Rescission Legal Procedures and Strategies for Mortgages

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

THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH ANYONE SHOULD RELY. CONSULT A LAWYER WHO IS LICENSED IN THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

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

Homeowners are encountering the same resistance and frustration they did when I started pushing rescission that the nuclear option. Lawyers, too busy or not willing to do the research, analysis and thinking on the subject give a wrong incorrect advisory opinion and tell the homeowner that nothing has changed. They are right. The statute still says what it says. But they are wrong when they think they understand TILA rescission which is a specific statutory scheme for non-judicial cancellation of a loan that makes the note and mortgage void. They still can’t believe how simple it is. And they think the US Supreme Court was wrong in Jesinoski vs Countrywide. My answer is simple: Even if the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in January was wrong, it is, according to our system of laws, still FINAL.
It all comes down to this: Patrick Giunta in Fort Lauderdale and several other lawyers (see Charles Marshall in California and the recent shows on the Neil Garfield Show), have all come to the same conclusions, after playing devil’s advocate against each other to sharpen the understanding of TILA Rescission (non-judicial cancellation of mortgage and note and loan contract).  and I believe that the Federal Judge in most cases is going to be very narrow in the way he/she looks at your case. But in BKR we get more than one bite of the apple — the administrative proceeding and the adversary complaint we file to either enforce rescission or quiet title. We think that recording the rescission which is effective by operation of law, puts the homeowner on firmer footing.
And remember that the three duties imposed by TILA rescission are (a) return of the cancelled note, removal of the encumbrance from the property records, and PAYMENT TO THE BORROWER of all money ever paid by the borrower PLUS all money paid to any third party as compensation for origination of the loan. If the one year statute to enforce has expired, then two things are true: (1) you can’t sue to enforce the rescission but you scan still sue to quiet title and (2) the creditor can no longer ask for repayment of the debt. And by the way, if they ever DID come up with such a creditor (in reality or through fabrication) they could only ask for the principal due, without finance charges or fees).
The banks are in damage control and panic mode. They know we are right. But that has not  stopped them from asserting claims, defenses and arguments that are completely unsupported by the law.
It seems to me and other lawyers whom I have studying this issue, that while we believe we are dead-on right, history is going to repeat itself — i.e., Judges are not going to want to enter a ruling that they perceive gives you a “free house.” We like to stay in the Federal system because it is going to be less difficult than the State system, and Bankruptcy is the only other venue.

On the first go-around, despite the clear language of the statute, thousands of Judges, state appellate courts and even Federal appellate courts decided that the TILA rescission statute SHOULD not mean what it says. And they literally wrote in provisions that were exactly contrary to the express wording of the statute. I endured considerable ridicule (2007-2015) when I said that rescission levels the playing field without a lawsuit and without any tender of money or property. I also endured ridicule when I said that the loans were all subject to false claims of securitization and that the investment banks had no idea who the creditors were in any one loan.

I was cast as a fringe conspiracy theorist when I suggested that the paperwork from the false “closings” were destroyed or lost. I had proof. I identified a system and infrastructure of falsifying and fabricating documents with forgeries, robo-signing and now Robo-witnesses.  It didn’t matter and even today Judges are ruling as though that makes no difference — because they see their primary responsibility as one Judge in Sarasota said in open court was to “protect the banks.”

The Banks realize they have a  devastating problem but they are coming up with vocabulary and arguments that the Judges want to hear about rescission. They are throwing everything including the kitchen sink at rescission. They could avoid that by showing a real creditor with standing and taking issue with the notice of rescission. But they can’t because they cannot come up with a real creditor for a number of reasons and they dare not because it would reveal deep defects in the claimed securitization process. It could literally destroy most of the big banks.

So in our judgment we are going to be confronted with resistance from the bench. The laws, rules and procedures for the TILA rescission could not be more clear — as the opinion written by Justice Scalia stated with dripping sarcasm. BUT the Judges and many lawyers believe that the statute was framed incorrectly and that Congress never anticipated the problems that we face today with these wild, convoluted claims of securitization. So they are basically taking the faith-based legal approach instead of the “nation of laws” approach provided in the Constitution. They are saying the US Supreme Court was wrong or didn’t mean what it said, just as they said before when hundreds of thousands of decisions came down requiring a lawsuit claiming fraud, and tender to property or money to even have standing to enforce rescission. The assumption, even by fervent advocates of the rights of homeowners, was that it just wasn’t possible that Congress meant to give homeowners that much power to cancel a loan contract, note and mortgage. They are wrong. That is exactly what Congress wanted to do.

Judges want to believe that argument that somehow homeowners are twisting the law around in order to get a free house. But if they get a free house it is only because the banks could not come up with a party who had standing to VACATE the rescission within the 20 day time limit.

Ultimately the issue will be decided through litigation. But there ARE some Federal judges who never made the mistake of the thousands of other judges who “interpreted” a statutes that was clear on its face and who recognized that there was no ambiguity to resolve.
It is ONLY in a situation where the Court determines that something is ambiguous that they can resolve the ambiguity through interpretation. The Supreme Court says that the statute is clear and unambiguous. it says it applies to all rescissions and makes no distinctions between disputed and undisputed rescissions. It says that the rescission is effective when mailed. And it provides a window for compliance of 20 days. Any “interpretation that there was more than 20 days to comply — or file suit during that time to vacate the rescission — would effectively change the plain meaning of the statute — that the rescission was effective when mailed.

So we strongly believe we are right but we strongly believe that we encounter a lot of resistance from bank lawyers and the bench. Lawyers must be prepared to move to strike any “motion” that attempts to skirt the issue of standing. There is no valid motion if the “standing” of the proponent of the motion was established on the basis of the note and mortgage which are now void, once the notice of rescission was mailed.

The banks don’t feel comfortable ignoring rescission anymore. But they are trying to get the Judge to “ignore” the rescission without asking for the Court to vacate the rescission. They know that requires a lawsuit and that in order to file a lawsuit the actual creditor would need to be presented because the note and mortgage are void and nobody can assert either standing nor a claim upon which relief could be granted on the basis of void instruments.

35 Responses

  1. HELP !!!!! 757 822 9503

  2. reminding everyone that in America – they have this thing that the majority makes the rules…

    at last count We the People are the majority… LET’S RULE!

  3. greg, on October 8, 2015 at 7:58 pm said:

    FOR G0D’S SAKE –

    THIS IS PROOF THAT EDUCATED PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS OR JUST SO ENTRENCHED IN THEIR BELIEFS THEY WOULD RATHER DIE FOR NEWTON THAN LEARN QUANTUM THEORY

    SCOTUS DETERMINED THAT THE PEOPLE – THROUGH CONGRESS ASSEMBLED – DETERMINED, FOR THEMSELVES; THE INTENT AND OUTCOME OF TILA MATTER AND MADE IT PLAIN ON ITS FACE FOR THE WORLD TO SEE

    SCOTUS NAILED DOWN THE FACT THAT ALL LOWER COURTS ARE FORECLOSED TO SPEAK OR RULE AGAINST IT ANYMORE

    SCOTUS TELLS ALL LOWER COURTS THAT THEY BETTER NOT WAR WITH CONGRESS AND BETTER CORRECT ALL PAST MISTAKES INCONSISTENT WITH THE PEOPLE’S PLAIN MEANING

    SCOTUS TELLS ALL LOWER COURTS TO USE TILA TO ACT IN DEFENSE OF THE PEOPLE’S VOICE AND NEEDS – NOT THE BANKS OR CORPORATIONS

    P E R I O D ! ! !
    P E R I O D ! ! !
    P E R I O D ! ! !

    ANYTHING ELSE IS A COUP DE TAT ! ! !
    ANYTHING ELSE IS TREASON ! ! !

    greg
    greg, on October 8, 2015 at 7:41 pm said:

    one can create legal proof, duties, obligations and judgments without (outside of) any court!!!

    – it is this ongoing craziness that every damn thing must go before “black-robed daddy” to settle claims that is destroying America…

    – that guy on the bench is NOT my daddy…

    – things can still be legally settled with teeth between parties without an arbitrator or administrator or court…

    – and if you bind them to a counter offer version of a contract after they make an initial offer, and tell them in writing to answer or counter, else accept – you can get them to the SAME enforceable place that credit card companies get you when you don’s send back a cut-up credit card after they send you notice of change of terms…

    – if you get them into a legal agreement separately that stipulates that all issues are final and settled, they are foreclosed to bring it before a judge without violating the contract – and if you were sharp enough to add stipulations for recourse upon such breach of contract, you can collect or lien them up to their eyebrows… and a judge (if they do sue) should rule in your favor)

    – everyone forgot that THEY (The People) ARE the U.S., and the corporations we ALLOW to exist are there to serve US and the U.S.!

    – we can also create adhesion contracts that bind them to a post to the same degree that they create adhesion contracts which bind us to a post…

    – think of it as “What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander Law”

    everyone is drunk on litigation!

    greg

  4. please remember to call into our fledgling follow up Q&A show 15 min after Neil concludes at;
    Phone# 724.444.7444 Call ID139335 (just hit 0 for anonymous guest)
    or from your computer at:
    http://www.talkshoe.com/tc/139335

    6:45PM EST for up to 1 hour
    BTW – there is no strict format anymore until we get more participants and need the organization

    thanks
    greg

  5. take five: tila was instituted and written with its harsh penalty for non-compliance as a method to compel lenders to self-govern. The harsh penalty, the borrower’s right of rescission, was an INTENDED consequence of the failure to police one’s self (including not engaging in false advertizing and thus unfair competition). The law says “Lenders, do (at least) X,Y, and Z right, or pay big time.” Don’t make the mistake of thinking lenders didn’t weigh in on this legislation because they did (they didn’t want false advertizing, false advertizing which would cause a consumer to go to ABC instead of to them with their business, whether it was buying a car or financing a home, even as TILA isn’t anywhere near being limited to false advertizing).
    Lenders know the consequence of their failures and deservedly bear the intended consequence.
    The fact that the penalty for noncompliance / the lack of self-governance (correct apr, disclosures, etc) was made what it is for those who failed to self-govern imo needs to be stressed in every tila case.

  6. AND BOB I DO HAVE DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE BANKS SELLING MY NOTE FOR THE APPRAISEL PRICE, AND DOCUMENTS SHOWING MY MORTGAGE AS BEING PAID IN FULL BEFORE THEY SELL MY MORTGAGE TO SOME SAP INVESTORS. . AND THE DOCS SHOW MY MORTGAGE PAID IN FULL , ONLY AFTER I MONTH OF PAYMENTS. SAY IN DOCS. BALANCEPAID TO DATE, IS THE SAME AS THE BALANCE AS OF THAT DATE. SO AGAIN PAID IN FULL MEANS PAID IN FULL.

  7. bobhurt, on October 5, 2015 at 10:08 pm said:

    More ad hominems and NO supporting proof feom [sic] E. ToLLe.

    Show me a valid note that does not bear the lender’s identity.

    OK Bob, but let’s follow through on this one….no dodge ball….no skirting the issue. Stick to the facts.

    Take my loan. Please!

    On the note, the lender is stated to be:

    America’s Wholesale Lender, a New York corporation.

    Now in the first place, your query is a trick question i.e., “show me a valid note that does not bear the lender’s identity”. Of course there’s no such thing as a valid note that doesn’t show the lender’s true identity. That’s a given. If the lender’s true identity isn’t on the note, then the note is invalid. That’s first semester stuff. But therein lies the problem.

    That’s exactly the case in my alleged loan, as well as a few million others like it, as there is no such lender named America’s Wholesale Lender, registered and incorporated to do business as a mortgage lender. However, in the world in which we live in, where the judges will trip over themselves to keep a borrower from prevailing in court, and to prop up the banks at any and all costs, they routinely ignore the issue of non-entity – non-legal status. One judge in Minnesota actually wrote in his opinion denying a pro se homeowner who raised this issue that everyone knows AWL is a dba of Countrywide. Oh really? Basic centuries old contract law goes out the window due to this judge’s personal familiarity with this so-called business entity, and another borrower bites the dust, even though CW is NOWHERE identified on any document whatsoever?

    Now, please answer me, what about this lender’s identity on this note is valid, as per your question?

  8. BOB,

    PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS, YOU STATE AS THE BANKS STATE , THAT THE BORROWER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE PSA CONTRACT.

    IF THAT IS TRUE AS YOU SAY AND THE BANKS SAY, THEN HOW COULD ANY PSA, THAT ALSO IS THE TRUST. IF THE BORROWER
    IS NOT PART OF THE PSA AND ALSO NOT PART OF THE TRUST THAT THE PSA CONTRACT IS PART OF. RIGHT.

    HOW COULD A TRUST THAT STARTS WITH THE PSA THAT AM NOT PART OF, FORECLOSE ON ANYONE. ???

    ITS ALL ABOUT CONTRACT LAW. SO IF AM NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT, SO BE IT. THEN ANYTHING IN THAT CONTRACT AM NOT PART OF. PERIOD. THEN MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE COULD NOT BE PART OF THE PSA AND TRUST THAT THE TRUST IS NOW TRYING TO FORECLOSE.

    NOW, IF YOU SAY I AM , PART OF PSA, AND THIS TRUST, THEN I HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE ALL AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PAS AND TRUST. AS NOW YOU SAY I AM PART OF PSA AND TRUST.

    SO IT HAS TO BE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. SO AS PART OF PSA, TRUST. I WANT TO SEE, ALL EVERYTHING BEHIND THE CURTAIN. ALL ACOUNTS OF THE TRUST, CANCELLED CHECKS OF THE TRUST PAYING FOR MY MORTGAGE AND NOTE, WHEN , WHERE, THE TRUST STARTED AND ENDED. AS IN MY CASE. SHOW ME WERE, THIS TRUST THAT MY MORTGAGE IS IN, IS ALSO A MEMBER OF MERS, MERSCORP,OR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM.

    ALL THESE TRUST ARE SEPARATE,LEGAL ENTITY’S, RIGHT. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE MEMBERS OF MERSCORP,MERS, I SEE NONE AS BEING MEMBERS.

  9. bob, I would say this about the statement you say the borrower doesn’t get harm from securitization of his mortgage.
    The borrower has NOTHING to do with whether the loan gets securitized, or whether investors buy related security certificates, and the borrower does not suffer or benefit from the PSA, securitization, or sale of certificates in any way. So what do YOU, the borrower, care about it and why? Do you just feel bored?

    first of all, you seem smart, so lets see if you would do the same.

    bank says oh yes I will give you loan for 300,000. you just sign this note over to us.

    in back room of bank, hey we just got another note for 300,000, and we got a appraisal company to say its worth 600,000 thousand.

    as I have sec. docs showing this, my loan as being paid off in full as of 1 month after signing mortgage and note. get it paid in full. now the law says once a debt is pay , no matter who paid that debt, it’s paid. it doesn’t matter who paid that debt..

    now after showing investors that they now own this debt that they paid off, they sell that debt for the appraisal price, the inflated appraisal, fraud amount. of 600,000 dollars.

    now they are using your home , as a betting casino, selling at highest bidders, again this is why so many investors have sued and won, billions on this fraud.

    now if the bank came up to me and said look we want to give you a mortgage for 300,000 for 90 days, and we will give you 3 million in 90 days for letting us have a mortgage note. I would say am all in. as you know, they took your sign mortgage note to the treasury, sign it over to them for 30 times the face value, that would be 9 million they got, just the beginning, and now they sell it up to 30 more times on wall street,

    again investor caught on. to the ponzi

  10. Bob Hurt, what happen to your blog? The next one to show up is Rock.
    You MAY have some valid points, but 1st you are NOT a Lawyer, 2nd I read a article that discredited you, and last thing is, You keep telling all of us that in order for Tila to work the homeowner must tender, and because they can not tender they lose. I am more than willing to tender, but to who? The transaction must be undone taken back to the beginning and if the lender on the note and mortgage is not the entity that provided the funds, who does the homeowner tender?
    So before you go on and on, tell us the million dollar answer.
    You know what never mind, you are not a lawyer.

  11. Got a taste of that in my whacked out criminal case. When I brought out city’s own code they scrambled like rats. Speaking of being chit on I saw a post today of a corporate chart with each level of vultures crapping on one below. Caption was tgey chit on anyone below them and those on bottom look up at aholes lol!

  12. Oh god knows im sick of this Hammertime
    Thing is they do this crap in Court destroying all that was good hatched out of centuries of suffering of men since the middle ages
    Without the protection of law and its correct application the sacred is being chit on.

  13. Yes DW back to our regularly scheduled programming! That’s even worse than my screwed up facts. They’ve corrupted the system, property records, data way beyond robosigning. They can’t get anything right when pressed. No reliable evidence of a valid transaction. We just don’t know if we’re 1% or 99% of the cases. They sure try real hard to keep their script going if we were just the exception.

  14. Btw – I TENDERED but they never tendered back AND they cant get the numbers right anyway and they are in evidence – facts that they submitted and 90 K out between trustee deed upon sale and the 1099a issued on THE SAME DAY. If i they want to argue im up for it i mean they told so many untruths they are tied up in knot ( and i kept good records) already between what they submitted to the different Courts at the same material time and what they submitted to the IRS
    It was like a smash n grab raid on peoples homes THEIR HOMES

  15. Messrs. Tolle and Hurt…let’s spare all of us the righteous indignation, shall we? Everyone here is trying to get a free house of renegotiate their deal to the other guy’s disadvantage. This is a battle for the other guy’s resources…it’s a zero sum game. The courts should not be rooting for either team, but merely admitting only competent evidence an applying the law to the facts. Period.

    The problem with most lawyers and almost all pro se litigants is that they lose their case at the pleadings stage, wherein 90% of the outcome is locked in. If you don’t assert the proper affirmative defenses, you waive them. Your discovery will be geared to your pleadings. Plead incorrectly, and you won’t be able to get the discovery you need.

    ETolle, I don’t see Mr. Hurt as an SS officer or any of your other characterizations of him as some sort of killer of the innocents. It seems to me that all he is saying is let the tail run itself off without a further increase in numbers. Unless I’m missing something here, I don’t see him advocating exterminating the living. He’s just suggesting that a certain segment of the population not be allowed to reproduce or that we should not allow further immigration of the unproductive or less intelligent masses from the third world. Do you really want to live under Sharia law, sir? Seventy percent of muslim immigrants in this country want to replace our system of jurisprudence with Sharia law. Are you up for that? For female genital mutilation? For capital punishment and limb severings for what are presently treated as misdemeanors? I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

  16. Bob, you and I just come from different points of the compass….we couldn’t possibly be any further apart in our viewpoints. And how could you possibly accuse me of being disingenuous when I was quoting, verbatim, your website?

    Just now you said, “The finance industry does its best to convert them to serfs through debt, and most have terrible credit ratings because they typically borrow and fail to repay. They impose a monumental burden on the nation’s infrastructures all while having profoundly low value of productivity.”

    Notice how you alluded to the problem, at first, as being a predatory lending deal, then you quickly reverted to the borrower as being the bad guy or gal. That’s so typical of your stance. In your frame of mind, it doesn’t matter how the individual got into the mess, whether through bank fraud, false notarization, perjury, or what have you….that’s all in the past. Now the borrower is a problem due to his/her inability to maintain. So forget all that initial illegality. Bad borrower! I call bullshit!

    Now here in a nutshell is the problem Bob….what you see as the problem, the poor indigents failing to pay and having a low productivity….I see that as being the absolute truth when put upon the finance industry. It’s the financial industry that has NO PLACE in modern society, and they add absolutely nothing of value to the planet. Talk of low productivity? Borrowing at .03% and loaning at 10%….what a racket! Silver spooned assholes who always get the best government they can buy. They should be utilities and nothing more. Pay your garbage bill, pay your mortgage bill. We shouldn’t be charged 10% for simply raising a family. And it’s getting worse each day.

    You, Bob, are a despicable human being. You are a perfect representative of the SS officer assigning people to the showers, the Mississippi redneck holding a noose in hand, or the cavalry soldiers shooting women and children at Wounded Knee. And believe me, I DO NOT write such scathing statements lightly! I despise you, to say the least. Bring it on, asshole. I loathe you deeply, madly.

  17. I don’t often agree with Bob Hurt, but he does raise important issues regarding this rescission business. Personally, I do not know who is right in this argument. I think that we need to see some case law developing at the trial court level, and then the appellate courts need to weigh in on the subject.

    If Jesinoski was the kill shot that NG asserts, then I would expect that the banksters would be on Capitol Hill lobbying to get the law changed. I’ve not heard of this happening yet.

    I haven’t revisited Bob Hurt’s referenced URL in quite some time, so I can’t comment on whether his Mortgage Attack strategy is viable or not. Last I checked, there was only a Quicken Loans win in W. Va. based on that attack. But I don’t know if that decision was reversed on appeal or whether the $6 MM in damages was modified.

    I deal with a lot of folks who read stuff on the internet and assume that it’s gospel, and then take actions that get them into boatloads of trouble with the courts and law enforcement. What i ask them is did they check out the person that was giving them the advice, did they ask if that person or anyone they knew actually did what they’re advising and, if so, how did it turn out? The answer is always “No” to all the foregoing.

    Likewise with what NG is advising (and Bob Hurt as well). We need to see proof of concept here, and not just one win, but a series of wins such that we can conclude that a paradigm shift is underway.

    As to Bob Hurt’s eugenics argument, well, each to his own. But i’m old enough to have observed more than a couple of decades of this “work in progress” and have studied enough history to conclude that he’s probably correct. And no, it’s not politically correct…but cold winds always blow through the Hall of Truth.

  18. Again you guys fall into what’s supposed to happen. There’s no explaining the deception and fraud. Can’t explain 7 yrs later saying originator was different reporting it to OCC then denying it. Then on transfer a 3rd originator pop’s up! Makes No sense!

  19. then RECORD Themselves as beneficiAry

  20. et the documents name the ” lender”

  21. But Blithering Bob does lend a comedic flair….

    “The documents always NAME the lender.”

    BAWAHAHAHAHAHWAHAHAHAHA

    Bob, besides being a simply waste of time, you’re certainly an idiot.

  22. I dont want to pick on mR Bob but he believes a win is whatever an individual can get out of it that ol ” whats in it for me” we all gotta survive but alone – not natural law

  23. Common sense – you would not tender to a party that never loaned you a dime of THEIR money or COULD NEVER be harmed under the contractual agreement, the promise as i understood at that pointbin time and what ant reasonable man would was to pay an entity that in fact loaned dollars and did not use anyone elses dollars without them knowing it, i would not accept a loan from an entity where secondary market participants would be screwed when Sold certificates by trickery aka fraud for starters, based on triple A rated securities where risk was not hobestly disclosed, i would not sign for a loan if the collateral/ exchange investment was worth less than the loan or was bet against by smarter people than me,
    I would not want to unjustly enrich an entity that fooled investors all over the world and asset stripped me and milllions of Americans to do so. i would not sign for a ” loan” that would consequently and collectively as part of a scheme kill the nations economy amd threaten national security. My name backed a promise covering a debt instrument of a notes face value that was induced under false market forces and a pump and dump scheme, Oh Christ i sound like ivent, somebody stop me.
    But no thats not what im taking to court. Just venting.

  24. C’mon people, stop wasting your time with Blithering Bob. All he’s good for is roiling the seas. He has nothing to add….nothing, save for a bank bias and a sales pitch for Mortgage Attack, which is as valuable as the jock rash salve sold at newspaper stands.

    Let me remind you of his value to humanity….or should I say, how he values his fellow man….the following are his words, not mine. This is what should happen to “STUPID PEOPLE”, which automatically incorporates Hispanic, Black and Asians, not to mention any that defy his set of parameters:

    – Constant oversight and discipline to protect others

    – No access to dangerous weapons or vehicles

    – Sterilization

    – Families should remain together to the extent practical

    – Ability to earn the right to relative liberty

    – No voting rights

    – Path to prison for incorrigibles

    Anyone familiar with the real causes of the American Civil War will identify immediately with the above. Blacks were treated as personal property…chattel, and there was little concern over not only their welfare, but the welfare of the family group. Babies were torn from mothers with reckless abandon.

    This (idiot) person, posting as Bob Hurt, now wanting to impress you with his mortgage attack sales pitch crap, is in reality, a diabolical maniac who isn’t worth the zeros and ones wasted in a conversation.

    Not to mention that he obviously can’t understand basic legal tenants when put directly in front of him.

    Search Bob Hurt Eugenics….not on an empty stomach.

    What about Bob? Not much.

  25. @BobHurt – I have problem with your insistence that borrower has to tender if a court gets involved. Issues of law come before issues of equity (tender). In this case the issue of law is whether the right of the borrower exists. This is a question of fact (were proper copies distributed), which if false, would likely cause an adverse ruling against the creditor. Requiring tender from the borrower might prevent the exposition of the fact, which would impinge on the borrower’s U.S. Constitutional right to due process.

  26. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    Another blog post by Neil Garfield on the notice of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).

  27. OK,

    judge, here we have a sec mortgage trust/ stating , in court and under oath that they own/ the mortgage and note. really. ok , so all am asking is this your honor, show me when,where,and how , this trust paid for my mortgage, and i would like to know where in the trust my mortgage is . what your honor, oh i mean also what tranche they say my mortgage is in, because of having so many tranches, like 35 in this trust, so i just want to know if they can show this court what tranche is my mortgage and note in. it pretty simple your honor. BECAUSE i have sec doc’s / trust docs showing only about 6 left, 6 tranches that is. , just because they say they hold my mortgage and note, means nothing as i to am holding my mortgage note, so it makes me a holder also. and i can say for certain that the note am holding is sign in blue ink and endorsed over to no one in this court, as of the day of closing, so lets see what they have shell we. all we wants is the truth, so lets get started, shall we your honor.

  28. again under the rescap/gmac bk in 2012. now this also had 6 other banks / trustee in it. and over 500 securitized mortgage trust. now think about that.

    19. In exchange for their allocable portion of the Allowed Claim, the Institutional
    Investors agree to release all R&W Claims against the Debtors, effective upon Court approval of
    the RMBS Trust Settlement.32 The Institutional Investors also agree to direct the Trustees to
    accept the terms set forth in the RMBS Trust Settlement, which includes a release and waiver by
    the accepting Trusts and Trustees of all R&W Claims against the Debtors — again, effective as
    of the date the Court approves the compromise — and not to take any actions inconsistent with
    the acceptance of the RMBS Trust Settlement by all Trusts, including those in which they do not
    have voting power.33 The Institutional Investors also agree to direct the Trustees to comply with
    the Plan Support Agreements entered into by AFI, ResCap and the Institutional Investors to,
    among other things, support the Debtors’ Plan, including third-party releases for AFI.34 If, and
    when, a Trustee for a particular Trust accepts the RMBS Trust Settlement, the Trust will be
    bound thereby, and the Holders of the RMBS in that particular Trust will benefit from the
    Allowed Claim.

    20. In addition to the claims discussed above based on alleged breaches of
    representations and warranties made in connection with the origination, sale, or delivery of loans
    to the Trusts,

    the RMBS Trust Settlement includes a release by the Trusts, the Institutional
    Investors and persons claiming derivatively through the Trusts of all other non-securities claims,
    including claims arising under the Governing Agreements and/or relating to: (a) any alleged
    obligation of ResCap to repurchase the loans or otherwise compensate the Trusts for any alleged
    breaches of representations and warranties; (b) the documentation of the loans held by the Trusts,
    including allegedly defective, incomplete, or non-existent documentation, as well as issues
    arising out of or relating to recordation, title, assignment, or any other matter relating to legal
    enforceability of a mortgage or mortgage note, or any alleged failure to provide notice of such
    defective, incomplete or non-existent documentation; (c) the servicing of the Loans held by the
    Trusts (including any claim relating to the timing of collection efforts or foreclosure efforts, loss
    mitigation, transfers to subservicers, advances, servicing advances, or claims that servicing
    includes an obligation to take any action or provide any notice towards, or with respect to, the
    possible repurchase of loans by the applicable Master Servicer, Seller, or any other Person); (d)
    setoff or recoupment under the governing agreements against ResCap; and (e) any loan seller
    that either sold loans to ResCap or AFI that were sold and transferred to such Trust or sold loans
    directly to such Trust, in all cases prior to the Petition Date.36

  29. Faith based good analogy. It’s like we have a Kim Davis or whatever her name is the anti gay marriage vigilante in every courthouse! It’s amazing how this is being ignored.

  30. Dc id say rescission is not just a kitchen sink approach but I get what Louise is saying. It’s more a matter of asserting our rights. We have to demand our rights from these crooks and stay out of bought off courts as much as possible. But if u keep making this about our morals and they’re our authority figure then ur definitely headed for a fall.

  31. I can only speak for myself,I was a long time client at Wells Fargo with many dif accounts and past loans paid on time and in full,I have had no less than 15 to 20 home loans all paid on time and in full except for this garbage Im dealing with now.

    I went into the local branch after being ignored by the online banking and wanted to renegotiate the terms of a Interest only,6%,broker originated refi of my principle residence.
    What I got was a very flat NO from some assmonkey inhouse loan peddler and then he says “WE HAVE TO GO BY THE iNVESTOR GUIDELINES” and that started this entire nightmare and what I have been subjected to by what I used to call “My bank” is out of control,so Im not sure what the fork your saying about the kitchen sink as I know what a sink is but you make no sense.

  32. Rescission is part of the kitchen sink approach for homeowners. If they will eventually take your home, you might as well send the rescission notice.

  33. Im saying it again, it blows my mind that this was allowed to happen to begin with,thinking back my accountant was trying to get me to invest in REITS and pushing very hard,thank god I stood firm on my NO.These f….rs would have got me on both ends,and no that doesnt sound sexy.

    Theres many players in this scam and now thanks to them giving their gifts of Mortgage Backed Securities that arent backed at all they have corrupted pretty much every area of the housing and housing finance industries and the legal community,dang digity dog.

    That to me here in Cali means when you throw are elected officials and any other person whos paid for by the banks or paid off by a realtor or a escrow or title company that doesnt leave to many of us trying to get by in the private sector and as we are so not organized its a daunting situation to face.
    Im on my fifth lawyer,the lawyer that was meant to do my appeal has proven to be garbage and if it were up to her this would be done already and I would be homeless.
    Its funny I was the one who was suing Wells Fargo and I get to spend 25k on my first lawyer who moved my case from one court to another to get in with a certain judge and he passionately lied about it just to turn around 3 mins later and admit it.Then I get hit with the judge giving the escrow company 20k in lawyers fees based on a un signed never entered into evidence indemnity clause that favors me,Can you f….ng believe this sh..?
    I cant believe it,I cant believe that after all this time and doing what we all think matters like being honest and not over spending,or saving and buying a home{yet private persons never own their home in Cali}now I see why people go crazy and do violent things,they have no hope and no one has your back,its pretty messed up and I dont see what the end game is besides total chaos.

  34. RECISSION IN CA – TILA rescission voids the note and DOT upon receipt by the creditor of a letter requesting such rescission. Period. THE NOTE AND DOT IS VOID AT THAT POINT. If creditor agrees to rescind, it has 20 days to perform certain acts. Once that occurs, the debtor has specific acts to perform as well if he also agrees to rescind without court intervention. After that point, a 1 year period allows either party to initiate suit to complete the rescission to unwind the obligation or challenge it.

    IANAL, and I have not been following rescission in the courts, so I have not seen results of the following strategy for the debtor. Once the 20 days have passed, the debtor may record a Satisfaction and Reconveyance with the county, using Cal Civ Code 1203 (“1203. Any person interested under an instrument entitled to be proved for record, may institute an action in the superior court against the proper parties to obtain a judgment proving such
    instrument.”), aka, the Glaski Blaster. The facts of the action are that a letter requesting rescission was received by creditor, the note and DOT are void as an operation of law, and the Satisfaction and Reconveyance are being submitted by borrower because creditor no longer has interest in the property or obligation. The judgment of the court is attached to the docs and recorded with the county. Timing of the action is a cause of concern worthy of consulting with an out-of-state attorney since the CA BAR can no longer be trusted as acting in the interests of CA citizens. Then file the puppy in Fed court due to diversity to avoid corrupt CA judiciary. The caveat is that if an instrument, such as a Trustee Sale and Conveyance is recorded first, there is only a 1-year limitation to challenge it before it becomes binding as an operation of law.
    (copied from prev topic)

  35. Now Neil .. If everything were on the up and up there would be not need to hide who the original creditor is and dispute the amount owed …would there be?

    The gig is up ….
    Will the RPII please step forward?

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: