RESCISSION DECISION ACROSS THE COUNTRY TONIGHT ON THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

More than 20,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.

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

RESCISSION: I have received hundreds of requests and questions. It boils down to one thing — the rescission IS EFFECTIVE the moment it is dropped in the mail. People, lawyers and even Judges seem not to understand what that means despite a very terse snip from Justice Scalia speaking for an unusually unanimous Supreme Court in Jesinowksi. What it means is that the deal is done, canceled, rescinded (stick a fork in it). And what it also means is that the time starts to run on the duties of the “lender(s)” to comply with that cancellation/rescission. Telling you in a letter that you had no right to send it is NOTHING, as a matter of law.

28 Responses

  1. YOU ARE CORRECT, BUT DON’T BOTHER WITH CHRISTINE. SHE IS A SHILL WORKING FOR THE BANKS. She is given a script and she posts it. Everyone needs to make a living. She has no effect on the livinglies movement. If she was really trying to contribute something she wouldn’t keep coming back to a website with which she “disagrees” so vehemently.

  2. If XYZ bought ABC’s loan, XYZ was free to do so with warranties. His failure to do so is his own undoing if he gets nailed for successor liability. (The risk of rescission is around for as long as the Act says and it’s not a secret). I’ve yet to reconcile a hdc (art 3) with tila in the first place (if article 3 applies to these loans at all, as even MERS has said it doesn’t – think it was in Hilmon, take 5). I still believe, and it’s partly argued in Erickson (LL post a few days ago, actual case linked by a reader – thanks), that the language in the note precludes the notes from being freely negotiable (“take note by transfer – v negotiation, sic – and have right to payments”). Erickson makes that argument if sparingly, re: the language in the note, but in reference to “mers” as a beneficiary (which Erickson opines it isn’t and can’t be).

    For a good look at a iittle of the lobbying efforts to maintain the status quo for securitization, see

    “Wells Fargo Arguments Re Safe Harbor Amendments” at scribd.
    Imo it’s one load after another or you could call it “A Study in Propaganda”. (when I was in school, the professor chose Nixon’s Inaugural Address for our study on propaganda(!)

  3. TILA (memory) says a court may deviate. Admittedly, I haven’t researched that, but if a court may deviate for one, it may if not must deviate for another. Anyone who can’t tender the amt demanded because his house is underwater imo has the legit argument that the situation was caused by someone other than himself and he shouldn’t incur a loss. The party (or its successor, as provided by law) should bear the loss, if any.
    Bk imo is the biggest threat to lenders since the obligation to tender will be an unsecured one. I suppose lenders could argue it’s inequitable to allow the tender obligation to be 86’d in bk, but then, also imo, I don’t see a bk court deviating (if it may) as a matter of equity beyond the borrower’s ability. TILA imo wasn’t legislated so that a result is that one loses his home for someone else’s blunder. In law generally, the guy who causes the problem must eat it, not the guy who was on the receiving end.

  4. As to your argument, Christine, about the borrower having grounds to rescind and whether or not she must state the reason in her comm of rescission, I couldn’t swear. But I yet believe that rescission is effective upon communication (so maybe that’s a ‘no’). It’s up to the lender to take action within the prescribed amt of time if it wants to argue. As I said, yes, rescission is drastic, as could be postured is the lender’s duty to argue, but imo that was the intent. The legislators meant the Act to have teeth; they meant business as to false advertizing and missing or bad info to borrowers. A dollar to a donut it was “business” which initially lobbied for such an act to preclude false advertizing. It’s unlawful just to advertize a rate without the a.p.r. (A note rate of 5% is not so attractive with an a.p.r. of 6.125. The difference is made up mostly of points and fees, so a rate of 5% with an a.p.r. of 5.37 is the better deal.)
    TILA, to my knowledge, doesn’t speak to a borrower rescinding without cause, so my thought is the lender has or may have recourse in the form of attorney fees, etc. for having to argue what turns out to be a groundless rescission. Certainly seems like that would be true for a rescission made in bad faith.

  5. Christine, the def of rescission which you asserted is the common law definition and doesn’t apply to TILA. TILA has its own. It was legislated and now interpretted by our highest court, removing any doubt re: the language and legislative intent. imo. Once again I’ll say that tila was legislated to force lenders to govern themselves, the goal of which was to 86 unfair (by deception) advertizing meant to get an edge wrongfully on the competition and to provide borrowers with real and honest information. Unilateral rescission is a drastic remedy for failing to adhere to a “few simple” rules, but there’s no doubt it’s the remedy and consequence prescribed in and by the Act.
    If I had rescinded a loan, I would certainly point not just to the language and the SC decision, but to the reasoning behind a borrower’s right to rescind: it’s an intended, legislated consequence of the failure to self-govern.

  6. david belanger – I have a msg. for you – tke1232@gmail.com or 407-497-4690. It’s regarding a mutual friend and it’s important.
    Thank you.

  7. to ex,

    On May 15, 2012, Ally put the company into bankruptcy. ResCap posted a $402 million loss in 2011 and had missed a $20 million payment on unsecured debt on April 17, 2012. ResCap listed $10.9 billion in mortgages on December 31, 2012

    , after wiping $22 billion in mortgages off its books in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The company had booked a substantial number of subprime mortgages. The bankruptcy was seen as a step by Ally to exit the mortgage business to focus on its profitable auto loan and direct banking business.[1][2]

    On December 17, 2013, the company went out of business as per its Chapter 11 liquidation filing under bankruptcy.[3]

    now lets see more facts, Bloomberg is still showing my mortgage payments are being paid as of today dates.

    was my mortgage / note one of the 22 billion mortgages charge off in 2009,2010,2011. if so , that would make it unsecured. and I did not stop making payments until 2011? so if my mortgage was charged off in 2009,2010, and I would say 2011 while I was making payments. who was getting my money.

    again all facts I have in paperwork, doc’s. I also have statesments from the trustee dept of wells fargo trust, that all collateral files, for gmacm mortgage loan trust, was paid off in 2012.

    and also, gmacm loan trust 2006-j1, does not exist in there computers, along with the trust of gmacm
    GMACM MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
    SERIES 2006-J1 (THE “CERTIFICATES”)

    In February 2015, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group and UBS AG agreed to a $235 million settlement stemming from residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issued by the defunct Residential Capital LLC (ResCap) and underwritten by the three financial institutions . The ResCap RMBS were issued before the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and the lawsuit dates from 2008. The lawsuit alleged that the prospectuses and reistration statements issued by Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and UBS did not adequately disclose the risk of the RMBS and were, in fact, misleading to investors, who sustained heav losses. The lawsuit alleged that the behavior of the three defendants violated securities law.[4]

  8. david belanger – Please contact me at tke1232@gmail.com or 407-497-4690. It’s regarding a mutual friend and it’s important.
    Thank you.

  9. @ elexquisitor ,

    With TILA affirmed I see notifying the court with the current action that the NOTE IS VOID BY OPERATION OF LAW as a great basis for a demand on pltf that the fc suit be dismissed for lack of subject matter.

  10. ex, lets look at what I have paid so far, 175000 in payments and closing cost.

    now lets see how much money they have gotten in selling my mortgage and note ok.

    and I do have all doc’s to prove that they sold it for all amounts stated here. from security and exchange doc’s, showing every time they sold it,

    GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION
    SERVICER AND SPONSOR

    RESIDENTIAL ASSET MORTGAGE PRODUCTS, INC.
    DEPOSITOR

    GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1
    ISSUING ENTITY

    GMACM MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
    SERIES 2006-J1 (THE “CERTIFICATES”)

    now the first time they sold it , was the same day I sign for mortgage and note on this refi, to the party that really funded the loan contract, and that was dausher bank and trust ny. how much, 350,000 dollars , note and mortgage signed over to them without recourse, 8 nov 2005, and it is signed and dated, no stamp. with signature of someone acting for gmac mortgage corp.

    then on 2 feb 2006 gmac mortgage corp sold mortgage and note to residential asset mortgage products,inc. for 500,000.again without recouse,

    then residential sold it to gmacm loan trust for 500,000 , again without recourse,

    then gmacm sold it to gmacm mortgage oass-through series, again for 500,000 ,

    now every time they sold it, it was for the fraud appraisel price of double of what the property was worth, have that document also.

    so. lets see who owe’s who, 1,850,000 they made selling my mortgage and note without owning them,. this does not take in effect that they sold the note to tres/feds, for a credit of 30 times the value, of note, that would be 12 million dollars, on 350,000 dollar note.

    so I will let you do the math, on who owes who money.

    thank you
    david

    this does not include all money they made on swaps,insurance,etc,etc.

  11. @neidermayer – I am sympathetic about your treatment by the courts, but welcome to the club. I had appellate make up argument not heard in lower court to defeat me. I took it as a win that they had to cheat to beat me. It did force the sale of my home, though.

    As to TILA rescission, if your you have evidence that the disclosure statements given you mis-identified the actual beneficiary and you have corroborating evidence, you have have a snowball’s chance in hell of invoking the ‘extreme’ in the name of justice card that allows Supreme courts to take extraordinary exceptions to statutory law.

  12. @ elexquisitor ,

    re: your reply to DavidB…

    I see that very differently ,, he (and I ,, and I believe most of us here) apparently had table funded loans , toxic, predatory and illegal by definition and undisclosed to the borrower(s) … It is my opinion that CONSUMMATION of the loan AS WRITTEN (the defined starting point for the 3day/year limits) never occurred as the named lender was not the source of funds… and in my case it is documented that the named lender had no role other than “straw man” ,, you see the table funder also performed all underwriting (came out in a clawback suit)….

    If the named lender did not lend then not only are you within the 3 year limit ,, you haven’t even begun the 3 day unconditional period. Too damn bad for the “lender” that decided being part of a fraud to collect some fee income is going to cost them…

    He doesn’t just get his deposit money back ,, he gets a “satisfied” note and mortgage… and whatever makes you think that a straw man can ever force the homeowner to turn over the house when the strawman didn’t advance funds?

  13. @dave belanger ,

    I like that rescission as a model because it sets out the proposition that the loan was table funded inferring that the named lender was an illegal straw man,, and it states with just enough ambiguity that disclosures weren’t received leaving it open to mean “not received” AND/OR “not received from the actual lender or source of funds”…

  14. @DavidB – simply put, if you proceed with the rescission you may have affirmed an illegitimate debt, and are bound by the legal terms of a TILA rescission. You get your deposits back, and banksters get the house if you can’t tender cash for it after figuring in the payments you made already.

    Silly wabbit. Don’t believe everything you read, especially if it’s filled with misspellings, dangling participles, and improper capitalization.

  15. And if you need help finding out who injured you in your mortgage, call me at 727 669 5511.

  16. Rock and I dealt with Neil’s ridiculous TILA rescission theories in our comments in Neil’s Back to the future article. And I have fully discussed the issues in dispute, namely the unwinding process of ANY rescission, here:

    http://livingliesthetruth.com/2015/05/20/scalia-jesinoski-and-the-process-of-tila-rescission/

    If you want to get a good understanding of it, see the above link. Neil and his acolytes don’t have a clue.

  17. And Finally, I know Christine – she is not ignorant. lol

  18. Neidermeyer, first of all the screen name immediately screams animal house. “Thank you si, may I have another”

    Second, have you been watching Saturday Night Live reruns…

    “Jane, you ignorant slut.”

  19. Well, neidermeyer… show us how it’s done. Win your TILA rescission, get the cash AND the house and I will consider your opinion. Until then, I’ll get my legal advice from people who fight intelligently and the results to prove it.

  20. TILA Rescission… I am in appeals … lost a MSJ because of trickery to bar evidence (manipulated the calendar to reduce the number of days to submit) and of course no real answer to discovery… house sold at auction but failed to complete due to objections so I say the sale did not happen (still in my name)… will a TILA rescission (I have good arguments and EVIDENCE as to why loan was void) be effective at this point and when I file my TILA rescission what and how do I notify the court as to the new process that the plaintiff is now obligated to? Is the instant FC action dismissed? THANKS!

  21. CHRISTINE ,

    I could repeat my comments but here’s all that matters … June 10, 2014, you’re quoting immaterial cr*p.

  22. “The goal of rescission is to unwind a transaction and return each party to the status quo ante.[2] In the case of a mortgage loan, that means that a lender must terminate its security interest in the borrower’s property, return any interest, fees or other charges the borrower paid the lender, and reimburse any expenses the borrower incurred in connection with the transaction.

    But it also means that the borrower must return the money he or she borrowed. This is usually a practical problem for a borrower, as it is very unlikely that a borrower has sufficient cash to return the money borrowed, or “tender” the loan proceeds to accomplish rescission. The borrower is thus faced with the prospect of finding a new lender when he or she is facing foreclosure to the existing lender and making counterclaims against that lender — usually a dicey proposition.”

    http://www.law360.com/articles/546414/rescission-of-mortgage-loans-must-be-reasonable

    Incidentally, Thomas Cinningham, the author of the article, happens to be a trial attorney with Locke Lord. In addition, “Thomas Cunningham is Co-Chair of the Firm’s litigation department, the leader of the Firm’s class action practice group and a former member of the Firm’s Executive Committee.” I’ll listen to him before I listen to Garfield…

  23. Christine is not Ignorant. Christine is EVIL PURE EVIL.

    NEVER AGAIN

  24. CHRISTINE , YOU IGNORANT SLUT!

    You are intentionally spreading disinformation by attempting to equate TILA Rescission with a non-TILA rescission and you know it. You obviously think people cannot read the plain language of the Act or the SCOTUS decision. You probably think I don’t have two brain cells to rub together but I am an ex-computer security pro , stockbroker , and am a multi-engine instrument pilot with a wide range of experience… I “unnerstan” wut I rede Jus Fine! TILA is different in procedure,, VERY different… it indeed defines the steps that need to be taken and the sequence of the steps… most importantly tendering back FORCES DISCOVERY in order to determine whose money went where and how much… THAT”S BANKSTER KRYPTONITE. But the absolute best part is that the lender is required to act in specific ways before they get to the part where the borrowers claims are examined!

  25. Listen to Neil people, his view is spot on.
    ….then if you want to enforce your rescission by litigating the issue,
    call us today for help….818.453.3585 at Consumer Rights Defenders.

    PS. as to Miles’ question below, the rescission is ineffective after a sale, read the TILA provisions on point. To Christine’s point, you are probably wrong, under TILA and the SCOTUS decision…if the criteria is met you have between 3 days to 3 years to rescind per TILA if the facts are compliant. It is not like a common law or statutory rescission which varies from state to state and was not the topic of Judge Scalia’s decision. Happy you all care about this issue.

  26. Orlans Moran File Number: 189.5527

    There is currently no sale scheduled for this property, the foreclosure sale that was schedule for may 5, 2015 at 1200 PM, has been
    Canceled by our office, we were told by OCWEN to stop any further and future actions on this property. That William a Marshall SR, and
    Joanna l Belanger, had as of the 4 march 2015, rescinded the mortgage contract and mortgage note. and that OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC
    Has accepted the rescission, along with WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. There will no
    Further actions taken, NOW and in the FUTURE will be taken by either party on this property, because of the acceptances of both parties to the
    Rescission of the loan contract, mortgage, and note, dated November 8 , 2005. It has come to our attention that the loan contract, and mortgage,
    and mortgage note , has not been CONSUMMATED by the TRUE LENDER , THAT THE TRUE LENDER OF ANY AND ALL MONEY PAID TO ALL PARTY’S TO THE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION, THAT WAS GIVEN TO CLOSING ATTORNEY, WAS NOT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP did not fund the loan contract or mortgage , and the mortgage note. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq, enacted on may 29, 1968, as title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (pub. L. 90-321 ). The TILA, implemented by Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026 ) , became effective July 1, 1969. it has come to our attention that the required DISCLOSURE
    Were never given to William a Marshall , SR, and Joanna L. Belanger, prior to and during or afterwards the closing date of November 8, 2005. By the proper
    Parties, and true lender or creditor of the mortgage contract, and note, Dated Nov 8, 2005.
    ORLANS MORAN PLLC
    P.O. Box 540540
    Waltham, MA 02454

    P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801
    E

    From: david a belanger ;
    Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 12:06 PM
    To:
    Subject: URGENT!!! Orlans Files#: 1895527
    Importance: High

    Dear whom it May Concern,

    I just spoke to John Mason at your office and he informed me to send this email that confirms that the Foreclosure Sale for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. The property information is as follows:

    William Marshall, Sr.
    9 Rodman Street
    Shirley, MA 01464

    Orlans Files#: 1895527.
    We have A Complaint and Ex-Parte TRO Motion, we were going to file today in Middlesex County Superior Court. We have been informed by your offices that the Auction Sale date for this Tuesday has been canceled. We need an email referencing this so we don’t have to file the complaint mentioned herein.
    Your client OCWEN may not have informed you that we have filed a HUD Discrimination Complaint, which has been accepted that there was infact Discrimination and the matter . has been sent to MCAD (Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and they have also determined that there has been Discrimination which violates both 1964 Civil Rights act and Mass Civil Rights Satutes.
    As we are now in the Investigation phase of this Complaint, it would be a violation of 24 CFR 100.400 and Section 818 of Fair Housing Act.

    24 CFR 100.400 – PROHIBITED INTERFERENCE, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION
    ? 100.400 Prohibited interference, coercion or intimidation.
    (a) This subpart provides the Department’s interpretation of the conduct that is unlawful under section 818 of the Fair Housing Act.
    (b) It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this part.
    (c) Conduct made unlawful under this section includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (1) Coercing a person, either orally, in writing, or by other means, to deny or limit the benefits provided that person in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling or in connection with a residential real estate-related transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
    (2) Threatening, intimidating or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of such persons, or of visitors or associates of such persons.
    (3) Threatening an employee or agent with dismissal or an adverse employment action, or taking such adverse employment action, for any effort to assist a person seeking access to the sale or rental of a dwelling or seeking access to any residential real estate-related transaction, because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of that person or of any person associated with that person.
    (4) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part.
    (5) Retaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Fair Housing Act.

    Please send ASAP an email reply simply stating that the Foreclosure Sale scheduled for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. If not we will be forced to appear in Middlesex Superior Court tomorrow to file a new complaint and argue an Ex-Parte Motion for a TRO and further arguing 24 CFR 100.400 Violations.

    Thank You for your prompt attention to this matter.
    David a belanger
    power of attorney
    William a marshall sr
    Joanna l belanger
    978-618-3105

    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18, United States Code, ?? 2510-2521. This e-mail message and any attached files are the exclusive property of Botelho & Associates, LLC Law Offices, are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, forwarding, duplicating or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of this e-mail transmission is strictly prohibited and violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.

    My job includes exceptional customer service. If you would like to comment on the service you have received, please email your feedback to
    ________________________________________
    Federal law requires us to advise you that communication with our office could be interpreted as an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

    ORLANS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
    This e-mail and the documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address above. The transmission is to be deleted and any items that may have been printed are to be destroyed. Thank you for your compliance.

    :

  27. Orlans Moran File Number: 189.5527

    There is currently no sale scheduled for this property, the foreclosure sale that was schedule for may 5, 2015 at 1200 PM, has been
    Canceled by our office, we were told by OCWEN to stop any further and future actions on this property. That William a Marshall SR, and
    Joanna l Belanger, had as of the 4 march 2015, rescinded the mortgage contract and mortgage note. and that OCWEN LOAN SERVING,LLC
    Has accepted the rescission, along with WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. There will no
    Further actions taken, NOW and in the FUTURE will be taken by either party on this property, because of the acceptances of both parties to the
    Rescission of the loan contract, mortgage, and note, dated November 8 , 2005. It has come to our attention that the loan contract, and mortgage,
    and mortgage note , has not been CONSUMMATED by the TRUE LENDER , THAT THE TRUE LENDER OF ANY AND ALL MONEY PAID TO ALL PARTY’S TO THE MORTGAGE TRANSACTION, THAT WAS GIVEN TO CLOSING ATTORNEY, WAS NOT GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, GMAC MORTGAGE CORP did not fund the loan contract or mortgage , and the mortgage note. The Truth in Lending Act (TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq, enacted on may 29, 1968, as title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (pub. L. 90-321 ). The TILA, implemented by Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026 ) , became effective July 1, 1969. it has come to our attention that the required DISCLOSURE
    Were never given to William a Marshall , SR, and Joanna L. Belanger, prior to and during or afterwards the closing date of November 8, 2005. By the proper
    Parties, and true lender or creditor of the mortgage contract, and note, Dated Nov 8, 2005.
    ORLANS MORAN PLLC
    P.O. Box 540540
    Waltham, MA 02454

    P 781 790 7800 | F 781 790 7801
    E information@orlansmoran.com

    From: david a belanger ; djabelanger@hotmail.com
    Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 12:06 PM
    To: Information@orlandsmoran.com
    Subject: URGENT!!! Orlans Files#: 1895527
    Importance: High

    Dear whom it May Concern,

    I just spoke to John Mason at your office and he informed me to send this email that confirms that the Foreclosure Sale for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. The property information is as follows:

    William Marshall, Sr.
    9 Rodman Street
    Shirley, MA 01464

    Orlans Files#: 1895527.
    We have A Complaint and Ex-Parte TRO Motion, we were going to file today in Middlesex County Superior Court. We have been informed by your offices that the Auction Sale date for this Tuesday has been canceled. We need an email referencing this so we don’t have to file the complaint mentioned herein.
    Your client OCWEN may not have informed you that we have filed a HUD Discrimination Complaint, which has been accepted that there was infact Discrimination and the matter . has been sent to MCAD (Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and they have also determined that there has been Discrimination which violates both 1964 Civil Rights act and Mass Civil Rights Satutes.
    As we are now in the Investigation phase of this Complaint, it would be a violation of 24 CFR 100.400 and Section 818 of Fair Housing Act.

    24 CFR 100.400 – PROHIBITED INTERFERENCE, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION
    ? 100.400 Prohibited interference, coercion or intimidation.
    (a) This subpart provides the Department’s interpretation of the conduct that is unlawful under section 818 of the Fair Housing Act.
    (b) It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this part.
    (c) Conduct made unlawful under this section includes, but is not limited to, the following:
    (1) Coercing a person, either orally, in writing, or by other means, to deny or limit the benefits provided that person in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling or in connection with a residential real estate-related transaction because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
    (2) Threatening, intimidating or interfering with persons in their enjoyment of a dwelling because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of such persons, or of visitors or associates of such persons.
    (3) Threatening an employee or agent with dismissal or an adverse employment action, or taking such adverse employment action, for any effort to assist a person seeking access to the sale or rental of a dwelling or seeking access to any residential real estate-related transaction, because of the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of that person or of any person associated with that person.
    (4) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is engaging in activities designed to make other persons aware of, or encouraging such other persons to exercise, rights granted or protected by this part.
    (5) Retaliating against any person because that person has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a proceeding under the Fair Housing Act.

    Please send ASAP an email reply simply stating that the Foreclosure Sale scheduled for this Tuesday, May 5, 2015 has been canceled. If not we will be forced to appear in Middlesex Superior Court tomorrow to file a new complaint and argue an Ex-Parte Motion for a TRO and further arguing 24 CFR 100.400 Violations.

    Thank You for your prompt attention to this matter.
    David a belanger
    power of attorney
    William a marshall sr
    Joanna l belanger
    978-618-3105

    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18, United States Code, ?? 2510-2521. This e-mail message and any attached files are the exclusive property of Botelho & Associates, LLC Law Offices, are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, forwarding, duplicating or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of this e-mail transmission is strictly prohibited and violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.

    My job includes exceptional customer service. If you would like to comment on the service you have received, please email your feedback to customercare@orlans.com
    ________________________________________
    Federal law requires us to advise you that communication with our office could be interpreted as an attempt to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.

    ORLANS CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
    This e-mail and the documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address above. The transmission is to be deleted and any items that may have been printed are to be destroyed. Thank you for your compliance.

  28. Hello Neil and Staff,

    Thanks for being there you guys!

    I have a question… Is the Rescission still effective even if sent after a foreclosure and trustee sale under California law…. In other words does the new owner have a marketable and clear title under these circumstances

    Fully and sincerely appreciate your response and thanks for all you guys have done for all of us homeowners.

    Best Regards, Miles

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: