WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583
Our services consist mainly of the following:
30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
Case review and analysis
Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
COMBO Title and Securitization Review
Expert witness declarations and testimony
Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
AND for those of you who continue to doubt what you see on these pages despite concurrence by all three branches of government, consider this: Since 2014 the banks have been purchasing rescission insurance. If they didn’t think they had a problem, why would they buy the insurance?
The answer is simple — what fund manager is going to buy alleged mortgage backed securities on loans that could disappear overnight? The bigger question will reveal itself: Like AIG in 2008-2009, there isn’t enough money in the world to cover these policies; but they look good on paper.
In plain language I know that the attorneys for the banks are fully aware of the danger posed by rescission and the particular vulnerability the banks have for loans “originated” without funding (i.e., no consummation). Also known as “table-funded” which is “predatory per se” which SHOULD interfere with them getting the equitable relief of foreclosure (unclean hands, per se). And the conflict with state laws will also come front and center — how can anyone enforce a note or mortgage for which there was no funding from any of the parties in their “chain.?”
If they admit or if it is revealed that there was no consummation of the loan contract, they don’t need rescission insurance because there is no loan contract to cancel.
BUT if they admit there was no loan consummation then nobody could have acquired it by definition.
AND if they stick by their story that the parties going into court are merely enforcing lawful rights, then they are stuck with rescission and no ability to dispute the rescission because they have nobody who fits the description of a creditor who could sue to vacate the rescission.
Filed under: foreclosure |