Rescission Insurance Offered By Radian

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:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. 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 neilfgarfield@hotmail.com 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.

26 Responses

  1. Look at real property records for the homeowner/litigant and see what it says. It may take a few days/weeks before something shows up.

  2. db et al – that Buffington (AZ – Finesen) case (re failure to modify after trial payments etc) was just dismissed by stipulation. Can’t tell why without paying to read more of the case, but each side agreed to pay its own legal fees. It looks like USB et al fought discovery tool and nail and won in favor of 5 declarations from God knows who. cripes. There may have been a financial settlement off the record, but can’t tell, can’t even guess, without reading more of the case $$.

  3. from DB’s case info on February 2:
    “Count 4 alleging payment, discharge and satisfaction was sustained. The court quoted from the Steinberger decision [also in Arizona] and said it if it is true that the FDIC has already reimbursed OneWest,” then OneWest was not entitled to recover the same money again, although there could be an action against the borrower by a third party who has made such payments.

    **But that action would not be based upon a liquidated amount nor would it be secured by a mortgage or deed of trust.” **

    Hallelujah and pass the ammo – finally!

  4. usedkarguy re: wells fargo: good news!
    NG, I still don’t fwiw see how anyone who takes a note subject to a RoR may acquire HDC status, but at any rate, imo no one may and insurance won’t change that. In other news (I think it’s news), if I may, FNMA and FHLMC have reached an agreement with the banksters to allow a third party to determine if circumstances exist to require buy-backs from the agencies.

  5. What about a chancery judge that rules that the rescission was not timely done and it was a residential mortgage?? Been there done that. I know he doesn’t have standing to do that but that doesn’t stop him.

  6. @Mark Bowen, on February 2, 2016 at 12:00 pm said:

    Can someone please enlighten me as to the TILA, or other, provision which asserts that table-funded loans are “predatory per se”?

    Specifically, “regulation Z”.

    I can suggest you go to top of page at “search bar” and enter “Tila Rescission”. Mr. Garfield has prepared a number of articles that will help you.

  7. @usedkarguy,

    On the phony “Trust” claiming one of my “loans” I have Wells as “Servicer” and “HSBC” as Trustee.

    These two articles may be of interest to you. It seems Judge Gleeson is predisposed to air HSBC dirty laundry. ’bout time.

    http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202748335190/Gleeson-Orders-HSBC-Compliance-Monitors-Report-Unsealed?slreturn=20160103005451

    sanctionlaw.com/judge-gleeson-isnt-done-with-hsbc/

  8. Rescission Insurance that takes effect after 36 months?
    “Laughs”

    Was someone selling non recindable contracts on the other end?

  9. Published: Feb 2, 2016 3:28 p.m. ET
    Judge Certifies Class of California Homeowners, Orders Disclosure of Documents Wells Fargo Attempted to Conceal

    Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP, along with Hagens Berman and the Law Office of Peter Fredman Obtains Class Certification Victory for Homeowners against Wells Fargo, Court Denies Wells Fargo’s Attempt to Conceal Evidence from Public

    SAN DIEGO, Feb. 2, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — A federal judge certified a class of California homeowners in two lawsuits against Wells Fargo WFC, +0.60% bringing homeowners closer to holding the banking giant to promises it made in loan modification agreements that it did not abide.

    The judge also denied Wells Fargo’s attempt to seal the evidence, ruling, “Perhaps Wells Fargo is concerned that these materials make it look bad (because the materials support the plaintiffs’ contention that Wells Fargo administered the HAMP program in an irresponsible fashion), but a litigant’s embarrassment is not enough to justify concealing material from the public.”

    The suits, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, claim that Wells Fargo violated California consumer-rights laws by misrepresenting the terms of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) trial period plans (TPP), designed to help people modify their mortgage loans. The suit states that Wells Fargo promised loan modifications to homeowners who successfully completed a trial mortgage modification under HAMP, but knew it would never follow through on its obligations under the TPP.

    The lawsuits arise from the taxpayer bailout of Wells Fargo following the worst foreclosure crisis in history. In 2009, in exchange for Wells Fargo receiving $25 billion in taxpayer money, the U.S. Department of the Treasury launched HAMP to help millions of distressed homeowners avoid foreclosure. Under the program, the Treasury Department provided economic incentives to Wells Fargo and other banks to encourage them to provide reasonable mortgage modification options to millions of homeowners.

    The class action complaints filed by Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP on behalf of Phillip Corvello, and Hagens Berman and Peter Fredman, on behalf of Amira Jackmon, and other Wells Fargo customers, alleges that although many thousands of homeowners complied with all the requirements of their agreements with Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo did not and knew they would not offer permanent mortgage modifications to these homeowners, while taking their trial payments and government incentive payments. Wells Fargo accepted months of trial payments from homeowners, while falsely leading them to believe that they would be offered permanent mortgage modifications under HAMP.

    The judge’s order states, “Wells Fargo actively recruited more and more borrowers into TPPs, even though it did not have the capacity to process all their applications in a timely fashion, or deliver on all the loan modification promises it was making.”

    “Wells Fargo willingly took payments from families and bailout money from US taxpayers, and then failed to live up to its end of the bargain by denying these deserving families the reasonable loan modifications they paid for,” said Timothy Blood, counsel for plaintiff Phillip Corvello in the class action lawsuit and managing partner of Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP. Blood added, “Today, we have taken another large step forward to right this wrong.”

    “The court’s ruling serves as an important victory for the thousands of families Wells Fargo took advantage of and a reminder to big banks that even they must uphold their promises,” said Peter Fredman, counsel to Amira Jackmon.

    “We intend to turn a spotlight on Wells Fargo’s dubious behavior and are pleased with the court’s order that will allow evidence against Wells Fargo to come to light and allow our case for this group of misled California homeowners to move forward,” said Thomas Loeser, at Hagens Berman, who also represents Ms. Jackmon and the class of homeowners. “We believe our case shows that Wells Fargo knowingly misled borrowers, and that the trial program served two illegitimate purposes — the political purpose of making it appear that Wells Fargo was helping homeowners by starting HAMP trials, and the economic purpose of inducing defaulted borrowers into sending new payments to Wells Fargo — which had no intention of ever granting the loan modifications.”

    The class of homeowners was certified under the California Unfair Competition Law and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

    The suit seeks restitution of the payments made as part of the agreement, along with other relief for homeowners.

    The victory for homeowners follows their 2013 victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was secured by Blood Hurst & O’Reardon in the same case.

    The Wells Fargo class action lawsuits are entitled Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal.), and Jackmon v. America’s Servicing Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal.). For more information, visit: http://www.bholaw.com.

    About Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP

    Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP specializes in consumer protection law. It represents consumers, insurance policy holders, investors and small businesses in class action lawsuits nationwide.

  10. I said something like this:
    Xxxxx rescinds the note and deed of trust she signed on xxxxx
    She is ready and willing to tender to the true holder of the note the full amount owed minus equitable setoffs
    So in other words who benefited under the contract
    Who got paid what and what is the true balance owed.
    that is fair.

  11. The Judges STILL rule that tne borrower must tender
    First and that is correct BUT you tender to the party who can enforce the CONTRACT … Hence they do nkt want to open up that argument.

  12. Tuesday 2 February 2016

    Yes, Ken, my wording was lacking. Rescission comes from the notice to
    lender. My poorly worded statement should have included the word
    “case,” or “lawsuit” to enforce the rescission. Appreciate your pointing
    that out.

  13. The article, above, is useful because it explains the banks have a problem. In other words, if they didn’t have a problem, WHY? Would they be buying “insurance”? for that problem.

    At this moment in History, HSBC Bank is using American Mortgages to launder terrorist and DRUG CARTEL MONEY…

    bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal

    Bank of America is also laundering drug money and terrorist cartel money.

    globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/120921/drug-war-cartels-money-laundering-banks

    HillBillary Clinton is serving refreshments.

    These banks: Wells Fargo, HSBC and Bank Of America are currently, INSOLVENT.

    They owe 1200 TRILLION DOLLARS to any number of criminal SCAMS they cooked up after “Slick Willy Clinton’s” probe of Monica Lewinsky.

    These banks are all private clients of the intentionally-mislabeled “Federal Reserve”.

    Wall Street used Taxpayer Money to conceal Criminal Fraud and now they are capitalizing on that criminal Fraud.

    The issues are complex and the banks make them confusing in order to discourage law suits.

    Right now, at this moment, in America, criminal banks, that are privately-owned are robbing American Homeowners in order to launder money for drug and terrorist Cartels.

  14. The article, above, is useful because it explains the banks have a problem. In other words, if they didn’t have a problem, WHY? Would they be buying “insurance”? for that problem.

    At this moment in History, HSBC Bank is using American Mortgages to launder terrorist and DRUG CARTEL MONEY…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal

    Bank of America is also laundering drug money and terrorist cartel money.

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/120921/drug-war-cartels-money-laundering-banks

    HillBillary Clinton is serving refreshments.

    These banks: Wells Fargo, HSBC and Bank Of America are currently, INSOLVENT.

    They owe 1200 TRILLION DOLLARS to any number of criminal SCAMS they cooked up after “Slick Willy Clinton’s” probe of Monica Lewinsky.

    These banks are all private clients of the intentionally-mislabeled “Federal Reserve”.

    Wall Street used Taxpayer Money to conceal Criminal Fraud and now they are capitalizing on that criminal Fraud.

    The issues are complex and the banks make them confusing in order to discourage law suits.

    Right now, at this moment, in America, criminal banks, that are privately-owned are robbing American Homeowners in order to launder money for drug and terrorist Cartels.

  15. The article, above, is useful because it explains the banks have a problem. In other words, if they didn’t have a problem, WHY? Would they be buying “insurance”? for that problem.

    At this moment in History, HSBC Bank is using American Mortgages to launder terrorist and DRUG CARTEL MONEY…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal

    Bank of America is also laundering drug money and terrorist cartel money.

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/120921/drug-war-cartels-money-laundering-banks

    These banks: Wells Fargo, HSBC and Bank Of America are currently, INSOLVENT.

    They owe 1200 TRILLION DOLLARS to any number of criminal SCAMS

    These banks are all private clients of the intentionally-mislabeled “Federal Reserve”.

    Right now, at this moment, in America, criminal banks, that are privately-owned are robbing American Homeowners in order to launder money for drug and terrorist Cartels.

  16. The following article is useful because it explains the banks have a problem. In other words, if they didn’t have a problem, WHY? Would they be buying “insurance”? for that problem.

    https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/rescission-insurance-offered-by-radian/

    At this moment in History, HSBC Bank is using American Mortgages to launder terrorist and DRUG CARTEL MONEY…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal

    Bank of America is also laundering drug money and terrorist cartel money.

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/120921/drug-war-cartels-money-laundering-banks

    These banks: Wells Fargo, HSBC and Bank Of America are currently, INSOLVENT.

    They owe 1200 TRILLION DOLLARS to any number of criminal SCAMS.

    These banks are all private clients of the intentionally-mislabeled “Federal Reserve”.

    Right now, at this moment, in America, criminal banks, that are privately-owned are robbing American Homeowners in order to launder money for drug and terrorist Cartels.

  17. D Balenger posted a link so i rsearched a bit hmm but i found a important decsion that miggt be studied.
    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G046402.PDF

  18. mn: “Initiate rescission in federal court, for it is a federal issue.”
    Do you mean ENFORCE rescission? My understanding is that initiating rescission only requires that you mail the notice of rescission to the lender. And if they do not respond in 20 days through the court, the mortgage is rescinded by operation of law.

  19. Can someone please enlighten me as to the TILA, or other, provision which asserts that table-funded loans are “predatory per se”?

  20. It’s notable that this Rescission Insurance has been offered since 2014, a full year *before* the SCOTUS unanimous Jesinoski decision.

  21. Its all one big fat lie

  22. Exactly Louise
    False credit reporting
    False reporting of claims to the IRS
    And Thats how they nailed Al Capone
    If this Government wants to bring these bandits to justice they could

  23. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    Great blog post by Neil Garfield on how a company known as Radian Insurance is now selling rescission insurance to the big banks since 2014.

  24. Tuesday 2 February 2016

    Rescission is a very focused way of attacking one’s “lender” or plaintiff.
    Regardless of one’s situation/status in foreclosure, it may become an
    ace in the hole to have sent a notice of rescission and have it recorded
    in county records.

    Fraudulent documents, forgery, perjury, etc, etc, are no longer pertinent.
    Just my POV, but I would never pursue rescission in state court. Too
    many hurdles to overcome, the major one being the judge who already
    accepts the “lender”/plaintiff’s standing.

    Initiate rescission in federal court, for it is a federal issue. Most importantly,
    filing a federal suit, one gets to challenge the “lender’s”/plaintiff’s
    standing, given that the note and mortgage are void. In federal court,
    one has to prove a financial interest in order to have standing. No “lender”
    will respond within the 20 day time frame in which to contest rescission.
    Once that opportunity passes, the “lender”/plaintiff can no longer rely
    upon the documents central to the original foreclosure and must, therefore,
    prove its standing some other way, which it cannot do.

    That puts anyone who rescinds in a position to enter a motion to dismiss
    for lack of standing, and until standing is established, the “lender”/plaintiff
    cannot argue anything else.

    That puts the rescinder in a position of power in a way not otherwise
    available. Neil Garfield has provided almost all the answers on how to
    accomplish the entire procedure.

    Select use of case law then puts a federal judge in a vise from which
    there is no escape, no matter how pro-friendly toward “lenders” a judge
    may be.

    Rescission trumps every other argument, if handled properly.

  25. The non-existent creditor is their real problem. Who owns what? No one knows. It is one long scream of fraudulent documents, forgery, perjury, theft, I.D theft, fraud in the inducement, constructive fraud, and I could go on.

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: