”

    Generally the note is overdue or there would be no plaintiff, right? But is an allegation that it’s overdue at the time of alleged sale and assgt
    sufficient to defeat HDC status? I don’t know why it wouldn’t be.
    As to value, these assgts today purport to sell and assign the note for consideration unbelievably being paid to…..MERS, the ben. Seriously?

    I think fwiw that an fdcpa violation may be raised as a “claim in recoupment” when it would otherwise have been defeated by the statute of limitations. In other words, if there were such a violation, but it was 7 years ago, one may still use it in a counter-claim or as an
    affirmative defense. But one really does have to be aware of any HDC presumption and might have to defeat it because only certain defenses are available, time-barred or not, against a HDC. If you’re stuck with HDC presumption and can’t overcome it, then maybe the violations you’re claiming in recoupment can be artfully framed as violations that fall into the limited catagory of those available against a HDC (?)

    I only recently learned of this recoupment scenario. If X is the plaintiff, so one is the defendent, one may raise “old” issues as a defense or counter-claim, issues which one could no longer bring as the plaintiff. I think (caveat) it’s appropriately called off-set. If the bankster is claiming you owe him 500k, you claim, withOUT admission, that he owes you 100k (?) for violations of Y, like maybe the fdcpa. For an example of claims in recoupment, look at my comment at the last post (there’s one or more cases cited there). If one didn’t know this, is in the thick of it,
    have to figure out how to assert a counter-claim at this point and got me. It may be that as defenses, “old issues” may not now be raised since they’re to be raised in the first responsive pleading or they’re waived as a matter of law. Just maybe not so as a counter-claim.

  53. Et
    rogue attorneys if not licenseless rogue ” attorneys” stand out like a sore thumb after reading here over 6 years

  54. Rock said, “E.ToLLe, I’ve already explained how it works, as have others.

    I can only give you the facts, I can’t help you understand them.”

    So….you’re still saying that the borrower sends a rescission notice and then must file suit. Is that correct? That’s what you said on our last meeting. Help me understand this, oh Master.

  55. Npv said:
    Whether the original loan was/was not conveyed, or the monies were introduced at the original funding from a warehouse lender is an argument for another day

    They move you as far from that as they can get away with in my humble non lawyer opinion

  56. Half truths told on here do your own research

  57. Creating the record in court and keeping all your documents in order is essential

  58. Sad thing regarding claims under FDCPA you end up loosing your home before you have the amo – proof
    No over yet, ill keep you posted.

  59. Not sure what Rock’s gig is, and i am completely pro-homeowner, but he is right – the modifications, although necessary to newly securitize the loan into a pool of re-performing notes, is not a new loan, and therefore would not recommence the TILA period.

    Whether the original loan was/was not conveyed, or the monies were introduced at the original funding from a warehouse lender is an argument for another day.

    Hinging your case on a modification of the original loans docs helps the Judge throw you out of the house.

    “Mr. Default, is that your signature on the promissory note?” Homeowner meekly replies; “Yes your Honor.” … and Sir is that your signature on the modification document?”

    “Your honor, forget the signatures on the documents” This is a fake modification, premised on a fake closing, and I do not know which claim allows it, but I want a check for $180,000 from everyone involved.”

    That argument is not going to go well!

  60. Rock is an alleged cyber bully.

    NEVER AGAIN

  61. Javagold, the answer is no. They are only “modifying” your original contract, not giving you a new loan.

  62. E.ToLLe, I’ve already explained how it works, as have others.

    I can only give you the facts, I can’t help you understand them.

  63. so does a loan modification restart the alleged 3 years SOL clock ticking. And is it considered a purchase mortgage or a refinance ???


  64. The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind (Documentary) – Hidden Secrets of Money 4 | Mike Maloney

  65. When you know you are right.
    When you know your home is yours.
    When you know you were the creditor in the transaction.
    When you know the bank and the judge (also a banker) stole your home.
    When you know the financial system is a fraud.
    When someone makes you leave your property and sells (rents) it to another without your permission.

    Is it really your fault?
    We go to jail for what they do using a purported legal system.
    The banks bookkeeping/accounting is fraud induced.
    The courts judgment / order bookkeeping/accounting is fraud induced.

    When someone comes here, and says they are the only one who won their home, are they representative of all the people who should not have had ours stolen, regardless of how we approached the thieves?

    One out of millions, is that representative of our society and the extent of the thievery?

    Can’t we still find one case where someone kept the right to keep their home, just like we can find hundreds of thousands where they did not.

    Can one’s purported win, be used by all the attorneys in the United States and halt theft in the name of foreclosure once and for all for everyone still in the process of going through this mess?

    We know it’s all fake.
    We know they loaned no money.
    We know they suffered no loss.
    We know by our signature, they typed some digits into a computer and voila!, instant currency, for which life energy is demanded in return.

    Life energy built the home with the Voila instant currency paid to those that labored to build it, and life energy was used to purchase the home with more Voila, instant currency, but really, did the bank lose anything when they packaged the Voila instant currency and sold it to people promising them access to our life energy for paper they created by typing in a computer, Voila!

    Really, can they sell our energy like that with their “currency” (energy/current), and then tell us we have no right to shelter when we question them about the transaction?

    We KNOW.
    Judges KNOW.
    Judges are bankers too, the bench is an seat of their office or status, but they have no properly recorded oath. They are thieves acting in a capacity, like a pro se is acting in a capacity when standing before them.

    Judges are just like pro se. They aren’t real in any real capacity, they are impersonators and they steal using paper, Voila, just like banks steal using paper, Voila!

    When someone can take 30 minutes to make a beautiful documentary about a scam over a hundred years old, and we got caught in it and you have one who claims to have escaped the scam, who will you believe is telling the facts?

    One who escaped while millions upon millions upon millions still go through this? Are they a savior? Many of us when were were going to be robbed, we came here and brainstormed our remedy and one by one we were plucked off the rolls and robbed of our rights no matter how hard we tried to protect them without violence.

    One who won their home, came here too, looked at what we were discussing, tried something different, and is STILL here, being less than polite to others who come here just the same when they found their selves dealing with this same problem 7-8 years later.

    If you had your home, would you still be trolling this site to talk in less than polite manner to those who were robbed? What kind of people get their kicks off reading what we have to communicate about so they can remind us of what we posted 7 or 8 years ago?

    Have you noticed they can tell you what you posted way back then, as if they’ve archived everything posted here?

    Does a regular, every day, have a job, have a family, people post on sites like this to people they don’t know in such a fashion, without being paid to do it?

    Does someone secure in their home and property come here to enjoy the comments of people who still brainstorm about the corruption?

    Well if one was getting paid, and this was their day job, regardless of the name they use, and regardless of the fact that they communicate with their self using different names, doesn’t it make sense something is not clicking with people who do that?

    I’m saying they aren’t giving full disclosure, but they sure express anger. Ever wonder why?

    Every post, they can tell you what you put up here years ago, and if you gave personal info, they’ll recall that too.

    We have been profiled, and they continue to do it, and they are here to see what we come up with so they can take it to someone to ‘stop it’ before it gets started, but this is a public blog, so what do we care whose reading it, right?

    The world knows about the scam, we have been robbed.
    You can’t claim lost what was stolen when you know who the thief is.

    Lipstick on a pig……………………all day long.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  66. hey rock,
    here is what I see as to what ng is saying and I agree with him, and to the extent that tila would also be in this. this is what I got in mail. from servicer, and gmac mortgage llc.
    word for word.
    dear, William a marshall sr.
    this Repayment Agreement, ( ‘ AGREEMENT ‘ ) made November 4,2011 ( THE ‘ EFFECTIVE DATE ‘ ) , , between William a marshall sr, and GMAC MORTGAGE ,LLC,( LENDER ) and amends and supplements ( 1 ) the mortgage, deed of trust to secure debt, ( the security Instrument ) dated November 08, 2005 and ( 2 ) the promissory note ( note ) bearing the same date as , and secured by the security instrument which covers the real and personal property described in the security instrument.
    so they were changing the mortgage and note to new ( TURMS ) so being a new TURM IN A CONTRACT. then you most get all new DISCLOSURES TO THAT NEW CONTRACT, and all owners need to get a copy of all new DISCLOSURES ALSO.
    1/ my wife his daughter never got this agreement also. as she is on mortgage also.
    2 this is from para ( 9 ) of the agreement,
    ( 9 ) IF this agreement is CANCELLED,TERMINATED, OR RESCINDED FOR ANY REASON, ALL FUNDS RECEIVED WILL BE APPLIED TO YOUR LOAN AND WILL NOT BE REFUNED.
    I MADE ALL PAYMENTS WITH THIS AGREEMENT, AND WHEN SENT THE NEW MOD, THEY CHANGE ALL AMOUNTS. SO WHO , PLEASE TELL ME WHO DEFAULED ON THE AGREEMENT???

  67. Rock, you obviously relish in your schadenfreude. Have you anything to add, anything at all, that can assist a borrower in this rigged, sinister game? Or do you have nothing but sneers?

    I called you out on your insistence that a borrower, in order to rescind, had to file suit, a view that is directly opposed to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. You were adamant in your posts that Garfield et al were wrong. Can you clarify your stance?

    If the answer to both of these questions is no, which I’m confident, is the case, then just exactly why do you bother returning to this site? To toss barbs and insults?

    Get a life

  68. Loan modification actually creates a new contract IMHO.

  69. Rock, again you are a very sad person!!! You are not here to help only to discourage!!! The only other person I know would do this is a banker or the bankers lawyer!!!

  70. Garfield states: “another analysis from one of my trusted “anonymous” contributors who really know what is going on.”

    Actually, its “another analysis from one of” his trusted “anonymous contributors” who has no clue what he’s talking about.

    I wonder is it Jim Macklin who already lost his home to foreclosure, or is it Dan Edstrom who is in the process of losing his?

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: