Aurora Home Loan (Dissolved –now DLJ Mortgage) Goes Down in Flames

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

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

The only thing I would add to this is that Aurora was never real — it was a sham corporation to continue the illusion of ownership and rights to enforce unenforceable mortgages that were fraudulently created and where ownership was fraudulently created by self serving documents. The purpose of Aurora was the same as what Chase did — create a vehicle by which ownership of loans or rights to enforce are claimed to exist even when they don/t Aurora was a creature of the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers. It is interesting that Aurora Loan Services is now DLJ Mortgage which matches with an old name on Wall Street — Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette — another investment bank that was active in “securitization.” So we have gone from Bankrupt Lehman to DLJ who was a player all along.

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

March 5, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No. 32A04-1403-MF-104

Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court
The Honorable Matthew G. Hanson,
Special Judge
Cause No. 32D05-1109-MF-522

On July 31, 2009, Plunkitt and Imbody filed a joint Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that Aurora could not enforce the note unless it showed that it was in possession of the original note. On the date of the hearingon the motion to dismiss, Aurora produced the original note, unendorsed, with no allonges attached to it. At the hearing, Aurora requested and received additional time to respond to the motion to dismiss. Three months later, in October 2009, Aurora filed its response to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. To its response, it attached for the first time an “Allonge to Note” which purported to show that CIT had endorsed the note to Aurora. Appellant’s App. pg. 114. Aurora also argued, as an alternative theory, that it was entitled to enforce the note as a non-holder transferee pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”) section 3-301(2), codified at Indiana Code sections 26-1-3.1- 301(2).
Plunkitt and Imbody filed a motion to strike the purported allonge and Aurora’s new theory of recovery, emphasizing that the undated allonge had not been produced or even mentioned during the nearly two years of litigation of the matter and that Aurora’s alternative theory of recovery was outside the scope of the pleadings. The trial court agreed with the Defendants and struck the allonge and the alternate transferee argument. The court then granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, noting that “striking having occurred, evidence that [Aurora] is the holder of the Note that is the basis of litigation in the within cause is totally lacking.” Appellant’s App. p. 126. Aurora moved to file a second amended complaint, and the trial court denied the motion. Aurora did not appeal the dismissal of its November 7, 2007 complaint.

In September 2011, nearly two years after the trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the first cause of action (“Aurora I”), Aurora filed another complaint under a separate cause number in the same superior Court.The complaint sought to enforce the note pursuant to Indiana Codesection 26-1-3.1-301 and alleged the same or substantially similar facts as the complaint filed in Aurora I. To the complaint, Aurora attached both the allonge stricken by the trial court in Aurora I and a second allonge, which purported to contain a blank endorsement of the note by Aurora. On November 1, 2011, Plunkitt and Imbody filed a motion for a more definite statement, noting that Aurora failed to state under which legal basis in Uniform Commercial Code section 301 it sought to enforce the note. Aurora amended its complaint on December 7, 2011, asserting that it was the note’s holder pursuant to U.C.C. section 301(1), codified at Indiana Code section 26-1-3.1-301(1). On January 12, 2012, Plunkitt and Imbody filed a joint motion to strike both allonges and to dismiss the case pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6), Trial Rule 12(B)(8), and principles of res judicata. The trial court held a hearing on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on December 5, 2013. At the hearing, counsel or Aurora informed the trial court that Aurora Loan Services had been dissolved and noted that it had filed a motion to substitute DLJ Mortgage in Aurora’s place as plaintiff.
The trial court held Aurora’s motion to substitute plaintiff in abeyance pending the court’s ruling on the Defendants’ motion to strike and motion to dismiss. On December 9, 2013, based in part on the  Aurora I court’s order regarding the purported allonge, the trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to strike the allonges and dismissed the complaint pursuant to 12(B)(6), finding that “Aurora is still not a party with any provable right to proceed against the Defendant.” Appellant’s App. p. 20. The trial court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(B)(8) and principles of res judicata, noting that “the issue of whether default has occurred is still a matter that can be heard, but must be pursued by a correct Plaintiff” and that “the prior matter that was dismissed was done so based on the fact that the [Aurora] could not prove that they had a right back then any more than they can prove they have a right now.” Appellant’s App. p. 21.
Aurora filed a motion to correct error on January 9, 2014. In its motion, Aurora argued that the trial court failed to apply the proper standard when striking the two allonges and in determining that Aurora was not entitled to enforce the note and that the trial court should have converted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Aurora also requested leave to file a second amended complaint to assert an alternative theory of recovery based on Indiana Code section 26-1-3.1-301(2) and -301(3). The trial court denied Aurora’s request for leave to file a second amended complaint and denied Aurora’s motion to correct error.
CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking two allonges submitted by Aurora with its complaint and did not err in denying Aurora’s motion for leave to amend its complaint. The trial court did err in failing to convert the Defendants’ motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, but because Aurora was provided a unique and ample opportunity to rebut the Defendants’ arguments over the course of two cases involving the same facts, this error was harmless.

16 Responses

  1. Jve
    Theres nothing like an ” evidentiary hearing” to create the record remember what is permitted and presented into evidence you can use however you want this is the rope they get to hang themselves with later – so long as you can remain in court. Patience truely is a virtue.

  2. Christine
    This i agree with ya
    You said
    “Doesn’t anyone realize that editorials don’t make a defense and that personal research is absolutely necessary?”
    Nuff said now.

  3. The cite is “In re Nosek, US Bank.Court, Distr. Mass. (Worcester), Rosenthal, J.” There are a number of Decisions along the weary path of that bad-ass case, where Wells Fargo and Ameriquest and their various lawyers got seriously whacked for about $650,000 total for misleading the Court as to their status in a filed Proof of Claim.

    The best part about that saga was that the shack they were fighting over was worth at best maybe $15,000, and that would be on a good day. Keep in mind that a portion of the Judgment was set aside on appeal by the bank on the grounds that Judge Rosenthal had not held an Evidentiary Hearing, so if you get in this situation and want to really whack the bank or servicer and their law firms, be sure to ask for an Evidentiary Hearing, so you have foundation for the big-bucks Sanctions. In “Nosek,” eventually the Court held a Hearing after reversal and remand and then Judge Rosenthal whacked them for a flat $500,000, from which there was no escape. All in all, a very expensive knuckle-rapping for some bad-ass bankers and their law firms. Makes a fellow proud to be an American.

  4. Jan van Eck, on March 11, 2015 at 10:57 am said:

    “I would have to disagree with the presentation above. Although “Aurora” may be dissolved, it is not “now DLJ Mortgage.” DLJ Mortgage is yet another paper sham corporation, and has an interesting history.”

    Very serious error on the part of a website that purports to help homeowners fight foreclosure. Anyone having just read today’s editorial, having Aurora as a player, relying on NG’s representation that it is now DLJ Mortgage and stating that much in a pleading would look like an imbecile and open himself to the court’s scorn, if not a flat-out dismissal.

    Doesn’t anyone realize that editorials don’t make a defense and that personal research is absolutely necessary?

  5. I don’t know what NG thinks is the significance of this decision from 2013 (in a case started years earlier). The only thing terribly noteworthy imo is the request for a more definitive statement. Banksters no longer show up generally with unendorsed notes, for instance. Nope, they just show up with them, probably manufactured like the rest of their junk if not the notes themselves. The case started before the banksters current m.o., so this is just a case where their current bs m.o. wasn’t implemented – yet. Every time we learn how to handle a, b, or c, they’ve got a d waiting in the wings.

  6. Nice post trespass – it boils to being spineless and without any conscience of duty when their soul knows what they do is wrong, and the likes that ensure ” immunity” will throw that low hanging fruit that (did their ” protectors”dirty work fully aware and instructed of the task )under the proverbial bus. This is how they ” save face” but it will not be long before the cycle repeats itself unless they get a cure, and changes from the top down, or perhaps ” bottom up” – the latter is my fear.

  7. the A man – what’s really sad and outrageous is that if a person were actually in foreclosure, but not foreclosed, few would care, esp a court,
    that his (clearly occupied) home was invaded and defiled.

  8. From LL in 2010:
    “The Court went on to show why the MERS assignment was a legal nullity, citing the LaSalle Bank v. Lamy case from New York, the MERS v. Nebraska Department of Finance case, the Arkansas and Kansas Supreme Court cases on the lack of authority of MERS, the Saxon v. Hillery case from California, and the In Re Vargas case from the California Bankruptcy Court to demonstrate that MERS’ capacity is limited and that MERS had no authority to execute the assignment. The Court held the assignment to be invalid.”

    I have all these cases somewhere if anyone wants them and they’re probably online (I could find them because I know their names, that is, unless they’re on my old ‘toast’ computer) I forget what LaSalle was about (x I think sec’n). Nebraska is an anti-MERS favorite because MERS or MERSCorp swore it had no interest in the notes and as I recall no interest in the coll instruments. For a court to have cited Nebraska in the context in which it was cited – a decision to hold an assignment invalid, the court was taking notice of the claims MERS had made in that case. (me: yahoo) Vargas is a gem. Among other things, the banksters were sanctioned (from memory) among other things for seeking relief from stay for unidentified parties by stating “ABC, its successors and or assigns” in their mtn for relief. That gang wrongfully asks for this is each and every single action it files or motion for relief it makes by the use of “successors and or assigns”.

    And don’t forget Nozek (Nozak?). Both these cases resulted in
    6 figure sanction awards. Think it was both WF and fnma that got it in nozek.
    These decisions are prob online, and I may have some of the actual pleadings, also, in one or more of these cases. I certainly have
    some of MERS in Nebraska.
    Before anyone throws in the towel and submits to mers ability to
    sell and assign anything, she might want to look at these cases,
    see based on exactly what the courts made their determinations, and
    compare that to the basis for diff determinations in other cases. Is it merely that the same laws are interpreted differently or is it that one
    court had to disregard something in coming to its decision? (say)
    How bout faulty or missing reasoning (say)? One legal tenet can’t mean x here and y over there imo.

    One state’s SC says that MERS is not the ben. So far so good. But then, it goes on to prescribe a relationship between Mers and X for which there is zero support, but which relationship the court claims supports the claimant’s claim. When I read it, I was incredulous because it was nothing but a groundless leap to find the relationship and yet it was done without explanation of just how they got there (wings?)

    You naysayers please don’t bother me with each case is diff. They’re a lot the same, more than they’re different. A sale and assgt is being
    alleged after and not before a borrower’s alleged default and if the current assgt is not the one from “MERS”, it’s dependent on the one that was. A sale and assignment is being done (post-default) to a party who claims to rely on provisions of article 3 for his right to enforce the note AND for HIS RIGHT to an assgt of the collateral instrument which he needs to enforce that alleged right. How does poss of a bearer note (not a transfer) create a right to the collateral instrument? It doesn’t and that’s why they make the assgt an alleged sale and assgt of both.

  9. If aurora loan services has morphed into anything else, imo it’s nationstar. I’ve heard that aurora, on info a delaware entity, filed bk a few years ago, which could matter if true. But I know this: there isn’t anything they wouldn’t do to get what they want. Fraud and perjury is nothing to those guys. But, NG, I’m with Jan. Aurora existed in CO prior to securitization (at least 90’s). They were a ‘sponsor’ for area brokers and sold the stuff to Lehman and fnma and fhlmc and serviced those loans. There were big bucks in servicing even before this mess. They closed their wholesale division or minimized it around 2008 or so, meaning they only mostly sold paper they had originated themselves. They would have been a company, prior to closing their wholesale operation, which table-funded loans for smaller guys, the ones they sponsored and with whom they had those contracts I’ve cautioned about when NG says there’s no agreement because the named payee didn’t fund the loan. Imo, you simply can’t make that assessment without considering those contracts. I actually found one a couple weeks ago. I’ll link it if I can find it again. And as I’ve said, I’m not sure it matters who funded a loan when courts are relying on Article 3 with its holder in due course provisions. Since article 3 is being relied on, NG, I wish you tell us all why a holder in due course, particularly given any presumption made as to that status, need worry about who funded a loan. There are only a few defenses available to a HDC, so maybe you can frame for us how the payee not being the funder fits into one of those for the rest of us. But, imo, to do so, you can’t ignore those contracts between the payee and the table funder. I’ve tried to spell this out best I can (given that I’m not an expert by any means) that it matters if one is claiming as a HDC or not (re: defenses) and that one can’t ignore it and think to survive imo because the presumption may be hdc (which 86’s many defenses). In the case cited here, they asked for a more definitive statement.
    “On November 1, 2011, Plunkitt and Imbody filed a motion for a more definite statement, noting that Aurora failed to state under which legal basis in Uniform Commercial Code section 301 it sought to enforce the note.”
    Btw, last I thought I knew, endorsements were only to be on notes. Allonges were only allowed for articulated good reasons (the proponent explains why there’s an allonge instead of an endorsement on the note), but now they’re taken as rote. If I were today faced with an allonge, I’d try to figure out how to frame a demand for the explanation I believe is required (or should be).

  10. @ The A Man,

    I signed. I’m in. Thank You.

    You may also want to sign at “landtegrity.com”.

  11. I may sound like a nut, but, at this point, I consider NOT PAYING YOUR MORTGAGE IS AN ACT OF PATRIOTISM.

    Moreover, I feel distressed borrowers share a unique position in history vis-à-vis the entrepreneurs and creative force that combined to create this country in the first place.

    THOSE THAT DEFIED TYRANNY NO MATTER THE COST.

    THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE MATTER IS: OUR GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE INTENTIONALLY MISLABELED, “FEDERAL RESERVE” IS BEING MANIPULATED BY A PRIVATE BANKING CARTEL THAT HAS TIES TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

    The central banking system is the creature of the English Banking System.

    It has riddled its cancer through the ages confounding reason while piling corpses wholesale; disguised perhaps as a smallpox blanket, delivered by design into the welcoming arms of a parent intent upon bringing warmth to an innocent child.

    Such is the “Boom-and-Bust Cycle” of central banking…

    The Hook: low rates
    The Line: “Trust us, we will protect your best interests”
    The Sinker: I’m sorry you didn’t understand our intentional deceit.
    But you did sign the paper.

    “Oh, and by the way, We The Bankers and Our Lawyers control the paper, so despite the fact we severed our legitimate claims to any lawful ability to collect, we’ve decided to un-bankrupt ourselves by stealing your homes…

    “In fact, We The Bankers and Our Lawyers are so confident we can continue along in our criminal deceit… business-as-usual, after all… we doubled-down and created 682 Trillion American ‘Federal Reserve Dollars’ betting we can collect that money once your foreclosure fulfills our design as a foregone conclusion”.

    Bloodsuckers.

    I admit I am baffled by the ubiquity of vampires, down-the-ages, and, in particular, recent successful attempts, in Hollywood, to render them more “user?-friendly”. It seems likely Humanity has moved beyond the notion some unseen force may arrive unannounced to batter your door and open your throat…

    Speaking of Bankers: the central banking system is presently insolvent.

    In fact, according to their own rules it is well-past insolvent and the notion distressed borrowers, the-world-over, must be sacrificed in order to conceal their disgraceful, immoral and illegal behavior is cause for more than ropes of garlic to drive the evil away.

    As an early advocate of “Hemp”, while possibly best disposed to render the appropriate image of “Patriotism”, I feel George Washington would agree.

    Nowhere in our Constitution does it say: “Foreign, Private Bankers may create our money as debts owed to them; payable as principal and interest until such time as We The Bankers see fit to rob the heirs to the revolution even unto their dying breath… ‘let ‘em rip Vladimir’.”.

    I know for a fact the Constitution says something else entirely… and, while were at it, it also doesn’t say Wall Street is above the law.

    I say renounce the “Federal Reserve Notes; repudiate the fraud that is the current central banking paradigm; restore the “Greenback” and deliver the creatures of foreign banking predation into the light of day”.

    Then, explain to our elected politicians they must swear an oath of loyalty to our government and abandon the notion they serve the banks.

    Caves, canned hams and ropes of garlic are relics of the past; vampires no less…

    Our homes, canned hams like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Really and deceitful, blood-sucking bankers are relics of our present misfortune; a corrupted government no less…

    Once We The People step away from the circus clowns and myriad distractions delivered daily by a wholly-disgraced “News Media” I would suggest the whole crowd could use a good dose of throat-tightener…

    I’ll bring the Hemp…

    Plant more acorns, We are gonna need more trees.

  12. Long ago, if history we were told of, is true; men who thought they were above the law because they had a weapon and knew how to wield it, stole someone else’s cattle and livestock.

    They sometimes tried to modify their theft by converting the branding of the stock into something else that wasn’t registered in the public as a real brand. With a load of mixed branded animals and no proof how they obtained ownership, it was easy to discern they were stolen.

    When brought to justice some were hang and it may be possible some were shot by firing squad.

    There’s a lot going on here today, and one thing I can say about the government, no one knows what it’s doing when it does it, or what it’s trying to do when it does it.

    So they created the obam care thingy and that reduced the availability of drugs to people who are used to taking them to stay alive longer in this hell hole, but that also reduced the amount of drugs available to kill people who got the death penalty.

    They created laws to restrict the amount of ammo people can have access to, and began to purchase a lot of ammo their selves, and now Utah is bringing back the firing squad.

    You know, if someone has bilked and pilfered the public of their assets, the last thing we need to do it take them to a place for three hots and a cot, so they can pilfer us more with the comforts of a cell and some protections for their life when they did not protect ours.

    I say, sometimes to do what you NEED to do, you do what people do not like for you to do.

    We have multiple sets of people living here on this beautiful landscape. Those that think they can steal, and those that think it’s okay for those that steal to steal as long as they weren’t robbed, and those who have been robbed.

    The world has more of the latter, and it’s high time as the paperworks are revealed and the signatures of agreement and orders are presented, these people are judged by their own works.

    Ferguson, there is enough paperwork of what happened there to shock the conscience. All a cop has to do is say ‘he touched my gun’, and bam, bam, bam, someone’s dead, the next day (if his coworker buddies do a good enough job) he can show some injury to justify his homicide, and you put it on the news and the sleeping masses will eat it up.

    News headlines

    Executions by firing squad poised to make comeback in Utah

    Ferguson city manager out after Justice Department report

    Ferguson Report Fallout: State Takes Over Municipal Court After Federal Probe Found Misconduct

    Obama in Contempt of Court? Texas Judge Orders New Hearing for Violation of Amnesty Injunction

    ———————
    It starts by disenfranchising people of their basic liberty, and it moves up from there.

    Maybe 2015 was the year we were waiting on, and not 2012.

    The wheels of justice moves slow, but it seems to be moving in the right direction.

    Some more justice things are coming this summer, international justice hopefully. Immunity is an office thing, it’s not a humanity thing, so if someone thinks they have immunity because someone else told them they had it, what happens when the one who told them is no longer there to tell them they have it? Are they still immune? Were they ever?

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, State, In Jure Proprio (in One’s own right), Jure Divino (by Divine Right)

  13. The Banksters are messing with the wrong people now. They devoured the really weak sub prime borrowers now they are messing with people with the ability to stand up to them.

    http://www.news-press.com/story/money/2015/03/08/lawsuit-bank-breaks-house-give-explanation/24617523/#sthash.HLDl4rJl.UOedhc4h.dpuf

    Enough with the Nazi like propoganda against the homeowner.

    NEVER AGAIN

  14. I would have to disagree with the presentation above. Although “Aurora” may be dissolved, it is not “now DLJ Mortgage.” DLJ Mortgage is yet another paper sham corporation, and has an interesting history. When Credit Suisse bought Donaldson, Lufkin, in an effort to get into the dub-prime and alt-A mortgage business (because of the high mark-ups and thus capital that could be siphoned off from the investors), five managers inside Donaldson refused to move over to Credit Suisse unless CrSuisse agreed to allow them to set up a sham Delaware paper entity called “DLJ.” the five managers sit inside the Credit Suisse building at 11 Madison Avenue, Manhattan at 23rd street, at desks provided by Cr.Suisse., and run their cute little fraud scam operation.

    What DLJ does is pick up paid Notes from other “scratch-and-dent” outfits, which are paid off by credit-default insurance policies, usually paid by AIG, AMBAC, MGIC, or Radian Insurance group, and go collect on them again, by filing foreclosure lawsuits. The DLJ scoundrels simply do not tell the Court that the Note was already paid by insurance – and of course the defendant homeowner has no clue (although hopefully this post will wise them up). DLJ then hires yet another bought outfit, the notorious “Select Portfolio Servicing” out of Utah, to go act as the debt collectors. “Select” has an awful background; it used to be Fiarbanks Capital, before that got sued by the State of Washington and a $50 million judgment was taken against them. Fairbanks then folded, left town, and set up shop in Utah under the new label “Select,” but don’t kid yourself, it is the same collection of seamy scumbags.

    “Select” then sends out their goons, apparently ex-military guys who have seen combat, who proceed to harass the homeowner to move out by arriving in the dark past midnight and kicking on the front door, then running away in the dark. For rural properties, they will open up the well cap and drop in contaminants. they will park in your driveway and harass you, and sit in the street and take your picture. Seriously bad-ass actors.

    The reality, of course, is that this is all Credit Suisse. CrSu operates through these sub-entities to create plausible deniability, and craft a barrier to being sued. Make no mistake: DLJ is every bit as awful as Aurora, and possibly worse. Your counter-measure: sue Credit Suisse directly, and allege that DLJ as a sham corporation was set up to craft a phoney spacing from Credit Suisse for the criminal behavior.Since Credit Suisse itself has a Guilty Plea entered for assisting tax fraud, they have their own credibility problems.

  15. 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.
    david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on March 11, 2015 at 9:53 am said:
    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.

    E. ToLLe, on March 10, 2015 at 8:03 pm said:
    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.

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: