Tonight on Neil Garfield Radio Connecticut Attorney Stephen Wright discusses Recission and Bankruptcy.

Tune-in to the  The Neil Garfield Show

or call in to listen at (347) 850-1260

Tonight (Thursday) at 6 pm EST

Yvanova v New Century Mortgage 02182016 Supreme Court of California opinion

Tonight guest host Attorney Steve Wright will be discussing Rescission in terms of Bankruptcy, and touch on the Yvanova Decision in California.  In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation (Case No. S218973, Cal. Sup. Ct. February 18, 2016) the California Supreme Court ruled that homeowners have standing to challenge a note assignment in an action for wrongful foreclosure on the grounds that the assignment is void.

Attorney Stephen P. Wright can be reached at:

Stephen P. Wright

Wright Law Firm

324 Elm Street

Suite 103B

Monroe, CT 06488

203-261-3050 (O)

203-218-6395 (C)

spwrightlawfirm@gmail.com

Stephen went to Trumball High School, Florida State University and Western New England College of Law where he graduated in 1980. So we are not talking about a new comer in the practice of law we are talking about a litigator with experience. He is a lecturer in the Commercial Law League of America, a former faculty member of the College of the State Bar in Texas, and a current member of the Connecticut Bar and previous member of the Texas Bar. He has lectured and written on workouts, collection of judgments, debtor/creditor relations, the UCC, and bankruptcy.

 

4 Responses

  1. Massachusetts’
    Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process What does it mean to be a non-judicial foreclosure state? It means that borrowers do not get a day in court in front of a judge before they are foreclosed upon. It means that Massachusetts built its legal process on a strict honor code. Since foreclosing entities are not required to go in front of a judge, our law literally expects them to behave even more scrupulously and honestly than if we did require foreclosures to be reviewed by a judge1 well that doesn’t happen.
    so TILA does the same for borrowers, as the banks get in a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process,
    the STATUE IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. IT SAYS WHAT IT MEANS. and the supreme court put there
    stamp on it. all a homeowner has to do is send a letter. The statute explains, in terms the Court regarded as “unequivocal,” how “the right to rescind is to be exercised: It provides that a borrower ‘shall have the right to rescind, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so.’” Because that language “leaves no doubt that rescission is effected” by the borrower’s notice, The Court responded: “Nothing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a congressional Act must be construed as implementing the closest common-law analogue.”
    Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.
    when i sent out ( letter/notice ) to banks,and all others of rescission. that was and has the same affect as the banks sending a notice to foreclose. and the only way a homeowner can
    stop that notice to foreclose is a order from a court, and how we do that , is we have to file
    in court to stop it/ argue against it, and challenge it, and dispute the notice /letter/ and ask the judge to vacate the FORECLOSURE SALE.
    NOW REVERSE THAT.
    that is why there is that 20 day period, for them to , DISPUTE THE RESCISSION, BY FILING IN COURT, just as we have to file and ask judge to vacate the foreclosure action, to dispute there action on trying to foreclose on us. it is the same. but in reverse. by operation of law, AND ONLY A JUDGES ORDERS CAN VACATE THAT ACTION., the mortgage and note, are void, cancelled, as of the date it was mailed. that is why they hate it. and they know, the only
    person that can come into court to get that vacated, is the TRUE CREDITOR. THE ONE THAT GAVE MONEY.
    Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.
    SO JUST AS IN US DISPUTING THERE FACTS TO FORECLOSE ON ME. AND HAVE SO MANY DAYS TO DO THAT IN, OUR I WOULD LOSE MY HOUSE, THEY HAVE TO DO THE SAME TO SAVE THERE FACTS. LET ASK YOU PETER.
    WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME, IF I DIDNT GO TO COURT AND ASK JUDGE TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE? HOW MANY DAYS DO I HAVE TO GET THAT DONE?
    AND AFTER THEY FORECLOSE ON ME, AND MAYBE 3 MONTHS OR SO GO’S BY, AND I GO INTO COURT AND ASK THE JUDGE TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE. AND THE BANK SAYS , WAIT YOUR HONOR, THEY HAD TIME TO DISPUTE AND GET A COURT ORDER TO STOP FORECLOSURE SALE, AND THEY DIDNT DO THAT IN THE REQUIRED TIME. TELL ME WHAT THE JUDGE WOULD SAY TO ME. ? BECAUSE WHAT THE JUDGE WOULD SAY THERE IS THE ONLY THING HE CAN SAY TO THEM NOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT COMPLYED TO THE STATUES. AND THE BIG THING IS THAT THEY DO NOT
    HAVE AVAILBLE , TO SAY WE HAVE THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE. OBJECTION YOUR HONOR, THEY HOLD NOTHING, THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE WAS VOIDED AND CANCELLED AS OF MAILING, AND IF THEY WANTED TO DISPUTE THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION, THEY HAD 20 DAYS TO DO THAT, AND THEY DIDNT.

    so point is . 1/ i sent out rescission notice/ letter on this date.
    2/ bank received / got/sign for letter/notice on this date.
    3/ 2ND Demand letter went out on this date.
    4/ bank received/got/sign for 2nd Demand notice.

    Like Neil Garfield said in his radio cast last night when we enforce them violating 15 U.S.C 1635;

    Wherefore please enter an order that commands them to return the cancelled note, file the release of void of encumbrance and;

    William a Marshall Sr, estate of William a Marshall Sr, and David a Belanger ,poa, of Joanna Belanger
    and poa of estate of William a Marshall Sr, and William a Marshall Sr.
    Plaintiff
    V.
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company third party intervenor
    Counter Party JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, third party intervenor
    John Doe 1 to infinity intervenors
    Defendants

    Now Come, David a Belanger ,poa, of Joanna Belanger
    and poa of estate of William a Marshall Sr, and William a Marshall Sr. , the Plaintiffs and as their attorney on their behalf and respectfully move this honorable court to enter Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce three statutory jurisdiction duties under 15 U.S.C 15-1635 to enforce and cure the banks violation of their duties.
    It is clear neither the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, decision nor the statue itself is open to any interpretation at all. The lower Courts, the federal Courts, the United State Congress or the Executive Branches of Government, have all collectively and unanimously stated the contract, if it ever existed, the Note and the Mortgage are void by operation of law.

    1. The Plaintiffs’ rescission was mailed, April 13, 2015.

    2. More than twenty days have expired since the mailing of the rescission notice

    3. the Defendants, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. receives the rescission notice and have done nothing in response and therefore they are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1635.( have not filed anything in court, to dispute the rescission, in the required 20 days, time to dispute the rescission , or ask a court to vacate the rescission FOR THE NOW, VOIDED MORTGAGE AND NOTE, THAT BECAME VOIDED BY OPERATION OF LAW, AS OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE TO RECIND,
    THAT THEY RECEIVED ON, THIS DAY BY CERTIFIED MAIL,

    4/ A 2ND DEMAND LETTER, WAS SENT ON THIS DATE. ASKING THEM AGAIN TO COMPLY TO THE LAW. AS OF
    THIS DATE, THEY HAVE NOT AGAIN COMPLY TO LAW. STATUE,

    Wherefore please enter an order that commands the Defendants and any of their subsidiaries or related trust or corporate entities, agents, employees, successors and assigns to return the Plaintiffs’ cancelled note, prepare and file the release of the now void Plaintiffs’ mortgage encumbrance of record and;

    a. Return all the money that the Plaintiffs have paid against the account of their Note and Mortgage.

    b. Pay Plaintiffs all the monies paid to any third parties as compensation arising out of and/or related to the origination of this consumer mortgage loan transaction.

    c. Permanently enjoin the applicable specific parties, that are not public entities like the court, from attempting to use the Plaintiffs’VOIDED AND CANCELLED Note and Mortgage for the enforcement of foreclosure or any collection or enforcement of this purported debt.
    .
    d. To expunging all Registry of Deeds records of the Defendants , the now void plaintiffs mortgage, foreclosure affidavits , assignments, etc, etc,

    i would also ask for attorney fees, etc.etc

    Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Mutuality of obligation — Mortgage foreclosure — A defendant was entitled to recover attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under section 57.105(7), where mortgage entitled mortgagee to reasonable attorney’s fees for enforcement, after court granted motion to dismiss mortgage foreclosure and dismissed the case without prejudice — Pleading requirement — It was proper for defendant to seek attorney’s fees in a motion filed after entry of dismissal without prejudice where she had not yet filed a responsive pleading — Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal makes a defendant a prevailing party even where plaintiff refiles the case and prevail.

    Respectfully submitted

  2. pat hartmann, on February 25, 2016 at 7:09 pm said:
    Hi. Would like

    email at djabelanger@hotmail.com

  3. Hi. Would like to listen tonight, what time is show on central time zone? I want to file rescission, bakruptcy papers (I just went to fed. courthouse yesterday) say note, mtg. 7/2012. It was a modification. I had no idea what rescision is, or that it may be a defense for us, until I read about it on internet, my discovery of it was 2/21/2016. Is it true I can file rescission in wisconsin based on time of discovery? I have proof, because date is on email I got about it. Have been trying to get a modification since 2012, had to file bankruptcy because we could not get one Looking at loan papers and bankruptcy papers proof of claim for mortgage,I think we have robosigned loan papers, one paper has 20.00 fee for an appraisal every month for over 2 years, no one ever looked inside the house, or asked to. Must have been drive by appraisals,ASC/wells fargo, loan originator/servicer listed on some papers as being lender, plus other lenders BNC , bank of america, and got papers from deutsche bank, never heard of before, deutsche spelled 2 different ways on 2 papers, 1 note, 1 deed of trust/mortgage, both have same set 5 numbers but in different sequence, accompanied by blank & near blank papers with unreadable writing. Some papers from earlier mortgage (it was sold to ASC) from ameriquest have some papers, like allonge to note, that have our last name misspelled, with parts of name *& address filled in by hand. Interest rate is goofy, it talks about an index in london being basis for interest amount changes, also they insist we can’t get a modification because at 2% it’s affordable, but loan papers say 4% it is now, which it says on statements. Yet one disclosure about loan says it is 4% fixed at time of writing, but it was 2%, set to go to4% later . we were sent a notice to remove lift of automatic stay, with signature of chenita nicole redmond, VP loan documentation. I called ASC exec. office, asked if they have employee by that name, he said yes, I asked if she is a VP, he said no, she’s an analyst. i asked if that is an executive position, he said no. She signed with notary, under perjury she is, also on addendums to note a Haben Taffese VP loan modification signed some with, some without notary, same paper, but is actually an operations clerk..A lot of the papers in bankruptcy court are not filled in or signed. More mistakes too. Have not had time to go to county courthouse yet to compare with what I got at fed.courthouse, bankruptcy. Can I file for a rescission in wisconsin based on all thse mistakes? I have an attorney, need to find another, he is no help, he’s the one who put the mortgage on proof of claim of creditor, we did not know (it’s another thing I found out about on internet) that attorney should have put unsecured, without an amount listed.) I have tried calling and emailing him about other questions, no replies. He said he’s only representing us for bankruptcy, wants nothing to do with dealing with robo signing, etc. We are on a 6 mos. doomsday, almost missed 1st payment because no one inclulding ASC could tell us where to send payment, but i found out 2 days before it was due, had to rush to get it out certified return, receipt. We were supposed to get a loan modifcation ordered by judge by Feb. 1st, ASC not cooperating, that’s another thing i wanted to speak to attorney about, but he does not call or email back. thank you, Pat

  4. Attorney Stephen Wright[&#X1f607]

    ________________________________

    Neil Garfield posted: “Tune-in to the The Neil Garfield Show or call in to listen at (347) 850-1260 Tonight (Thursday) at 6 pm EST Tonight guest host Attorney Steve Wright will be discussing Rescission in terms of Bankruptcy, and touch on the Yvanova Decision in Cali”

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: