Bankruptcy Case reopened based upon prior rescission that was ignored

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

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

In a closed bankruptcy case, the debtor filed a motion to reopen it because the schedules were wrong — resulting from an erroneous interpretation of the law regarding rescission. Hence the prior rescission was effective when mailed and thus there were significant assets in the bankruptcy estate that were unencumbered by operation of law and thus were not computed in the discharge of debts and payments of creditors.

There is still some confusion in that court as to whether its prior rulings about the mortgage and note was non operational, but the court conceded that there was a problem as a result of the recent 9th Circuit decisions and the unanimous Supreme Court decision in which Justice Scalia confirmed what that everyone already knew — the TILA statute is specific and provides a specific remedy in “rescission.” It allows the borrower to cancel the deal and by operation of law that is all the borrower needs to do — by an ordinary letter. It is effective when it is dropped in the mailbox. The note and mortgage are gone. So in Bankruptcy, treating the home as though it was an encumbered asset and allowing foreclosure to go forward is plainly wrong — although supported at the time by erroneous rulings from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Case No. 11-02024: Eastern District California, Sacramento Division. In the matter of Macklin v. Deutsche Bank  National Trust Co. as Trustee for Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-2…on motion and notice provided, the court Grants the Motion to Reopen Adversary Proceeding. Upon review, there are no disputed factual matters  from the previously closed case, thus, the issues will be resolved without argument from the parties. Plaintiff argues that recent 9th Circuit and US Supreme Court decisions warrant the court reopening this case…the Court agrees. Tentative ruling and case disposition shall be mailed to parties’ counsel.

39 Responses

  1. SJ – this is NOT legal or any advice. It’s lay opinion. The new bk forms have places to mark if the debt is in dispute. Imo you need to list them as claimants on your secured creditors schedule and mark the dispute box (yes, you dispute the debt). In my opinion only, one needs to list those who have or believe they have a claim. They have to be noticed of your bk or the court will rule, again, my opinion only, they weren’t given an opportunity to present their side of things. Imo, the debtor’s schedules aren’t concessions in the first place. One is listing claims, not what is so. (banksters have argued otherwise, but the new dispute box helps make one’s position clear). As far as unsecured debt or secured debt schedules, if one rescinded the loan and was ignored,
    and if the rescission were upheld, there’d be neither imo because they failed to do what they should’ve done – returned your value and demanded the balance, basically. Be best if you had some good evidence of a rescission (which needs to be found timely). I’m not encouraging you btw – you’ve got a tough row to hoe. Just putting in my two cents about a bk schedule.
    Lay opinions – ask a lawyer

  2. There is an area on schedules where you can put a note. I would put that loan was rescinded on date? in every space where you list the property or the loan.

  3. I would show the “lender” as a non secured creditor on rescinded loan, and disputed. That would be on your schedules. For the list of creditors – I would list them.

  4. looking for insight on this:

    Back story/ actions til now fighting theft of home since 2008 forgery fraud on TILA docs forward ( Non funding of loan Forged assignment MERS fraud SEC/ PSA Fair Consumer Credit violations and first rescission letter ignored by original mortgage broker company (First Magnus)/ which was in lawsuit at the time (early 2007) by CT AG office for non funding of loans corporation (FM) lost all licensing including AZ (my location) AZ is a non-judical foreclosure state..

    I certified /sent rescission letters to all known parties with in the 6 known companies that have ‘serviced’ the non existent loan none responding (ever)in said 20 days ( it was mailed Oct of last year) I just had to file chapter 13 to stop trustee sale (again 3rd time ) date june 1 2016

    I need to file/ mail list of creditors Friday 6/3/2016 Sat 6/4 2016 latest. in the past I have put non secured loan from First Magnus eventually the last servicer/ attys put claim as creditor

    Here are the questions do I put them as creditor on mailing list and /or included them on schedules ? obvious reason not to is it was rescinded period and I don’t want to give them leeway to enter into “well you said” the converse is could I be held on fraud charges for not including them or is this the break point exactly,,?

  5. I am so sick of hearing that Judges assume people are trying to get a free home? !st of all if someone is in arrears how do they have the money $35,000 to file a lawsuit? 2nd in MA our Judges ignore the Rules of Law and the preponderance of evidence and the fact that the Foreclosure Laws were ignored and the bank admitted they couldn’t prove they complied. However we had a preponderance of evidence that proved FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT, PERJURY, FORGERY and JUDGE ignoring his oath. WTF is going on? How are people living in homes they haven’t paid a mortgage payment in over 4 years an innocent people who had homes paid off illegally lost their homes???????????????? The day is coming that these corrupt bankers, lawyers and Judges are gonna be held responsible! Obama is almost done as well as the Democrats that don’t give a shit. I can’t wait till they are exposed and fined or put behind bars where they belong!

  6. Might I suggest some Cheese to go with the Whine?

  7. Christine, please stop it right now, is it just that you dont want the truth to get out, or are you that stupid, with no common sense.

    the law of the land is done, and now we the people have been validated by the supreme court, oh wait, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO AND I REPEAT NO OTHER COURT, OR JUDGE, FEDERAL OR STATE, CAN CHANGE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY SAID.

    THAT ALL JUDGES IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE BEEN DEAD WRONG, AND WITH THAT SAID. THE BANKS HAVE TO.

    WITH IN 20 DAYS THE BANK,SERVICER,LAWYER FOR THEM, TRUSTEE,TRUSTS.

    MUST FILE IN 20 DAYS IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE LETTER OF RESCISSION. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

    NOW THE HOME OWNER HAS ONE YR TO FILE WITH THE COURTS TO GET THE BANKS/SERVICERS,TRUSTEE TRUST TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO BY OPERATION OF LAW,

    PAY ALL MONEY BACK TO HOMEOWNER..

    AND THEY CANT SAY A THING, AS THERE RIGHTS FOR NOT FILLING IN THAT 20 DAY PERIOD. TO ARGUE ANYTHING IS GONE, NO DEFENSES. NADA,CAPUT,GONE,BUY BUY, SORRY.

    THE ONLY THING THE JUDGE CAN DO IS INFORCE THE RESCISSION FOR THE HOMEOWNER AT THAT POINT, AS THEY DID NOT DENY THE RESCISSION NOTICE.

    AND BY THE WAY, THIS IS STILL GOOD EVEN IF THE LOAN WAS 10 15 YRS AGO, AS THEY NOW CAN NOT IF THEY DONT FILE IN 20 DAYS, SAY THE STATUE OF LIMITATION IS GONE. THEY CANT BRING UP ANY DEFENSE. NOTHING.

    SO ROCK,CHRISTINE, BITE ME. AND ONCE I HAVE THAT PILE OF CASH ON MY BED, I WILL POST IT ON HERE TO SHOW YOU. AM RIGHT.

    4 MARCH 2015, IN MAIL, THAT GIVES THEM UNTIL 31 MARCH TO FILE ANYTHING. JUST A FEW DAY AWAY. AM REALLY HOPING THEY DO. BECAUSE OF ALL THE DOC’S I HAVE, SHOWING ALL THE FRAUD.

  8. hey rock,
    you must be one smart person, so let’s see if you can , wait i have to make sure you will be able to comprehend this question,??
    ok. question ! and if anyone else would like to have a say, hum, like
    christine, as you have won so many caseS.

    can any bank, or servicer acting for a bank, or trust, or trustee, foreclose on a non-existent ( ASSET ) OF THE BANK,TRUST,TRUSTEE, .?

    SIMPLE QUESTION.

  9. Darn typos…

    Is LL actually what a black hole truly looks like?

    Bears repeating though… Is LL actually what a black hole truly looks like?

  10. Are you guys really looking to get better? Prozac ain’t working. LL Group Therapy ain’t working either. Proof is… “The wheels on the bus go “round and ’round”. Forever. And they still rehash the same, useless crap that NO ONE on this site (or in real life) has ever won on. NO ONE. Not. A. Homeowner.

    Yet… they come back to do… what? Look for answers to move on? (Not a chance. They’re stuck in that rut) To help others (with what? They can’t even help themselves!)?

    What is driving them? Reason sure isn’t. Proven results sure aren’t. Nationwide proof that NG’s crap doesn’t work isn’t.

    Is this what life looks like when one can’t get past a bad experience in life for want of analyzing what one did wrong, so as to stop others from making the same mistakes? It LL actually what a black hole trully look like?

  11. Lawsuit against Hillary.
    Haven’t read it, but heard it was a beautiful piece of work and includes RICO.
    Nice the people doing these lawsuits are including RICO
    From what I’ve read/heard, hearsay, a RICO suit is difficult because if it’s not written right (whatever right is), it will not be heard.

    http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150324-filed%20Clinton%20RICO%20complaint.pdf

    I’ll post it again as another blog comment to make sure everyone sees it.

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

  12. the point dwight re rescission, the right thereto, 3 years remember furget the 3 day paperwork thing, is this ,
    had they accepted it like a ” gentleman” would none of us would have gone through the pain and emotional suffering that we and our families have, because had they filed for declaratory relief, within 20 days of receiving notice then we would not be still in court.

  13. The books Dwight:
    If you are infederal court Thompson West FRCP try used books online and of course amazon a used will cost aroung $50 usd
    Then NOLO ” how to represent yourself in court” that’s excellent and easy to understand. If you can befriend a law student ?? you can also perhaps pAy a freelance paralegal who may have access to West law, thats the best. perhaps ask them to shepardize case law for you before you file.
    Check your time line – get the court order of the ruling you say was last friday, read well into the readons the judge decided as he did, read every word carefully there are clues in those orders, if you are within time line i would motion for reconsideration, attacking evety reason the order states with your up to date case law ( emphasis added) heres why – its more than likely you will have to appeal by the sounds of what you have posted here, but i believe never miss an opportunity to argue and create the record, otherwuse you may waiver a point, and never miss timeline and …never ever give up. So thats all i can suggest and i say suggest, assuming that you do your own research knowing thAt i am trying to help but am not a lawyer. Finally, do not piss off the judge do not piss off the judge do not piss off the judge – stick to your beliefs assert your rights politely and let them proverbial chips fall where they may. Good luck.

  14. I was hoping somebody would have a comment about the court in my case rejecting the Supreme Court ruling on rescission, thank you.

  15. Deb, I don’t have the books, but I’m surprised to hear that anyone else has already had a court reject the recent Supreme Court decision, my case was just heard last Friday .. I don’t think the Supreme Court decision was out when you were in court, was it? I’m talking about the ruling that was just written by Justice Scalia , I believe I’m one of the first to test it in court . You can’t give an opinion on what my next move should be? I understand you’re not an attorney, so don’t worry about that, we’re just having a discussion and sharing ideas and thoughts that could be considered. Thank you.

  16. Dwight
    Been where you are, hope you have those books i recommended, they help, as does a short term subscription to WestLaw.

  17. THIS WAS RESC-CAP/GMAC BK. BUT ALSO INCLUDED OVER 5 LARGE BANKS.

    OVER 500 SECURITIZED MORTGAGE TRUSTS, AND OVER 10 TRILLION IN DEBTS.

    GO TO TAB ON LEFT SIDE UNDER TRUST AGREEMNETS. READ LEARN.

    Welcome To The ResCap RMBS Trustee Website

    This website (http://www.rescaprmbssettlement.com) has been established by:

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,

    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

    DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS,

    U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AND

    WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

    In their several capacities as trustees or indenture trustees (collectively, the “RMBS Trustees” and each, an “RMBS Trustee”), to the holders of Certificates, Notes or other securities (the “Certificateholders”) under certain residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts (collectively, the “Settlement Trusts” and each a “Settlement Trust”), to provide public access to information of interest to Certificateholders under the Settlement Trusts, and to other persons potentially interested in the Settlement Trusts.

    On May 14, 2012, Residential Capital, LLC, and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, “ResCap”) filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) (In re Residential Capital, LLC, Case No. 12-12020 (MG) and related cases) (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”).

    This website concerns, among other things, proposed settlements of claims of the Settlement Trusts against ResCap and others in the Chapter 11 Cases. These claims include, without limitation, certain claims relating to the origination and sale by ResCap of mortgage loans and to certain aspects of ResCap’s servicing of those mortgage loans. The current proposed settlements (which have superseded prior proposed settlements in the Chapter 11 Cases), would, if approved by the Court, bind that Settlement Trust and related Certificateholders. Accordingly, the proposed settlements and related Court approval procedures materially affect the interests of the Certificateholders, and the RMBS Trustees respectfully request that all Certificateholders and other persons potentially interested in the Settlement Trusts read all notices and related information posted to this website from time to time carefully in consultation with their legal and financial advisors.

  18. JG said, “Deutsche et al says the assignment is not a current event, but a current memorialization mol of a past event.”

    That’s Okie Dokie. Now just show us all that the loan docs were transferred (and not just through winking a.k.a through a physical transfer) through the particular chain of parties to the trust proper, and NO LATER than 90 days after the trust closed.

    If they can get by that, they win. And they obviously can’t if they’re dancing that jig.

    Disclaimers:

    1. I haven’t read the case….

    2. I haven’t a clue of what I speak….

    3. I’m not wearing any pants….

  19. Deb, yes agree .. I was just relaying what happened last Friday in my case. It shows how my judge deliberately rejected the Supreme Court and shows one of the ways they will slither and spew venom in order to reject the rescission ..this snake serpent judge chose to spew and hiss about tender as his chosen method for rejecting the Supreme Court. But he didn’t have a trial or hearing to establish any facts about whether tender was offered or not, he assumed I had no way to tender. But Justice Scalia wrote about this and told the courts not to do this.

  20. Johng
    The arguments are hinged on far more than isolating ones right to rescind, but the decision sure adds clout, to my set of pleadings, others may see similar, Imho. Ill take it.

  21. Christine thats the problem everyone wants to ” walk away” with something, seriously, you very well know thus is about a lot more than the money or the house.

  22. Well, here we go. In the case NG linked yesterday, Deutsche et al says the assignment is not a current event, but a current memorialization mol of a past event. The past event is the sale to the trust prior to the closing date. The homeowner appropriately argues the (sale and) assignment is a current event by its language. If the banksters get their way on this, it won’t be pretty. Imo homeowners and their attorneys need to be watching this one if not pitching in. If anyone here is working with an attorney to save his or her home, what you might do to help if you care to is alert at least your own attorney about this majorly significant case. If the banksters get their way, it will, in very short order, shut down all opposition to late transfers to trusts.
    We have a rare opportunity to get in front of this one. At least I think we do since i’ve never seen the bankster’s argument in this case elsewhere. (I haven’t had time to look at rock’s tomes to see if this
    particular argument is in any of them, nor do I know that I will). We need our own white paper on this – yesterday.

  23. Dwight,
    i believe you simply rescind the deed of trust and note , you do not have to go into why – that’s their argument, as to why you cant, rescind. The rest will be up to you to say why you can as a defendant.
    Thats the way i understand it, and its not legal advice, just my lay person take on the rulings.

  24. No adversary proceedings will allow legitimate creditors to be short paid while the debtor walks away with a big payday. If the case is reopened and damages awarded retroactively, BK will be reopened as well and creditors will be compensated. As they should be. Using BK to fight foreclosure is one of the stupidest moves anyone could make. Except with a strategy such as this one:

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/file-bankruptcy-save-money-buy-a-home-cash/

    But Stopa wrote that piece in 2011, long before rescission was a viable option. I expect competent attorneys to confirm that Macklin will NOT walk away with anything. Not after having discharged his debts in BK and short paid everyone. The case being reopened, all the issues will come back on the forefront, including debt and debt payment. Common sense. And a little something called morality.

  25. The principle of law rests on truth. Truth will prevail.no question.

  26. Another point in regards to my rescission argument being denied by the court … In reply to my discovery requests, Wells Fargo objected to my demands for production of documents pertaining to origination, saying since they are only the current servicer and was not the originator, they don’t have access to those origination documents. So how do they now get away with stating that we received our TILA notices of right to rescission in our closing docs? Also, how does a MSJ by plaintiff and cross motions by defendant turn into the judge making assumptions on a rescission that occurred in 2007 without fully adjudicating it with facts, evidence, discovery, testimony? How does he undo a valid rescission and re-establish a void note and mortgage without making a declatory judgment ordering it? At the very least he should have recognized the note and mortgage were void at the time plaintiffs filed .. and what happened to my 3 yrs of payments due me? More than 50,000 dollars in disgorgement payments due to me as per rescission that was now ignored by this miserable judge. Why is Well Fargo now allowed to walk away with a 300,000 house when they were only due a tender of 180,000 ? He assumed I didn’t tender, but what does he base his assumption on? I never said I didn’t tender …furthermore, rescission isn’t hinged on tender according to Justice Scalia … My judge was defiant towards the Supreme Court and refused to accept their ruling…state court judges are obsessed with making sure the borrower does not prevail, even if it means thumbing their nose at a unanimous Supreme Court. This is arrogance and pure evil on the part of these out of control judges in state courts. At what point does the higher authority force these lower courts to obey the rulings handed down? This is abusive to deliberately ignore the Supreme Court and make citizens navigate their way thru appeals just in order to receive the correct ruling? What penalties are in place to prevent this abuse from taking place on the parts of defiant judges who deliberately ignore the Supreme Court?

  27. In Bk the trustee has rights to decide about who gets what, you give him that power but
    You also have the right to file an adversary proceeding which most folks in foreclosure with a good attorney know.

  28. The act of rescission puts the burden on them claiming rights to the collateral ( property) this opens new argument, to be decided… Excuse the pun… On its merits.

  29. And another thing to consider, how can you try to refinance with another ” lender” if you cant get a payoff amount and who you owe it to, if they cant argue the rescission then thats a pretty sorry state of affairs, instead the borrower ends up jumping through fifty legal procedural hoops and hooplala tricks – hence the justice demonstatred by the Supreme Court. Thank you. Thank you.

  30. And re tender, you cant truely tender if you do not have the accounting
    And thats minus equitible setoffs
    A) Because you cant be paid more than once
    B) you must be the right party TO be paid ( right Christine)

  31. “Hence the prior rescission was effective when mailed and thus there were significant assets in the bankruptcy estate that were unencumbered by operation of law and thus were not computed in the discharge of debts and payments of creditors.”

    Even if right of rescission was validly asserted, this case is a BK case. The court clearly stated that the issue was one of “damages” (not return of the house). And since there were debts (meaning several) and creditors (obviously more than one), even assuming damages are being awarded to Macklin, BK court will in all likelihood revisit the actual BK and use them to repay said debts and creditors. To expect that Macklin will cash in and walk away with a big pay out is what fairy tales are made of.

  32. The new Judge in my case (the other Judge who agreed to allow my case to proceed to trial based on Standing issues retired, now this new Judge was moved over after 10 yrs at Criminal Court and he has no understanding of the complexities involved in foreclosure defense, he kept stating on the record that he doesn’t understand how or why I am questioning the origination, the transfers, stamped endorsements, Washington Mutual, fabricated docs, etc. . he wanted to simply rely on the presumptions that this servicer had the note, end of case) during oral arguments last Friday on Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment, refused to accept the fact that the Supreme Court “clarified” the issue, and he ruled against me.

    In my affirmative defenses and counterclaim filed in June of 2014, I stated that I had rescinded within the 3 years allowed due to the TILA violations which included us not being provided the notices of right to cancel/rescind in our documents. This pleading in my answer to the FC complaint was proper and was done before the Supreme Court decision came out in 2015. The fact that I pleaded this prior to the Supreme Court decision lends to my credibility.

    Prior to the MSJ, the court had granted WF their motion to strike my Rescission defenses and counterclaim back in Sept of 2014.

    Now during the recent MSJ arguments, I had cross-motioned to reconsider those strikes against my rescission defense, and also motioned for this FC complaint to be Dismissed due to the Supreme Court decision.

    The Judge would have none of it, he was defiant and angry and accused me of “not having the money to tender regardless of my claim of rescission” .. he said “the rescission letter I mailed was not effective because I didn’t tender any money to the bank.”

    I never admitted to tendering or not tendering, so I don’t know how he was able to conclude or assume what he was stating on the record.

    Justice Scalia was clear and mentioned tendering as a side issue, he said the effect of rescission is not based on the tender, he said this is where the state courts are attempting to apply common law twists in order to deny a borrower protections that are clear and are Federal Statutes that are in place to protect borrowers.

    I tried to explain to my Judge that he was going against the Supreme Court .. I tried to explain that he was foreclosing on a note and mortgage that were void by operation of law .. they were void before the Plaintiff Wells Fargo filed the FC complaint. He disagreed and kept accusing me of “not tendering the money”. He sarcastically asked “Did you have 230,000 dollars when you rescinded?” … my reply to that was “I had the property, which was worth 300,000 dollars, but they were in non-compliance and ignored my rescission’ … he kept asking “but did you have 230,000 dollars cash to tender back?” .. I kept saying that I had more than that because I had the property” ..

    *** side note *** My argument went over his head, I was trying to say that if they had released the note and mortgage, I would have been able to refinance with a new bank and tender back the cash .. or, I could have possibly chosen to enter an agreement with them that I would sell the property, etc … he missed my point.

    But the law does clearly state that the borrower may tender either the money or the property. In my case the property had increased in value and why should they get a 300,000 dollar house when I only owed them 180,000 after deducting my 3 years of payments?

    WF is only a johnny come lately servicer, the refinance had already been originated by the pretender lender in 2004, immediately endorsed over to Washington Mutual, and WF took over as servicer in 2007 at the time I mailed my rescission letter (submitted a copy of the letter as an exhibit), WF has maintained all along that Fannie Mae owns this loan and that Wells Fargo is just a servicer and “holder” in order to foreclose.

    At this hearing they denied that Fannie Mae is the owner, contradicting documents I received from Wells Fargo. The Judge made a copy of those docs showing WF stating that Fannie Mae is the owner, but he didn’t allow that to stop him from granting them Summary Judgment.

    During the hearing WF interjected that “the defendants did receive the notices of right to rescind in their closing docs” .. but never offered proof of it. In his final conclusion the Judge mentioned that WF had stated the Defendants did receive the notices (he looked up as he read his decision and winked at the female attorney as he said this).

    The case is being sent back to the Trenton office of foreclosure to be processed as an un-contested foreclosure now, because the court has deemed that there are no issues of material fact that need to be adjudicated.

    I can’t even appeal this until a final judgment is entered?

    Can I file an interlocutory appeal at this point?

    or do I need to file another motion to reconsider?

    people are warning me that the court does not like when you file multiple motions to reconsider and can find me in contempt.

    what should I do ?

    File a separate action in Federal Court to enforce the rescission and / or injunction?

    Thank you for any thoughts and opinions on this.

  33. And… It has everything to do with law in my humble non lawyer opinion. Research my friend.

  34. Not arguing free house, i just think whats good for the goose is good for the gander, if i paid my mortgage in good faith the other side needs to account for it, and their authorized capacity to enforce the contract.

  35. The Free House arguement is a Bully economic racist propaganda tactic and has nothing to do with the law.

    NEVER AGAIN

  36. And yes, i argued the point under petition to ninth circuit, requesting an EN BANC rehearing, waiting to see. This new SUPREME COURT decision has now become, in my belief, of extreme legal a public importantance

    Not an attorney not legal advice just sharing info, research for yourself or/ and consult appropriately experienced council.

  37. I am terribly excited, i shall look at that case and i encourage others to. Thing is we see a shift here finally there is a window of hope, Neil said “Judges relying on presumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions of law and fact.” Then surely, If the rescission i sent had been argued, as i told the ” creditor” that they should file their argument since rescission as they know ( or should know) is self enforcing as the supreme court just clarified once and for all, then if left unchallenged and if they did not file their argument under declaratory relief (” creditor” has 20 days to argue it.) which should be a piece of cake for them assuming they know who they are collecting a debt for, or alternatively if they claim they are ” lender” cough cough, that response and could easily be a ” boiler plate” document, considering all the rescissions they must have received!
    I think the water the frogs sit in is starting to get a bit hot.
    so, im wondering, who in fact got a free house(s)

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: