Guest Attorney Patricia Rodriguez on the Neil Garfield Show Tonight!

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

More than 24,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.

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

LA Lawyer Patricia Rodriguez (TILA Rescission is boiling over the top. And there are differences between non-judicial states and judicial states. The main problem though is that desperate homeowners are hearing something different than the real message: rescission is as close to a magic bullet as we have seen but it is still susceptible to multiple issues in litigation. Rescission is certainly effective upon mailing and that appears to be true even if the notice is wrongfully sent. The burden of vacating the rescission is on the so-called lender. But there are still circumstances where the notice of rescission itself may well render it void even if mailed. Admitting that the transaction was consummated on a specific date where the rescission letter itself has both the consummation date and the date of mailing might encourage judges to strike down the rescission or vacate it because it is void on its face if the notice was sent after the three year period. It is true that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and that the ability to raise an affirmative defense depends upon your standing to raise the issue. Patricia Rodriguez agrees that the argument could still be made that the rescission is effective but the more information on the rescission, the more likely the Judge will find the rescission void on its face even if mailed.

36 Responses

  1. United States Court of Appeals

    For the Eighth Circuit

    ___________________________

    No. 12-2508

    ___________________________

    Bank of America, N.A.

    Plaintiff – Appellee

    v.

    Gary R. Peterson; Sally L. Peterson

    Defendants – Appellants

    JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and its successors and assigns;

    Horizon Bank, National Association; Clear & Close Title Agency, Ltd.,

    also all heirs and devisees of any of the above-named persons who

    are deceased; and all other persons or entities claiming any right,

    title, estate, lien or interest in real estate described in the Summons

    and Complaint herein

    Defendants

    ____________

    Appeal from United States District Court

    for the District of Minnesota – Minneapolis

    ____________

    Submitted: March 4, 2015

    Filed: April 15, 2015

    ____________

    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

    ____________

    WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

    This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. In

    Peterson v. Bank of America, N.A., 135 S. Ct. 1153 (2015), the Court granted a writ

    of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment in Bank of America, N.A. v. Peterson, 746

    F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 2014), and remanded the case to us for reconsidering in light of its

    decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015).

    In Peterson, we relied upon our court’s decision in Keiran v. Home Capital,

    Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2013), in holding that the Petersons’ claim for rescission

    under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., was time-barred by 15

    U.S.C. § 1635(f) because of their failure to file a lawsuit within three years of their

    transaction with Bank of America. 746 F.3d at 360. The Supreme Court held in

    Jesinoski that the Keiran court had erred in holding that a borrower’s failure to file

    a suit for rescission within three years of the transaction’s consummation extinguishes

    the right to rescind and bars relief. 135 S. Ct. at 792.

    In light of the Court’s holding in Jesinoski, we vacate that portion of our

    judgment in Bank of America N.A. v. Peterson that granted Bank of America

    summary judgment on the Petersons’ claim for rescission, reinstate that portion of our

    judgment that vacated the grant of summary judgment to Bank of America on the

    Petersons’ counterclaim for statutory damages, and remand the case to the district

    court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    ______________________________

  2. Got it all down even recordings from lender, agency. Need some major catch up while I’m hit on all sides. They think we’re idiots, internet crazies then say we’re trying to be lawyers when they can’t answer basic facts. Rule of absurdity like Sen Dorman said in ’99.

  3. That is unbelieveable, and illegal as all hell! Keep perfect records, start a timeline, call each entity invlolved amd ask “dumb” questions- amazing the info you can get when you play dumb, of course ive had people hang up on me also. But think it through first, write down your questions, and stay calm. As soon as the person on the other emd of the line thinks “damn, is this guy stupid”, then you got ’em right where you want ’em but they have no idea.

  4. Thx Ian, “Don’t let the bastards grind you down” exactly. At 3 day notice stage not literally being thrown out at this point but seems like they’re trying every dirty trick in past week. Musical chairs with lawyers, illegitimate docs w tenants, fake offer on top of ignoring Supreme Court. Getting support from unexpected places, even tenants that had been turned against me. Law firm ref’d by city actually tried to tell me robosigning is legal! They will try to tell us black is white til the end stay firm in our conviction.

  5. Hammertime, thats the spirit. “Illegitimi non carborundum est”

  6. Db I will prob afternoon, evening west coast

  7. I was inspired to start, actually resume typing up my pro se complaint. Chase/PennyMac trying to evict illegally as we speak. Nothing but double talk from CA lawyers and agencies. May still lose home but will still expose the lies and sue whoever I have to after the fact for steering me and millions of us WRONG! The LIES and LIARS ARE STILL ALIVE!!

  8. YES AND USEING THIS WITH WHAT NOW THE SUPREME COURT SAID. LOOK OUT.

  9. Damn DavidB u struck gold!

    Previous post note 20 days starts on receipt. But still void on mailing?

    Beware lawyers that push loan mods!

  10. Legal Notices
    CAVEAT EMPTOR NOTICE – BUYER BEWARE!
    NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: Be advised litigation is pending in Federal Court Docket 1:15-cv-
    00028-WMS (WDNY) and LIS PENDENS filed Index No.807348/2014 on 1/20/2015 has been
    RECORDED property a 6853 Erie Road Evans New York SBL 192.20-8-26.1 OWNER OF
    THE Account Deborah Ann Buczek
     “The maxim … operates as between purchaser and vendor (and) instructs the potential
    purchaser to rely upon his own investigations, inspections and inquiries.
     Spivey v. Adaptive Marketing, 660 F. Supp. 2d 940( United States District Court,
    Illinois, 2009)
     Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co., [1995] 1 S.C.R.
    85
    According to: 1868 U.S. Dist. Lexis 265::In re Kerosene Oil Co.: Nov. 1868 The Federal
    Court(s) Have jurisdiction to restrain the Mortgagees from proceeding in the action
    See U.S. v. PhillipsC.A.4 (N.C.) | July 16, 1999 | 185 F.3d 183 W.D.N.Y. | August 20, 2012 |
    1.) 890 F.Supp.2d Tachiquin v. HSBC Bank USA S.D.Cal. | November 14, 2012 | Not
    Reported in F.Supp.2d
    2.) Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mort. Co., Inc. N.D.Ind. | June 26, 1985
    3.) 612 F.Supp. 253 Ungar v. MandellC.A.2 (N.Y.) | December 06, 1972 | 471 F…2d 1163
    “MEMORANDUM OPINION BRIEF
    STATEMENTS BY A JUDGE ANNOUNCING his/her RULING”
    JURISDICTION:
    1.) Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St. 3d 68; 518 N.E.2d 941; 1988). A judgment rendered by a court
    lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void A ab initio. Consequently, the authority to vacate a
    void judgment is not derived from Ohio R. Civ. P. 60(B), but rather constitutes an inherent
    power possessed by Ohio courts. I see no evidence to the contrary that this would apply to ALL
    courts.
    2.) “A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or
    a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of the action. Lebanon
    Correctional Institution v. Court of Common Pleas 35 Ohio St.2d 176 (1973).
    3.) “A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or
    a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an action.” Wells Fargo
    Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to
    hold,” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the
    complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (The following
    court case was unpublished and hidden from the public)
    4.) Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the
    mortgage loan. Therefore, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.” (The following court case was
    unpublished and hidden from the public)
    5.) Wells Fargo v. Reyes, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Dismissed with prejudice, Fraud on Court &
    Sanctions. Wells Fargo never owned the Mortgage. (The following court case was unpublished
    and hidden from the public)
    6.) Deutsche Bank v. Peabody, 866 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2008). EquiFirst, when making the loan,
    violated Regulation Z of the Federal Truth in Lending Act 15 USC §1601 and the Fair Debt
    Collections Practices Act 15 USC §1692; “intentionally created fraud in the factum” and
    withheld from plaintiff “vital information concerning said debt and all of the matrix involved in
    making the loan”.
    7.) (The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Indymac Bank v.
    Boyd, 880 N.Y.S.2d 224 (2009). To establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a
    mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and the mortgage note. It is
    the law’s policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a lawsuit . . . A want of “standing to
    sue,” in other words, is just another way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a
    genuine controversy, and a simple syllogism takes us from there to a “jurisdictional” dismissal:
    8.) (The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Indymac Bank v.
    Bethley, 880 N.Y.S.2d 873 (2009). The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of
    plaintiff or at least malfeasance Plaintiff INDYMAC (Deutsche) and must have “standing” to
    bring this action.
    9.) (The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Deutsche Bank
    National Trust Co v.Torres, NY Slip Op 51471U (2009). That “the dead cannot be sued” is a
    well established principle of the jurisprudence of this state plaintiff’s second cause of action for
    declaratory relief is denied. To be entitled to a default judgment, the movant must establish,
    among other things, the existence of facts which give rise to viable claims against the defaulting
    defendants. “The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations
    within their legitimate spheres and punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it
    probably is not invoked too often. “ Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis. 125, 79
    NW 229 (1899). Also see: American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 181 Wis. 172, 194 NW
    427 (1923).
    10.) (The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Wells Fargo v.
    Reyes, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Case dismissed with prejudice, fraud on the Court and Sanctions
    because Wells Fargo never owned the Mortgage nor the note was lost.
    11.) (The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Wells Fargo, Litton
    Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan nor the
    note. “Indeed, no more than (affidavits) is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United States
    v. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526 (7th Cir. 1981).
    12.) (The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Indymac Bank v.
    Bethley, 880 N.Y.S.2d 873 (2009). The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of
    plaintiff or at least malfeasance Plaintiff INDYMAC (Deutsche) and must have “standing” to
    bring this action.
    13.) Lawyer responsible for false debt collection claim Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
    USCS §§ 1692-1692o, Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291; 115 S. Ct. 1489, 131 L. Ed. 2d 395
    (1995). and FDCPA Title 15 U.S.C. sub section 1692.
    14.) In determining whether the plaintiffs come before this Court with clean hands, the primary
    factor to be considered is whether the plaintiffs sought to mislead or deceive the other party, not
    whether that party relied upon plaintiffs’ misrepresentations. Stachnik v. Winkel, 394 Mich. 375,
    387; 230 N.W.2d 529, 534 (1975).
    15.) “Indeed, no more than (affidavits) is necessary to make the prima facie case.” United States
    v. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526 (7th Cir. 1981). Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, (1982).
    16.) “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or
    when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d
    297 (1977).
    17.) “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).
    18.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(1) which requires that “[a]n action must be
    prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” See also, In re Jacobson, 402 B.R. 359, 365-
    66 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009); In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 766-67 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).
    19.) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chong, 824 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2006). MERS
    did not have standing as a real party in interest under the Rules to file the motion.The declaration
    also failed to assert that MERS, FMC Capital LLC or Homecomings Financial, LLC held the
    Note.
    20.) Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528, 216 P.3d 158 (2009). “Kan. Stat. Ann. §
    60-260(b) allows relief from a judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
    neglect; newly discovered evidence that could not have been timely discovered with due
    diligence; fraud or misrepresentation; a void judgment; a judgment that has been satisfied,
    released, discharged, or is no longer equitable; or any other reason justifying relief from the
    operation of the judgment. The relationship that the registry had to the bank was more akin to
    that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer.” Also In September of
    2008, A California Judge ruling against MERS concluded, “There is no evidence before the court
    as to who is the present owner of the Note. The holder of the Note must join in the motion.”
    21.) LaSalle Bank v. Ahearn, 875 N.Y.S.2d 595 (2009). Dismissed with prejudice.Lack of
    standing.
    22.) Novastar Mortgage, Inc v. Snyder 3:07CV480 (2008). Plaintiff has the burden of
    establishing its standing. It has failed to do so.
    23.) DLJ Capital, Inc. v. Parsons, CASE NO. 07-MA-17 (2008). A genuine issue of material fact
    existed as to whether or not appellee was the real party in interest as there was no evidence on
    the record of an assignment. Reversed for lack of standing.
    24.) Everhome Mortgage Company v. Rowland, No. 07AP-615 (Ohio 2008). Mortgagee was not
    the real party in interest pursuant to Rule 17(a).Lack of standing.
    25.) In Lambert v. Firstar Bank, 83 Ark. App. 259, 127 S.W. 3d 523 (2003), complying with the
    Statutory Foreclosure Act does not insulate a financial institution from liability and does not
    prevent a party from timely asserting any claims or defenses it may have concerning a mortgage
    foreclosure A.C.A. §18-50-116(d)(2) and violates honest services Title 18 Fraud. Notice to
    credit reporting agencies of overdue payments/foreclosure on a fraudulent debt is defamation of
    character and a whole separate fraud.
    26.) A Court of Appeals does not consider assertions of error that are unsupported by convincing
    legal authority or argument, unless it is apparent without further research that the argument is
    well taken. FRAUD is a point well taken! Lambert Supra.
    No lawful consideration tendered by Original Lender and/or Subsequent Mortgage and/or
    Servicing Company to support the alleged debt. “A lawful consideration must exist and be
    tendered to support the Note” and demand under TILA full disclosure of any such consideration.
    Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558 (1890).
    27.) “It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under Federal law, being
    limited in its power and capacity, cannot lend its credit by nor guarantee the debt of another. All
    such contracts being entered into by its officers are ultra vires and not binding upon the
    corporation.” It is unlawful for banks to loan their deposits. Howard & Foster Co. vs. Citizens
    National Bank, 133 S.C. 202, 130 S.E. 758 (1926),
    28.) “Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank’s business to
    lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received
    compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than
    any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother
    of panics . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real
    business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives
    rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee,
    Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248.” American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 181 Wis.
    172, 194 NW 427 (1923). I demand under TILA full disclosure and proof to the contrary.
    29.) UCC § 2-106(4) “Cancellation” occurs when either party puts an end to the contract for
    breach by the other and its effect is the same as that of “termination” except that the canceling
    party also retains any remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance.
    NOTE WAS LOST BREACH OF CONTRACT
    N.Y. UCC. LAW § 2–106 : NY Code – Section 2–106: Definitions: “Contract”; “Agreement”;
    “Contract for Sale”; “Sale”; “Present Sale”; “Conforming” to Contract; “Termination”;
    “Cancellation”. (1) In this Article unless the context otherwise requires “contract” and
    “agreement” are limited to those relating to the present or future sale of goods. “Contract for
    sale” includes both a present sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A “sale”
    consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (Section 2–401). A
    “present sale” means a sale which is accomplished by the making of the contract.(2) Goods or
    conduct including any part of a performance are “conforming” or conform to the contract
    when they are in accordance with the obligations under the contract.(3) “Termination” occurs
    when either party pursuant to a power created by agreement or law puts an end to the contract
    otherwise than for its breach. On “termination” all obligations which are still executory or
    both sides are discharged but any right based on prior breach or performance survives. (4)
    “Cancellation” occurs when either party puts an end to the contract for breach by the other
    and its effect is the same as that of “termination” except that the cancelling party also retains
    any remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance.
    30.) “There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become
    an accommodation endorser.” National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 F. 465; (1893).
    31.) National Banks and/or subsidiary Mortgage companies cannot retain the note, “Among the
    assets of the state bank were two notes, secured by mortgage, which could not be transferred to
    the new bank as assets under the National Banking Laws. National Bank Act, Sect 28 & 56”
    National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 8 Kan. App. 30, 54 P. 8 (1898).
    32.) “A bank can lend its money, but not its credit.” First Nat’l Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe,
    135 Ga 614, 69 S.E. 1123 (1911).
    33.) 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).
    34.) “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).
    35.) “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).
    36.) “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).
    37.) “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).
    38.) “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).
    39.) 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).
    40.) 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).
    41.) 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.
    42.) 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.
    43.) 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.
    44.) Nichols v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 1989 WL 46682 (Pa. 1989). Mid-Penn
    misinformed Nichols in the Notice of Right to Cancel Mortgage.
    45.) 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.
    46.) 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).
    47.) Johnson-Allen v. Lomas and Nettleton Co., 67 B.R. 968 (Pa. 1986). Violation of Truth-inLending
    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.
    48.) 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
    49.) 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
    50.) 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.
    51.) 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.
    52.) 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);
    53.) 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.
    54.) 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).
    55.) 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.
    56.) 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.
    57.) 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.
    58.) 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)..
    59.) 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.
    60.) 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).
    61.) 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.;
    62.) 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;
    63.) 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.
    64.) 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.
    65.) 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.
    66.) 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),
    67.) 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.
    STANDING
    The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter
    at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are
    three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a
    legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not
    conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged
    conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the
    defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the
    court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means
    that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too
    speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party
    invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.
    See Also:
    http://jennaison.hubpages.com/hub/VoidOrders

  11. 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).

  12. We need to go to the tape lol!

  13. !) This is on your copy of the note which you got from closing and held onto? NO ,AFTER STARTING THIS 5YRS AGO, I WENT TO CLOSING ATTORNEY OFFICE IN 2013, ASK FOR ALL MY COPY IN FILE, THIS IS WHEN I GOT ALL THIS INFO, ALONG WITH CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS AND COPY OF NOTE, THAT WAS IN FILE, AND I ASK HIM WHILE WE ARE STILL DOING RESEARCH ON THIS MATTER, PLEASE DONT DESTOY ANYTHING IN FILE, HE SAID LOOK WE DESTORY ALL FILES AFTER 5 YRS, THIS WAS BACK IN 2005 , ONLY REASON I HAD IT WAS THAT WE MOVED TO NEW LOCATION, ANYWAYS I SAID TO DO NOTHING WITH THAT FILE, AFTER A FEW DAYS I WANTED HIM TO CERTIFY ALL DOC.S, THIS WAS WHEN HE TURN ME OVER TO ANOUGHTER ATTORNEY IN HIS OFFICE AND SAID WE DESTROYED IT ,
    1a) When you got your copy of the note at closing, it had a signed and dated endorsement to Dauscher B & T on it? NO NOT THAT I REMEMBER.
    Is this endorsement on the front or back? FRONT
    2)Then your now being told there is another endorsement in blank on your note (from Dausher B & T)? NO JUST SOMEONE WITH A STAMP ON IT. NO NAME OF ANYONE. JUST IN BLANK. AS YOU KNOW THEY CAN PUT ANYONES NAME ON IT. BUT IT IS A STAMP. MINE IS NOT A STAMP, AND MINE IS DATED. THERE IS NOT. SIGN OR DATED.

  14. I agree there was even a report that long term fc fights result in ptsd. But dismiss us as emotional when we are trying to raise basic points is something else.

  15. The A man – I’m with you. I’m a firm believer all this bs leads to ptsd, complete with its long-lasting effects. I mean, talk about a rotten marriage – one had no idea to what he was saying “I do”. Since the majority of us won’t be able to be compensated for this and who knows what brings relief from it other than drugs maybe, imo best to take breathers now and then and smell some flowers or what not. Take a trip – get a diff perspective to the degree possible by removing oneself from the arena we didn’t want to enter in the first stinking place. Those who lost their homes due to predatory lending schemes (to me, mainly but not exclusively the use of teaser rates to suck people into loans they couldn’t pay back in a million years) really need to be nice to themselves now and then. I’ve ‘outed’ myself as a former lender, and I can tell you I’m entirely ashamed of the nasty turn my industry took after my years in it. And I’m telling you, there was a time when title companies were our friends, before the larger hooked up with or helped form MERSCorp and its rotten spawn and the smaller had to tag along or sink. In defense of the smaller, I think it’s fair to say they had no idea what they were tagging along with.

    There’s also another term for litigation stress, though I’ve not been able to find it online lately: “jurisgenic harm”, the result of prolonged, very adversial litigation.

  16. Hammertime I understood that. But if we are harrasing them it is due to us being bullied by the Banksters. Allegedly of course.

    NEVER AGAIN

  17. David my understanding was you have the original wet ink note from paid loan on refi?

    If you do then judge should view their “copy” as counterfeit imo

    If you have a different version of a copy then there’s some kind of clouded title or if you brought this up before then I can’t see how they can show their face.

    Either they’re the criminals or they were victims of the original counterfeitor or MERS corruption of property records.

    I agree with Melissa and you but IMO u should focus on basic inconsistencies, facts of you case, docs.

    It seems with acceptance of rescission note, debt should no longer be the issue.

    Seems you need to enforce it and get into fraud, and other damages.

    Just my opinion on reading of TILA etc.

    That’s what I didn’t get from this podcast that somehow judges can ignore rescission and illegal sale. That’s mentality of CA lawyers, officials that banks can do ANYTHING to fix docs in non judicial that needs to stop and NG should recognize this.

  18. David – take two jg: Are you saying you have a copy of the note with your signature on it?
    david: YES / AND

    “ENDORSED TO THE REAL FUNDER OF FUNDS FOR CLOSING. AND IT IS SIGNED AND DATED AS OF THE CLOSING DATE, PAYED TO THE ORDER OF DAUSCHER BANK AND TRUST AMERICAS, WITHOUT RECOURSE.”

    !) This is on your copy of the note which you got from closing and held onto?

    1a) When you got your copy of the note at closing, it had a signed and dated endorsement to Dauscher B & T on it?

    Is this endorsement on the front or back?

    2)Then your now being told there is another endorsement in blank on your note (from Dausher B & T)?

  19. Except A Man NG was talking about us harassing lawyers

  20. The best thing on this podcast is for homeowners to go to get therapy for being allegedly harrassed with strong arm tactics etc….. PTSD.
    Add that to the punitive damages bill.

    not an attorney just brain storming.

    Did anybody see Trump and the cheers he got from the audience to the dismay of the puppet Fox news bankster Bi$ch anchore forgot his name. FOR BEATING THE BANKSTERS IN BK.

    NEVER AGAIN

  21. I AGREE MELISSA, TOTALITY, SPECIALLY IF THE PRETENDER LENDER SIGN OVER THE NOTE, WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE SAME BANK THAT FUNDED THE LOAN. THE SAME DAY AS SIGNING TO THIS OTHER BANK. BUT 6 DAYS LATER THE PRETENDER LENDER PUT MORTGAGE IN HIS NAME AT REGISTRY OF DEEDS. .

  22. Are you saying you have a copy of the note with your signature on it?
    YES / AND ENDORSED TO THE REAL FUNDER OF FUNDS FOR CLOSING. AND IT IS SIGNED AND DATED AS OF THE CLOSING DATE, PAYED TO THE ORDER OF DAUSCHER BANK AND TRUST AMERICAS, WITHOUT RECOURSE.

    Are you saying you have a copy of your note with a blank endorsement on the back already? NO. THE BANK SAY IT HAS COPY WITH A STAMP ENDORSEMENT, PAYED TO THE ORDER OF BLANK.

  23. David, not clear what you’re saying about your copy of the note from closing. Are you saying you have a copy of the note with your signature on it? Are you saying you have a copy of your note with a blank endorsement on the back already?

  24. David,

    In my opinion the note was void in the beginning, so it doesn’t matter who has what. It was a lie from the beginning. If Bank A is named on your note and mortgage, but Bank B was the source of the funds it was never consummated and was void from the beginning, in my opinion.

  25. the other question , if am holding the really only true copy , then i would say am holding my note

  26. question for my friends.

    bank go’s to court, with copy of your note. there note is stamp/not dated/ and in blank.

    you show up with a true copy of the original from closing attorney closing file, with a sign/dated/ with a signature that signs it over the same day as closing, without recourse to the real funder at closing table. not the originator/creditor/bank.

    because i do have the wire transfer certificate from the closing attorney files showing the money came from someone other then who was originator and creditor at closing. and the note was sign over to them/

    so who’s name should be recorded as being mortgage and note holder as of this refi.

    and what would a judge do seeing that my original is signed/dated

    and banks not.

  27. MELISSA, we have meeting tues. to talk about the case

  28. Alot of contradictions w this lawyer. Was NG body snatched? We need therapy like banks say we’re internet crazies and bottom line modifications?

  29. Claims that the banksters..have gone under receivership …. BE PREPARED!

    NO CONSUMATION. …
    DO A or B…..JG
    Can not have it both ways!

    Neil…comings back as trusts for advances. ..
    Make believe and real.
    Talk about being in a pickle.

  30. Date of “consummation” was yet to be determined and should not be confused or interpreted as the date of “transaction”.

    Black letter law requires the element of consummation to connect the security interest in real property if my recollection is accurate.

    Miles

  31. David, I thought your lawyer filed in the courts. What did you do after getting that from Ocwen.

  32. MY RESCISSION LETTER, THAT THE SERVICERS ATTORNEY FOR OCWEN , SAID IN WRITING THAT THE COMSUMATION NEVER HAPPEN WITH TRUE LENDER OR CREDITOR. AND THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THE RESCISSION.

    SO HOW COULD A JUDGE SAY ANY DIFFERENT

  33. Re: “Patricia Rodriguez agrees that the argument could still be made that the rescission is effective but the more information on the rescission, the more likely the Judge will find the rescission void on its face even if mailed.” If the lender’s challenge is filed after the twenty day window closes can the Judge effectively void the rescission?

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: