Modification is An Illusion: 80%+ turned down

Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products

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

For more information please email us at gtchonors.llblog@gmail.com or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located.

===========================
One of the reasons that I never started up a division to process loan modifications is that although I could easily have made a ton of money, most of them would fail and I knew it. Every once in a while I accept an engagement to help negotiate the modification but the essential problem that everyone is ignoring is that we are not dealing with the creditors AND we are not dealing with an authorized representative of an ACTUAL creditor. So I think that the entire modification scene is a PR stunt and I won’t play.
One of the interesting statistics shows that over half of all homeowners in trouble were not seeking to get out of a legitimate debt. Quite the contrary. They were seeking to make what they knew was invalid, into a valid binding contract with reasonable terms. — Four million of them! So much for deadbeat borrowers.
And if the experience had not been so frustrating with “incomplete applications” and “lost applications” and then turned down because “investor rejected” probably all of the foreclosures would have been worked out except for a few and the economy would not have tanked eliminating jobs for workers whose pension funds had been invested and lost in the mortgage backed securities scheme. In a sense many, if not most working people were foreclosing on themselves!
Practice Suggestion: I wonder whether the worker with pension rights and benefits could demand information on which REMIC Trusts issued what securities to their Pension Fund or the mutual funds in which their 401k was invested.
But instead of good faith efforts to modify, they got lies, deceit, fabrication and fraudulent schemes to tilt the borrower into a foreclosure that didn’t need to happen. And in so doing they killed both the borrower’s equity and the REAL creditor’s equity in the loan, driving down prices with their control of the market just as they had artificially increased the price of homes far above their values during the boom.
Why would the Banks force themselves to lose money by rejecting modifications and forcing foreclosure and depressing market prices? Simple — that is not what happened. They didn’t lose money. They made money. And they suffered no losses from the write down of mortgages that mostly could have been saved. That is what happens when Wall Street gets unfettered discretion to do anything they want without a regulator looking over their shoulder and without law enforcement carting them off to jail.
In the end it doesn’t matter in our bully culture if the investors (pension funds) lost money, it doesn’t matter if 18 million people have been displaced from their homes, their lives and their jobs. What matters to Wall Street is how much money they can make regardless of how they do it and who gets hurt. The Obama administration is still drinking the Cool-aid along with his predecessor in office, Bush. Neither of them had a clue about finance and they still take their advice and information from the same people who screwing everyone.

39 Responses

  1. Feb 15 (IFR) – The investor hunt for yield in the current low-rate environment has injected life into yet another off-beat investment vehicle – the so-called servicer advance ABS.

    The product repackages advances given by residential mortgage servicers to cover payment defaults of home loans that are already part of an existing securitization deal.

    Earlier this week, Nationstar Mortgage raised US$300m by securitizing advances that covered defaults on previously securitized mortgage loans backed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

    This took the volume of servicer advance ABS so far this year to US$1.45bn – just US$150m shy of the total for the whole of 2012.

    Indeed, many bankers are expecting 2013 to be a watershed year for new issuance of servicer advance ABS, with volumes as high as US$10bn.

    In part, the sector has been fuelled by tighter capital regulatory requirements for banks in the wake of the financial crisis.

    Many banks have had to sell their servicer advance portfolios to non-financial institutions, which can only fund themselves through the issuance of new debt.

    According to a report from Credit Suisse, Nationstar’s portfolio of residential mortgage servicing rights had more than tripled by the end of January over one year earlier, to a total value of US$435bn.

    BUILT TO LAST

    Investor confidence in the servicer advance ABS asset class has surged since the instrument made its debut in the markets in 2003, even despite the subprime mortgage meltdown.

    Mortgage servicers provide funds to cover coupon payments to investors in MBS that have securitized mortgages, when there are defaults in the underlying mortgage payments.

    As mortgage defaults skyrocketed in the subprime crisis, servicer advance ABS had widely been expected to suffer amid doubts that the servicers could recoup their advances.

    But according to Credit Suisse, not a single servicer advance ABS deal has taken any losses to date – an astonishing record that has significantly broadened support for the asset class.

    Bankers say safeguards built into these ABS have insured the instruments’ survival.

    Servicers only give advances against loans that are deemed to be recoverable, and they stop giving advances the moment they realize the loan is not recoverable.

    **If the servicer cannot recover the advances on a particular loan, it can take the cashflows from other loans included in the pool backing the existing mortgage-backed security (MBS).**

    This ensures the recovery levels for a servicer are high, and drastically reduces the risk for investors in the servicer advance ABS.

    jg: honestly, I don’t know how it does any such thing since they have to keep feeding Loan B, whose proceeds of sale of collateral were used to repay themselves for advances on Loan A. Whether or not it’s kicking the can down the road, more foreclosures have to occur before Loan B’s advances are repaid and in the mean;time, the servicer has to keep feeding the kitty on Loan B, right? But, there is admittedly lots of stuff I don’t know about these trusts, and here I’m thinking about their 1) planned life-spans and 2) the fact that some people here have said they’re collapsed by conditions subsequent, like too many non-performing loans.

    Other safeguards include liquidity tests as well as performance-based early amortization markers that trigger repayment to investors.

    “There are several structural mitigants to protect investors’ interest as performance and market-related events occur,” said Michael Dryden, co-head of global real estate and mortgage finance at Credit Suisse.

    “Investors are increasingly seeing the value in such transactions, prompting a sharp tightening of spreads, longer revolving periods and the ability to sell further down the capital structure.”

    In the recent deal, for example, Nationstar issued two series of notes that had six tranches each rated from Triple A to Single B. All found strong demand because they offered a decent yield pick-up to other ABS asset classes……

    Market sources say top non-bank mortgage servicers like Nationstar have been actively acquiring advances over the past couple of years, which will mean continued ABS issuance in the months ahead.

    jg: yeah, looks so far like they picked up at least Aurora’s and BofA’s. They plan to make out or they wouldn’t do it.

  2. from David: “If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an un-severable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co.,147 Wis. 559 at p. 572; 132 NW 1118 (1912).”

    Imo, this stands in support of there being no contract between a depositor and a trust (or anyone in any alleged contract) if the contract purports to both sell the loans and make them security for a loan (“security interests”), which again, I’m not really believing was done.
    Still like to know where you came up with that, btw.

  3. Made my day! Thanks!

  4. maybe some good

    CASE LAW ABOUT RESCISSION
    It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis. 2d 166, 168 N.W.2d 201 (1969).
    “A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 23 A.D.2d 645, 257 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1965).
    “Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts.” (The seller or lender) “He is liable, not upon any idea of benefit to himself, but because of his wrongful act and the consequent injury to the other party.” Leonard v. Springer, 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 299 (1902).
    “If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an un-severable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co.,147 Wis. 559 at p. 572; 132 NW 1118 (1912).
    “The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis. 550, 279 NW 79 (1938).
    “It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis.2d 166, 279 N.W. 79 (1938).
    In a Debtor’s RICO action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an unlawful debt, an interest rate (where all loan charges were added together) that exceeded, in the language of the RICO Statute, “twice the enforceable rate.” The Court found no reason to impose a requirement that the Plaintiff show that the Defendant had been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a “loan sharking” operation. The debt included the fact that exaction of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil RICO action. Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat ‘l Bank, 755 F.2d 239 (1985). Cert. denied, 473 U.S. 906 (1985).
    The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action need establish only a criminal “violation” and not a criminal conviction. Further, the Court held that the Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a “pattern of Racketeering activity.” That is, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires. The RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to affect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute. Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 87 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1985).
    A violation such as not responding to the TILA rescission letter, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability. Holding that creditor failed to make material disclosures in connection with loan. Title 15 USCS §1605(c) Wright v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 133 B.R. 704 (Pa. 1991).
    Moore v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., Civil Action No. 90-6452 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10324 (Pa. 1991).
    The court held that, under TILA’s Regulation Z, 12 CFR §226.4 (a), a lender had to expressly notify a
    borrower that he had a choice of insurer.
    Marshall v. Security State Bank of Hamilton, 121 B.R. 814 (Ill. 1990) violation of Federal Truth in Lending
    15 USCS §1638(a)(9), and Regulation Z. The bank took a security interest in the vehicle without
    disclosing the security interest.
    Steinbrecher v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 110 B.R. 155 (Pa. 1990). Mid-Penn violated TILA by not
    including in a finance charge the debtors’ purchase of fire insurance on their home. The purchase of
    such insurance was a condition imposed by the company. The cost of the insurance was added to the
    amount financed and not to the finance charge.
    Nichols v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 1989 WL 46682 (Pa. 1989). Mid-Penn misinformed Nichols in
    the Notice of Right to Cancel Mortgage.
    McElvany v. Household Finance Realty Corp., 98 B.R. 237 (Pa. 1989). debtor filed an application to remove the
    mortgage foreclosure proceedings to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 USCS §1409. It is strict
    liability in the sense that absolute compliance is required and even technical violations will form the basis for
    liability. Lauletta v. Valley Buick Inc., 421 F. Supp. 1036 at 1040 (Pa. 1976).
    Johnson-Allen v. Lomas and Nettleton Co., 67 B.R. 968 (Pa. 1986). Violation of Truth-in-Lending Act
    requirements, 15 USCS §1638(a)(10), required mortgagee to provide a statement containing a
    description of any security interest held or to be retained or acquired. Failure to disclose.
    Cervantes v. General Electric Mortgage Co., 67 B.R. 816 (Pa. 1986). creditor failed to meet disclosure
    requirements under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601-1667c and Regulation Z of the
    Federal Reserve Board, 12 CFR §226.1
    McCausland v. GMAC Mortgage Co., 63 B.R. 665, (Pa. 1986). GMAC failed to provide information which
    must be disclosed as defined in the TILA and Regulation Z, 12 CFR §226.1
    Perry v. Federal National Mortgage Corp., 59 B.R. 947 (Pa. 1986) the disclosure statement was deficient
    under the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1638(a)(9). Defendant Mortgage Co. failed to reveal
    clearly what security interest was retained.
    Schultz v. Central Mortgage Co., 58 B.R. 945 (Pa. 1986). The court determined creditor mortgagor violated
    the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1638(a)(3), by its failure to include the cost of mortgage
    insurance in calculating the finance charge. The court found creditor failed to meet any of the
    conditions for excluding such costs and was liable for twice the amount of the true finance charge.
    Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983 (Pa. 1986). Any misgivings creditors may have about the
    technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the
    courts. Disclosure requirements for credit sales are governed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1638 12 CFR § 226.8(b), (c).
    Disclosure requirements for consumer loans are governed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1639 12 CFR § 226.8(b), (d). A
    violator of the disclosure requirements is held to a standard of strict liability. Therefore, a plaintiff need not
    show that the creditor in fact deceived him by making substandard disclosures. Since Transworld Systems Inc.
    have not cancelled the security interest and return all monies paid by Ms. Sherrie I. LaForce within the 20 days
    of receipt of the letter of rescission of October 7, 2009, the lenders named above are responsible for actual and
    statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1640(a).
    Lewis v. Dodge, 620 F.Supp. 135, 138 (D. Conn. 1985);
    Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F.2d 1066 (3rd Cir. 1992). Porter filed an adversary proceeding against appellant under 15 U.S.C. §1635, for failure to honor her request to rescind a loan secured by a mortgage on her home.
    Rowland v. Magna Millikin Bank of Decatur, N.A., 812 F.Supp. 875 (1992) Even technical violations will form the basis for liability. The mortgagors had a right to rescind the contract in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1635(c).
    New Maine Nat. Bank v. Gendron, 780 F.Supp. 52 (1992). The court held that defendants were entitled to rescind loan under strict liability terms of TILA because plaintiff violated TILA’s provisions.
    Dixon v. S & S Loan Service of Waycross, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 1567 (1990); TILA is a remedial statute, and, hence, is liberally construed in favor of borrowers. The remedial objectives of TILA are achieved by imposing a system of strict liability in favor of consumers when mandated disclosures have not been made. Thus, liability will flow from even minute deviations from the requirements of the statute and the regulations promulgated under it.
    Woolfolk v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 783 F.Supp. 724 (1990) There was no dispute as to the material facts that established that the debt collector violated the FDCPA. The court granted the debtors’ motion for summary judgment and held that (1) under 15 U.S.C. §1692(e), a debt collector could not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt; Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act.
    Jenkins v. Landmark Mortg. Corp. of Virginia, 696 F.Supp. 1089 (W.D. Va. 1988). Plaintiff was also misinformed regarding the effects of a rescission. The pertinent regulation states that “when a consumer rescinds a transaction, the security interest giving rise to the right of rescission becomes void and the consumer shall not be liable for any amount, including any finance charge.” 12 CFR §226.23(d) (1)..
    Laubach v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 686 F.Supp. 504 (E.D. Pa. 1988). monetary damages for the plaintiffs pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 USC §1961. (Count I); the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 USC §1601.
    Searles v. Clarion Mortg. Co., 1987 WL 61932 (E.D. Pa. 1987); Liability will flow from even minute deviations from requirements of the statute and Regulation Z. failure to accurately disclose the property in which a security interest was taken in connection with a consumer credit transaction involving the purchase of residential real estate in violation of 15 USCs §1638(a)(9). and 12 CFR §226.18(m).
    Dixon v. S & S Loan Service of Waycross, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 1567, 1570 (S.D. Ga. 1990). Congress’s purpose in passing the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 USCs §1601(a). was to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him. 15 USCs §1601(a). TILA is a remedial statute, and, hence, is liberally construed in favor of borrowers.;
    Shroder v. Suburban Coastal Corp., 729 F.2d 1371, 1380 (11th Cir. 1984). disclosure statement violated 12 CFR §226.6(a).,
    Wright v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 133 B.R. 704 (E.D. Pa. 1991) Holding that creditor failed to make material disclosures in connection with one loan;
    Cervantes v. General Electric Mortgage Co., 67 B.R. 816 (E.D. Pa. 1986). The court found that the TILA violations were governed by a strict liability standard, and defendant’s failure to reveal in the disclosure
    statement the exact nature of the security interest violated the TILA.
    Perry v. Federal National Mortgage, 59 B.R. 947 (E.D. Pa. 1986). Defendant failed to accurately disclose the security interest taken to secure the loan.
    Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F.2d 1066 (3rd Cir. 1992). Adversary proceeding against appellant under 15 U.S.C. §1635, for failure to honor her request to rescind a loan secured by a mortgage on her home. She was entitled to the equitable relief of rescission and the statutory remedies under 15 U.S.C. §1640 for appellant’s failure to rescind upon request.
    Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983 (Pa. 1986). Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts. Disclosure requirements for credit sales are governed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1638 12 CFR § 226.8(b), (c). Disclosure requirements for consumer loans are governed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1639 12 CFR § 226.8(b), (d). A violator of the disclosure requirements is held to a standard of strict liability. Therefore, a plaintiff need not show that the creditor in fact deceived him by making substandard disclosures. Rowland v. Magna Millikin Bank of Decatur, N.A., 812 F.Supp. 875 (1992),
    Even technical violations will form the basis for liability. The mortgagors had a right to rescind the contract in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1635(c). New Maine Nat. Bank v. Gendron, 780 F.Supp. 52 (D. Me. 1992). The court held that defendants were entitled to rescind loan under strict liability terms of TILA because plaintiff violated TILA’s provisions.

  5. CASE LAW ABOUT RESCISSION
    It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis. 2d 166, 168 N.W.2d 201 (1969).
    “A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 23 A.D.2d 645, 257 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1965).
    “Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts.” (The seller or lender) “He is liable, not upon any idea of benefit to himself, but because of his wrongful act and the consequent injury to the other party.” Leonard v. Springer, 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 299 (1902).
    “If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an un-severable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co.,147 Wis. 559 at p. 572; 132 NW 1118 (1912).
    “The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis. 550, 279 NW 79 (1938).
    “It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis.2d 166, 279 N.W. 79 (1938).
    In a Debtor’s RICO action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an unlawful debt, an interest rate (where all loan charges were added together) that exceeded, in the language of the RICO Statute, “twice the enforceable rate.” The Court found no reason to impose a requirement that the Plaintiff show that the Defendant had been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a “loan sharking” operation. The debt included the fact that exaction of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil RICO action. Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat ‘l Bank, 755 F.2d 239 (1985). Cert. denied, 473 U.S. 906 (1985).
    The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action need establish only a criminal “violation” and not a criminal conviction. Further, the Court held that the Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a “pattern of Racketeering activity.” That is, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires. The RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to affect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute. Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 87 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1985).
    A violation such as not responding to the TILA rescission letter, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability. Holding that creditor failed to make material disclosures in connection with loan. Title 15 USCS §1605(c) Wright v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 133 B.R. 704 (Pa. 1991).
    Moore v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., Civil Action No. 90-6452 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10324 (Pa. 1991).
    The court held that, under TILA’s Regulation Z, 12 CFR §226.4 (a), a lender had to expressly notify a
    borrower that he had a choice of insurer.
    Marshall v. Security State Bank of Hamilton, 121 B.R. 814 (Ill. 1990) violation of Federal Truth in Lending
    15 USCS §1638(a)(9), and Regulation Z. The bank took a security interest in the vehicle without
    disclosing the security interest.
    Steinbrecher v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 110 B.R. 155 (Pa. 1990). Mid-Penn violated TILA by not
    including in a finance charge the debtors’ purchase of fire insurance on their home. The purchase of
    such insurance was a condition imposed by the company. The cost of the insurance was added to the
    amount financed and not to the finance charge.
    Nichols v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 1989 WL 46682 (Pa. 1989). Mid-Penn misinformed Nichols in
    the Notice of Right to Cancel Mortgage.
    McElvany v. Household Finance Realty Corp., 98 B.R. 237 (Pa. 1989). debtor filed an application to remove the
    mortgage foreclosure proceedings to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 USCS §1409. It is strict
    liability in the sense that absolute compliance is required and even technical violations will form the basis for
    liability. Lauletta v. Valley Buick Inc., 421 F. Supp. 1036 at 1040 (Pa. 1976).
    Johnson-Allen v. Lomas and Nettleton Co., 67 B.R. 968 (Pa. 1986). Violation of Truth-in-Lending Act
    requirements, 15 USCS §1638(a)(10), required mortgagee to provide a statement containing a
    description of any security interest held or to be retained or acquired. Failure to disclose.
    Cervantes v. General Electric Mortgage Co., 67 B.R. 816 (Pa. 1986). creditor failed to meet disclosure
    requirements under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601-1667c and Regulation Z of the
    Federal Reserve Board, 12 CFR §226.1
    McCausland v. GMAC Mortgage Co., 63 B.R. 665, (Pa. 1986). GMAC failed to provide information which
    must be disclosed as defined in the TILA and Regulation Z, 12 CFR §226.1
    Perry v. Federal National Mortgage Corp., 59 B.R. 947 (Pa. 1986) the disclosure statement was deficient
    under the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1638(a)(9). Defendant Mortgage Co. failed to reveal
    clearly what security interest was retained.
    Schultz v. Central Mortgage Co., 58 B.R. 945 (Pa. 1986). The court determined creditor mortgagor violated
    the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1638(a)(3), by its failure to include the cost of mortgage
    insurance in calculating the finance charge. The court found creditor failed to meet any of the
    conditions for excluding such costs and was liable for twice the amount of the true finance charge.
    Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983 (Pa. 1986). Any misgivings creditors may have about the
    technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the
    courts. Disclosure requirements for credit sales are governed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1638 12 CFR § 226.8(b), (c).
    Disclosure requirements for consumer loans are governed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1639 12 CFR § 226.8(b), (d). A
    violator of the disclosure requirements is held to a standard of strict liability. Therefore, a plaintiff need not
    show that the creditor in fact deceived him by making substandard disclosures. Since Transworld Systems Inc.
    have not cancelled the security interest and return all monies paid by Ms. Sherrie I. LaForce within the 20 days
    of receipt of the letter of rescission of October 7, 2009, the lenders named above are responsible for actual and
    statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1640(a).
    Lewis v. Dodge, 620 F.Supp. 135, 138 (D. Conn. 1985);
    Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F.2d 1066 (3rd Cir. 1992). Porter filed an adversary proceeding against appellant under 15 U.S.C. §1635, for failure to honor her request to rescind a loan secured by a mortgage on her home.
    Rowland v. Magna Millikin Bank of Decatur, N.A., 812 F.Supp. 875 (1992) Even technical violations will form the basis for liability. The mortgagors had a right to rescind the contract in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1635(c).
    New Maine Nat. Bank v. Gendron, 780 F.Supp. 52 (1992). The court held that defendants were entitled to rescind loan under strict liability terms of TILA because plaintiff violated TILA’s provisions.
    Dixon v. S & S Loan Service of Waycross, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 1567 (1990); TILA is a remedial statute, and, hence, is liberally construed in favor of borrowers. The remedial objectives of TILA are achieved by imposing a system of strict liability in favor of consumers when mandated disclosures have not been made. Thus, liability will flow from even minute deviations from the requirements of the statute and the regulations promulgated under it.
    Woolfolk v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 783 F.Supp. 724 (1990) There was no dispute as to the material facts that established that the debt collector violated the FDCPA. The court granted the debtors’ motion for summary judgment and held that (1) under 15 U.S.C. §1692(e), a debt collector could not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt; Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act.
    Jenkins v. Landmark Mortg. Corp. of Virginia, 696 F.Supp. 1089 (W.D. Va. 1988). Plaintiff was also misinformed regarding the effects of a rescission. The pertinent regulation states that “when a consumer rescinds a transaction, the security interest giving rise to the right of rescission becomes void and the consumer shall not be liable for any amount, including any finance charge.” 12 CFR §226.23(d) (1)..
    Laubach v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 686 F.Supp. 504 (E.D. Pa. 1988). monetary damages for the plaintiffs pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 USC §1961. (Count I); the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 USC §1601.
    Searles v. Clarion Mortg. Co., 1987 WL 61932 (E.D. Pa. 1987); Liability will flow from even minute deviations from requirements of the statute and Regulation Z. failure to accurately disclose the property in which a security interest was taken in connection with a consumer credit transaction involving the purchase of residential real estate in violation of 15 USCs §1638(a)(9). and 12 CFR §226.18(m).
    Dixon v. S & S Loan Service of Waycross, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 1567, 1570 (S.D. Ga. 1990). Congress’s purpose in passing the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 USCs §1601(a). was to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him. 15 USCs §1601(a). TILA is a remedial statute, and, hence, is liberally construed in favor of borrowers.;
    Shroder v. Suburban Coastal Corp., 729 F.2d 1371, 1380 (11th Cir. 1984). disclosure statement violated 12 CFR §226.6(a).,
    Wright v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 133 B.R. 704 (E.D. Pa. 1991) Holding that creditor failed to make material disclosures in connection with one loan;
    Cervantes v. General Electric Mortgage Co., 67 B.R. 816 (E.D. Pa. 1986). The court found that the TILA violations were governed by a strict liability standard, and defendant’s failure to reveal in the disclosure
    statement the exact nature of the security interest violated the TILA.
    Perry v. Federal National Mortgage, 59 B.R. 947 (E.D. Pa. 1986). Defendant failed to accurately disclose the security interest taken to secure the loan.
    Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F.2d 1066 (3rd Cir. 1992). Adversary proceeding against appellant under 15 U.S.C. §1635, for failure to honor her request to rescind a loan secured by a mortgage on her home. She was entitled to the equitable relief of rescission and the statutory remedies under 15 U.S.C. §1640 for appellant’s failure to rescind upon request.
    Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983 (Pa. 1986). Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts. Disclosure requirements for credit sales are governed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1638 12 CFR § 226.8(b), (c). Disclosure requirements for consumer loans are governed by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1639 12 CFR § 226.8(b), (d). A violator of the disclosure requirements is held to a standard of strict liability. Therefore, a plaintiff need not show that the creditor in fact deceived him by making substandard disclosures. Rowland v. Magna Millikin Bank of Decatur, N.A., 812 F.Supp. 875 (1992),
    Even technical violations will form the basis for liability. The mortgagors had a right to rescind the contract in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1635(c). New Maine Nat. Bank v. Gendron, 780 F.Supp. 52 (D. Me. 1992). The court held that defendants were entitled to rescind loan under strict liability terms of TILA because plaintiff violated TILA’s provisions.

  6. “WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) has established a Home Affordable Modification Program
    (the “HAMP”) pursuant to section 101 and 109 ofthe Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of2008 (the “Act”), as section
    109 of the Act has been amended by section 7002 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009.

    WHEREAS, Fannie Mae, as financial agent of the United States, and ServiceI’ entered into a Commitment to Purchase
    Financial Instrument and ServiceI’ Participation Agreement for the Home Affordable Modification Program under the
    Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (the “Prior Agreement”) in connection with the implementation ofHAMP, the primaty
    purpose of which was the modification of first lien mortgage loan obligations and the provision of loan modification and
    foreclosure prevention services relating thereto (the “HAMP Services”)……

    http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/TARP-Programs/housing/mha/Documents_Contracts_Agreements/093010bankofamericahomeloansSPA%28incltransmittal%29-r.pdf

    If interested and this won’t open, google

    “servicer participation agreement bank of america” – it’s the first hit. There also appears to be a 2011 agreement at scribd called

    “Bank of America Servicer Participation Agreement[1]”
    posted by “2be3ch”.

    which is also the second hit if you google what I indicated above.

  7. Hammertime, I opened a case in 1Q 2015 w/CFPB, disputed the answer, provided some docs, and the case is still open.
    I hope it’s a big headache for the pretender, because what they provided in their answer, raised additional issues, that I was hoping the investigation would not conclude in 60 days and it has not.
    There was an action they bank took that I did not agree with as a result of their response and led me to open a separate CFPB complaint to deal with that.
    It is still open as well, and their response to the second complaint did raise additional issues.

    i wish things were simpler, like when people could not send threats using mail to claim they want your property and intend to take it if you don’t relinquish it and pay extortion fees.

    What I have come to see as new info, which is my opinion, is these people do things claiming to do it for the company, and as representatives of the company, and for a fact none of them have documents filed in the public as a representative of the company, they could not file an IRS document for it, let alone make a public statement regarding it, so I have realized their power is limited, and is as much as we think it is, so we are self defeating when we give them power they do not have.

    I have also found, that I would opinion, that the complaint when there is a name to query for why did they do an act, they have to explain why or point to someone who gave them permission to do it, and they do not have the support structure we think they have, again another self defeating act when we give them a support structure they do not have.

    I opinion, that CFPB does not go after corporate owners, and presidents who have hold harmless agreements on file, but they will investigate a complaint where you mention and employee or lawyer who has done and act and they can depose that One to find out what authority they had to do the act and if it’s part of the company’s procedure for them to do it or did they work alone. If there is no oversight, and by negligence the corporation is at fault for injury and injustice, then the cost of doing business without properly training their employees is fines and penalties. Jail time probably would not come from any agency but the IRS. The IRS has put corporations to name an employee that has the power and authority to make decisions for their corporation and is the communication between the IRS and the corporation and is authorized to make decisions, approve acts on behalf of the corporation and such.
    No more plausible deniability with IRS and tax issues.

    They way the corporate structure is set, it’s easy to figure out of an employee acted because they thought they could do something, or because they were instructed to do something or it was company policy to do something, or an attorney for the corporation gave guidance to do something.

    In those cases, we have names. People and not machines who used their cognitive skills to think, say, or do some thing that affected other people who have cognitive skills to say, I do not consent, I did not consent, and I’m gonna tell some authority in the public, what YOU did to me; not your company, but YOU. I will say where you work when you did it, but YOU.

    It’s interesting to use the agency to get the complaint in the public with the facts as they are, and let the other side be responsible for explaining where they got their ‘powers’ [they don’t have] from.

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

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

  8. Yes, Georgia is a non-judicial foreclosure state, but I’ve heard NJ forclosures are predicated on the assumption, that were it Judicial, there would be no Standing issue and all the other t’s crossed, and all the i’s dotted.

    Don’t know if that’s been tested.

  9. Trespass that’s exactly where I’m headed it looks like. Good points on CFPB as well but study sjowed they are not taking action when they should as w Ocwen but can’t let Congress dismantle it and go back to do nothing OCC.

  10. regarding bid rigging. I passed my information to the DOJ when that link first popped up. There was an email address and I sent attachments.

    In order to sell something you have to have standing to do it, and whether a court plays stupid, DOJ does not.

    The people sitting in the building playing court may want to interpret the law from the bench, but the law of contracts and trust, is clear on it’s face who can do what and when a court ignores standing the people run to another building with a business of court, but if the law says there must be standing to sue, and authority to convey a right to property, well court does not over rule the law, they only create contracts of agreement to accept their judgement as final and in accepting their words as judgment, you agree to let them rule your life.

    The remedies are outside the business of court, and the fine of $1 million for individual persons/lawyers/attorneys and $10 million for corporations seems like it removes their ‘cost of doing business’ activity.

    A complaint on a lawyer follows them to the next law firm, a complaint on a judge impacts him when he’s trying to go to appeals court, or federal, or supreme court.

    I know how to show what is done, since they are signing papers in the public and putting them on the record.
    There is no perjury if you can show what’s put into the public trust, that is fraud, error in fact and error in inducement.

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

  11. “Don’t forget about blackstone and all of the foreclosed properties they bought.”

    You ever pursue research on “bid-rigging” or Blackstone being allowed to buy the LOANS en masse thru auction rather than buying the real properties by legit bid at sale? Just recently I posted info re: a servicer auctioning loans v real property at pennies on the dollar, to boot. Think it was NationStar who was told “not”. Pennies on the dollar just make most of us think of business as usual among these yeahoos, but truth is, they (the loans v real property) may have been auctioned for pennies on the dollar with “as is” sort of caveats re: from whom the heck they’re actually buying them, long and short.

  12. So far, here’s what’s interesting about the case at TU’s link imo:

    “Anarion sued the defendants under the (FDCP – sic) Act, alleging they made false representations pursuant to the foreclosure sale of a home on which Anarion held an option to buy.”

    So far in my reading, a guy who sued in his business’s name isn’t the kicker (though perhaps noteworthy). What is is that he wasn’t tossed for lack of standing because he is suing for violations of the FDCPA in a wrongful foreclosure action 1) thus POST-foreclosure and 2) because his interest derived from an executory contract right / option (PRE-foreclosure of course) to purchase the subject property. Now THAT’s interesting to me.

  13. And GA is non judic’l right?

    Main point we are on the offense w/ TILA. Still there are going to be roadblocks put up til the end and final nail (ShadowC!)

    The Los Angeles county (CA) recorder appears to be very anti homeowner and discourages any filings from my understanding.

    At this point fighting off broker and new change to foreclosure mill in CA that NG listed to try to evict after unlawful sale. Even their eviction docs have every sign of robosigning and fraud. Their harassment though has seemingly brought tenant to my side.

    But I continue to insist they follow law no matter what they say or do.

  14. I’m in Georgia…. I recognize however that different County Clerks within a state may run their offices with different procedures … as Dwight encountered.

    And yes, I do feel good. A friend of mine had to bankrupt to day to get his home off the courthouse steps. His attempt to get a TRO from a judge was turned down this morning… his wife was waiting at the BK counter at the Federal Courthouse “just in case.”

    I can’t help but think his “rush for a TRO” would have worked better if his attorney had given the Judge a certified copy of a recorded “TILA Rescission Letter Affidavit” with attached TILA Rescission Letter(s) accompanied by Scalia’s TILA Ruling.

    Sadly, “just any judge available” is not up to date with the knowledge of this massive Ponzi fraud being shepherded through their courts…. much less, the significance of the Jesinoski decision.

    And sadder still is the fact that there are so few knowledgeable and skilled foreclosure defense attorneys who can aggressively litigate these issues.

    Who would have known that an army of Pro Se homeowners using “personal paralegals” would be some of the best lines of “homefront defense” ?

    Remember the “hefty gal don’t sing” until a judge decides affirmatively when your “Quiet Title” case is brought before the court.

  15. Alina – major hats off on your research and blog. One way a balance might go down (me: from the hip) is if proceeds of sales of other properties are applied to your account, which scenario might have been suggested in some material I linked about servicers having to do this and that by way of ‘first in time’ events (and the Henry and Claire scenario?( though I recognize that might’ve been limited to servicer advances being paid back). But I can’t format it right this minute, how it could lead to an application on the balance owing on a loan. But I think it could, at least in one set of the books….? Maybe your balance owing is the amt yet owed to the trust itself by the servicer?

  16. Dand must feel good! What state are u in again?

  17. Please ignore my “double negative ” concerning the foreclosure attorney.

  18. Off track to this thread of messages, but I promised earlier to give a report about filing an Affidavit of TILA Rescission actions.

    I prepared an Affidavit, was sworn and notarized by the Notary, and signed the Affidavit in front of two witnesses.

    Before I recorded the Affidavit, I went to the records room and retrieved a copy a “Discharge of Deed to Secure Debt” executed by my previous lender (the only pre-MERS “real lender” involved since the purchase of our home.)

    Less than two minutes later, I arrived at the Office of the.Clerk of Superior Court and presented the Affidavit, along with copies of my TILA Rescission Letters to the “pretender lender,” and to each of the “assignees”.

    (Ocwen has initiated foreclosure sales based on the second assigment no less than six different times, the most recent of which was scheduled for today and – had not the foreclosing attorney not removed me *again* from the process, – was taking place less than 50 feet away.)

    Other than clarifying that I wanted the copies of the TILA Rescission Letters to be filed as a single attachment, the clerk had no problems at all processing the Affidavit, telling me simultaneously I would receive my originals back within 7-10 days.

    When I asked if I could get “certified copies of the Affidavit and its attachment today, her response was a “cheery”, “If you pay for the 3 certified copies today, we will include those with the originals we’ll be sending you!”

    So, for a total cost of $42, I’m on my way home knowing I don’t even have to “schlup” back to the courthouse in two weeks to finish what I effectively ended today.

    As I drove home, I reflected upon the reality, that what began as a “Show Me the Note!” defense, has now transformed into a “Cancel My Note!” offense. What wonderful irony!

    BTW, when I returned home, I retrieved a very informative letter from Ocwen, informing me they were continuing to respond to my RESPA Qualified Written Request letter mailed to Ocwen the day before I mailed my TILA Rescission Letters to the 3 “lenders” on “Independence Day”, July 4th, 2015!…. “Ain’t that grand?”

  19. Alina it looks to me like you’ve done the most to bust open the main rabbit hole. No doubt there’s counterfeit notes being cashed in multiple times. The timing of everything shows intent and it was all orchestrated. As corrupt as MERS is and fraudulent docs the gaps will never be filled or fixed since they were counting on chain of title to be broken and cash in on the broken pieces.

    You uncovered alot of what’s wrong and Cayman Islands smack in the middle.

  20. Written by a attorney who ‘attorns’ the information and is licensed to do it.
    http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/corporations-people-under-fdcpa-rules-sixth-circuit/
    Where is it that People = person.
    No where. All statutes, codes, ordinances, provisions, color of law are for persons. Statutory applies to persons.
    People are the ones with the power to create a form of government and to give powers and to consent to be governed.
    Corporations act like governments, and have presidents and other offices but are not governments because they are owned by a people, and their creation is registered by the people that own it.
    so an equal has no power over an equal, it appears a corporation sued another corporation under FDCPA for a foreclosure.
    Citizens United stated corporations are persons, but the one writing the article wants to confuse the uninitiated into thinking person is people and it is not. People are state, state reserves rights to their selves and can give rights to a government. Persons have privileges, no rights, that’s important when reading codes of any city, state, or municipality.
    Anyway, ignore the intended misguidance of the words, sort of like they pretend a lender is a creditor, when that’s not true. The lender puts on the document, for the sake of this transaction I am called the lender and for all we know they lent the paper we signed or the pen we used to sign it, maybe even lent the employee that sat at the closing table, but not much else, so they can’t call themselves a creditor.
    Anyway, seems the recent decision on who a consumer is, a person, even though they state natural person, and personhood is not peoplehood, but they are known for that, as David:Wynn:Miller stated, and I may have used the colons wrong in his name, but he stated if someone says 2+2=4 are they telling the truth, and the answer was yes, but he made it clear that what is heard of the spoken is not necessarily what was meant by what is heard, and it could be too + two = four, or two + to = fore, and that’s why things need to be in writing when dealing with contracts.
    Anyway this is a small article but of interest because sometimes One can make so many rules trying to oppress another that they end up getting tripped up by their own rulemaking. Or as a biblical book had written and I am paraphrasing the words, they laid traps and fell into them upon their selves.

    How they got people out of that, is totally intended disinformation and misinformation in my humble opinion.

    Argh, I posted that link at the top and down here, and it went right to modification. Can only post one hypertext link per post. I fore got.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Life, Corporeal

  21. In my opinion, CFPB investigation DOES NOT BEGIN until after the response from the one receiving the complaint.

    Until then, in my opinion, they are a bridge between two parties in a conflict. One makes their complaint, the other responds, and if no activity after that, its considered settled.

    Yet, in my opinion, they never respond with ‘the information’ as whoever is responding is an employee without first hand knowledge of the transaction and probably got an email from a superior or an attorney that told them to ‘Tell them this!’.

    My opinion is that no complaint can be solved with one set of bidirectional dialogue, something has to raise other issues, or something has to not have answered the dispute, or some other opinioned response.

    Many do not know how to use CFPB to get their discovery, or to force the information they keep from you, to be revealed. Many waste the best resource because they don’t know how to use it.

    If One complained they sent a rescission and it was ignored, and the response does not even mention receiving the rescission and doesn’t even include an attachment of the letter they sent out when they received the rescission, then in my opinion, the one making the complaint could dispute the response, if they chose to do so, and indicate the response did not answer their dispute as they did not provide information on how they responded to the rescission, or it raised new issues, by not responding to the information about the rescission, they have not rebutted it as a fact in the communication between the two parties and by ignoring the notice to CFPB of their TILA violation are they indicating they took an action on a mortgage and note that was void by operation of law when the action was taken and are hoping CFPB does not take notice that the rescission was sent, the company did not reply to how they dealt with that TILA requirement. Pretty much, in my opinion, indicating they did not provide enough information in their response to answer the dispute. It would be interesting how people really use that resource.

    I posted a link that had an audio, and a woman was quoted as saying her hearsay information, [not statement of fact] that CFPB was employed by a lot of recent law school graduates [and I put in some of my own opinions to distort the rest of the information which was like the following ] graduates who have extremely high bills from loans and were not hired by law firms, and they do a lot of research into the disputes coming in, thus why it’s an effective source for the rest of us.

    I opinion, they cannot go digging for all records of any business, and can only use the dispute to select the information they would request to investigate , and if one is wise, they can word their response to the dispute staying in line with what the initial dispute was about, but point CFPB into an area within the company that would contain the information, such as, there was no assignment so that leads you to believe the company that sold their assets to the servicer did not assign anything that didn’t have an outstanding debt, or some other opinion or fact if you have paperwork you can attach, like the last assignment that doesn’t show their name, or the name of a trustee who was not the trustee that took the home, or the letter you received when you rescinded that you believe is not in line with what the TILA provisions require, etc, and so on.

    I listen to a lot of audio, a lot. I have no time for the idiot box and it’s regularly scheduled ‘programming’. I want to program my own mind, not let them do it. One day I may set up a computer system with voice recognitions and keyword capture what they are issuing in their programming. I opinion that in their line up of programs, there is a message that is being conveyed from show through commercials through shows in the entire lineup. If it isn’t dads are stupid and moms have to wise crack on them to get them to listen, or that teens run the households, or that everyone is a loser if they are fat, or some camera is in their face on some cop show making them guilty before being proven innocent [so everyone else will walk the straight line cause they don’t want to end up on tv like THOSE people], or some other nonsense, there is the programming aspect of t.v. and the collective conscience is all getting the same message, and that’s how they can control a group, when all minds are focused on the same things, it is a powerful aspect in the universe that we were not told.
    Just imagine a group of people meditating and making rocks levitate, and imagine the same across a country, a bunch of people focused on the same thing and making things happen, they just didn’t know they were making it happen and then later they complain about what they see.

    Back on topic, sometimes a speaker will be flowing fluently with their words and then hit a point where the speaker speaks hesitantly and then end up with the impression the speaker was hoping what was said was not picked up or considered useful, although revealed. If there is a video, I would be watching the speaker’s body language, when do they look into the camera and when do they look away. Sometimes people are trained to lie to your face but tell the truth without looking at you, and you hear truth and believe the entire message.

    Anyway, the speaker said, they have asked a purported creditor debt collector to show them one generation history of the loans; [ the one demanding payment whether purported creditor or the debt collector ], allegedly loaned, funded, or credited to the speaker.

    Modifications are new contracts. Everyone’s situation is different. Some people’s loans were not sold so they get the modification but many the contract, loan, mortgage, note, security, interest, or whatever was sold and the one who offers the modification has no standing but get the homeowner who will sit with anyone to keep ‘that’ house, will negotiate and create a new agreement. Those businesses know how to give notice to the other businesses that you have entered into a new agreement with them. If some business industry has proven to be untrustworthy I don’t see why people will sit at the table and negotiate with them, but that’s me.

    One thing I did learn is if the eviction ends up on the credit report, the apartment complexes are owned by friends and investors of these businesses, and so they punish you for not leaving the home 60 days before the eviction by not wanting to rent to you for going though the eviction.

    The answer is, it’s my home! Why would I abandon my home 60 days after someone makes a false claim for it? I would stay there and fight for it until someone forces me to leave at threat of their hands touching me against my free will, or at threat of armed conflict.

    No one coming to remove you from the home is going to be without a gun and use it if you don’t obey their order. They will pull it out, and show it to your face and you know if you move, they will say they felt threatened and shoot your face off.

    Their IQ is not high, they can’t have a high IQ to take the job.
    There is no intelligence behind the threat, just create the problem, react, and solution is to use the weapon they were trained to use for problems.

    There are a couple nuggets in the post, if you can see them.
    If not, no worries, throw it all away as bones without meat.

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

  22. Alina. ..it is my belief that after the initial default everyone’s payments were put into an suspense account. The missing money.
    The losses are fees they make post fc…
    And or service advances for tax ins mataince ……
    With your recession notice. ..did you request a tender amount?

  23. Alina .. If you could ever find the time to post a simple step by step method of looking up a mortgage, it would be greatly appreciated. At least some of the basic tips that you found were critical to finding out what happened and how to track it down. Thank you. Good luck with your case.

  24. Thank you Ian. Sorry, I do not hire out. This research project was done for personal reasons.

  25. Alina- i read your post months ago, you sure did your research- do you hire out?!

  26. David,

    I am considering those options now. The case is procedurally complicated. Until Jesinoski, there was little I could do.

  27. Alina, why havn’t you been back in court to say hey judge we were right on our rescission. now am sueing you and this bank for millions.

  28. I did extensive research on the trust that allegedly owned my loan after my home was foreclosed. I wrote a post detailing the information. One of the interesting things is that most of the tranches were sold in Ireland.

    I was also able to find the investor reports. The servicer reported an amount owing that was different than the amount owing claimed in court. As a result, I complained to the CFPB. The servicer’s response was to acknowledge they had made payments pursuant to their agreement.

    Since writing this post, I have found additional information that I am disseminating. I will write a follow up post once I have analyzed the new information.

    If anyone is curious and wants to read through the research, click on this link https://avirani.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/under-the-hood-of-a-remic/

  29. Bank tricks.

    This is from “consumer” atty post, not author,who pushes loan mods!

    http://newswire.net/newsroom/news/00088375-6-tricks-banks-use-to-drive-homeowners-into-foreclosure.html

  30. Agree with everything except somehow presidents, judges are misinformed. It’s purely a mindset of pure greed that is being used to rob us and destroy our democracy.

    The US Atty in CA actually asked the questions but was not allowed to make his case against Chase. The same guy going after a small time mortgage fraud case said exactly what NG stated that he could not imagine banks would commit fraud and lose money. William Black was called in as expert witness and he showed it was the bank’s intent and benefit from what I recall with their system of “control fraud”.

    This is the guy that helped start it all crying for his poor, exploited worker $150 mil + CEO!

    10 YRS no excuses for those defending these crooks working against us and our country.

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/29/former-gop-sen-phil-gramm-outrage-att-ceo-got/

  31. I agree it was more profitable for the services to foreclose because of the fees…they were nailed on…by the way.

    But there is so much more…….
    They used our assets and gambled with them on wall street.
    I will duel track them. …right in the Ole’ smoocher.

  32. Neil is right…most people wanted to do the right thing and get a valid loan. … Not get pushed into mod fraud. That is exactly what they did…dropped a loan mod package on our doorstep every 30 days despite telling them there was no hardship….they made an error and I a non borrower was being blackmailed to pay what they claimed due or they would not accept payment. We are talking about $12,000.
    After 12 months of this they tried to go to court behind my back.
    Pissed me off! SO I was advised to get figures to bring the loan current…got 2 sets with major variations…being the cautious person I am…I paid the larger amount and several hundred extra…just in case.
    I then went to pay his loan off……nope…they would not have it…
    What they did next should not have surprised me after their previous actions….

    On the business end of things…we were excited about the mod program…not only would it keep families in their homes…we would have alot of business. But there were less than a dozen the 1st year.
    I inquired why and was told ..no money…$1,000 was not enough to process them. LPS handled the few that were closed.

  33. I have also found in the modification process that one hand does not know what the other is doing. One rep you talk to does not know what you were told by a different rep. I sent in 10 loan mod packages which was during a lawsuit against me which was consolidated with another lawsuit I instituted. After I received a court ordered set. agmt, I received a letter in the mail from AHMSI saying I had a govt. loan mod. From what I understand, the servicers receive $1500 from the feds for each loan package for loan mod. Obviously, the lawsuits that are ongoing or completed are not conveyed to the staff working at the servicers. One hand does not know what the other is doing. HAMP should be called HUMP. It is a scam and should be under RICO.

  34. I am driving home to the US Atty Gen that 100% of Dept of VA loan were denied and not even underwritten but dual tracked and illegally foreclosed, also FHA Ginnie Mae pooled loans.

    You see Promontory Financial was suspended by the State of NY because of there crooked dealing with a British Bank, but Promontory was the alleged independent reviewer of the Independent Foreclosure Review Board that the GAO found 24% of homeowners financially harmed but the OCC said tat none or a handful might have been harmed are the settlement was made!

    It at this point the Justice Dept does not do what is lawfully, the country is headed for social unrest!

  35. I was in the unique position of being denied one and given a total dual track robo sign fraudclosed scam with no intention of modifications even though I sent up to 9 modifications in total.
    And second receiving a modification during the dame exact time frame on a much larger mortgage , which has lots of paperwork fraud in its history, perhaps more than even the foreclosure house.

    It wad so strange going thru both at same time. The lies I was told. The total opposite stories I was told would blow your mind AWAY. I’m pissed I lost the first home as I never should have. The second one although nice to have the pressure of fraudclosure removed, still isn’t making me a happy camper, knowing what’s really going on.

  36. HOMESTEAD RIGHTS!!!

    They need _______ &________ to relingish them?
    The language was changed and now a separate attestation is taken in a form outside the mortgage. You know…clearly disclosed.

    People flipped…

  37. Don’t forget about blackstone and all of the foreclosed properties they bought and now rent out. These were never “arms length transactions” which is a real estate term for a legitimate transaction between buyer and seller. They drove prices right back up and priced the average buyer out of the south Florida market thru price and supply. The average buyer should have been able to buy what black stone is now renting. Chase also holds the paper for black stone a/k/a invitational homes. I see it happening in my nice neighborhood of Deerfield beach not to mention since it’s not a homesteaded property taxes are significantly higher which city and county benefits from. No wonder chase is trying to steal my home and add to the rental market. They can profit more from renting out my home than working out a loan mod and letting me keep my home of 15 years. I am not upside down until you add in their unjustifiable fees. This has been the worst scam on America, stealing someone’s home for profit.

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  38. Investor..Homeowner..Taxpayer..
    Its like beating yourself up.
    Standing….on the sidelines.
    SOL failure to prosecute.
    Last nail in coffin…..Hammertime.

    Many Blessings to All!

    Taking a Bite out of Crime one criminal at a time.

  39. Many people were foreclosing on themselves.
    Husband and Wife..needed separate council…

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: