TILA RESCISSION: W.V. Federal District Court:”LENDER” MUST FILE SUIT, DAMAGES AWARDED TO BORROWER

major hat-tip to Charles Cox in Nevada.

Federal Judge’s response to chicken little argument: [2] RMS argues that enforcing the statute as written would upend the mortgage industry. As noted, lending institutions faced with a notice of rescission have many options to protect their interests and ensure that the borrower is able to tender the loan proceeds. Most obviously, creditors may provide the required disclosures to limit the rescission period to three days, when parties are more likely to be able to easily return to the status quo. The Court is unconvinced that creditors will be unable to protect their financial interests if they are required to comply with § 1635 according to its terms.”(e.s.)

And that, my friends is the end of the free house myth and the sky is falling argument for making homeowners pay for bank malfeasance and negligence.

As I have said and predicted, the language of the TILA Rescission statute 15 USC §1635 is clear and unambiguous. This decision will eventually pull the plug on all claims of securitization whether true or false.

The problem for the financial industry is (a) they have no way of actually identifying the debt from the perspective a creditor and (b) therefore they have no creditor to identify. In order to file a claim to change or vacate the notice of rescission they must allege and prove standing without the void note and void mortgage. That requires a creditor.

However this case does not test the three year express limit on TILA rescission. I say that all rescissions are effective by operation of law when delivered (or mailed using USPS) regardless of whether or not the rescission is contested. I say that TILA Rescission creates a procedural hurdle that the banks have been dancing around for over a decade. The three year limitation could be an adequate defense and grounds to vacate the TILA rescission — but only if “someone” asks for it and that “someone” must be a party with standing that does not rely on the void note and void mortgage. This is an issue for another day.

Thre question in this case is whether there will be an appeal and if so, in whose name?

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consent to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

see LAVIS v. REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS LLC Dist

For more discussion on TILA Rescission just use the search bar here on this blog “TILA RESCISSION.”

Without further comment ad nauseum but with at least one well-deserved “I told you so” here are some significant quotes from a West Virginia District Court Judge:

RMS conceded that it could not demonstrate that Ms. Lavis was provided notice of her right to rescind, which extended the time in which Ms. Lavis could exercise that right. Ms. Lavis cites the testimony from RMS’ corporate representative, confirming that it had a copy of her notice of rescission, with a receipt stamp dated May 17, 2016, and that RMS did not release the deeds of trust or file a civil action to maintain the lien within twenty days after that notice.

The Court further finds that RMS failed to preserve any right to tender from Ms. Lavis. Ms. Lavis took all appropriate steps required under the statute to rescind and to protect her rights. Despite its status as a sophisticated entity with access to the expertise of counsel, RMS did nothing in response to Ms. Lavis’ notice of rescission. It did not take steps to terminate her security interest. It did not request that she proffer regarding her ability to tender or submit a request for a specific amount in tender. It did not file suit to preserve its right to tender or to delay its obligation to terminate the security interest pending Ms. Lavis’ demonstration of an ability to tender the loan proceeds. After Ms. Lavis filed this action to enforce her rights, RMS did not file a counterclaim for return of the loan proceeds. It did not file a motion or other response requesting that the Court alter the procedures set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b). Instead, it continued to insist, even through the end of trial and in its briefings considered here, that it could simply ignore Ms. Lavis’ rescission of the loan.[2](e.s.)

 

The evidence related to rescission was not significantly in dispute, although the parties vigorously dispute the legal implications of the facts. RMS did not provide Ms. Lavis with required disclosures regarding the right to rescind at the loan closing, giving her three years to exercise her right to rescind. Ms. Lavis sent a letter, dated May 12, 2016, informing RMS that she was exercising her right to rescind. Although RMS does not dispute that Ms. Lavis retained the right to rescind, it did nothing in response to the letter. To date, RMS has taken no steps to effectuate rescission or to honor its statutory obligations triggered by Ms. Lavis’ letter.

15 U.S.C. § 1365(b) sets forth the procedures involved in rescission, using mandatory “shall” language. Within twenty days after an obligor exercises the right to rescind, “the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given as earnest money, down payment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b) (emphasis added.) This language is not permissive.

The Court has repeatedly held that the clear language of the statute, as well as the Supreme Court’s discussion of the issue in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., demonstrate that, absent a suit or motion to alter the procedures set forth in the statute and regulations, a creditor’s obligation to return funds and terminate the security interest precedes any obligation of the borrower to tender loan proceeds. 135 S.Ct. 790, 793 (2015).

The Court further finds that RMS failed to preserve any right to tender from Ms. Lavis. Ms. Lavis took all appropriate steps required under the statute to rescind and to protect her rights. Despite its status as a sophisticated entity with to the expertise of counsel, RMS did nothing in response to Ms. Lavis’ notice of rescission. It did not take steps to terminate her security interest. It did not request that she proffer regarding her ability to tender or submit a request for a specific amount in tender. It did not file suit to preserve its right to tender or to delay its obligation to terminate the security interest pending Ms. Lavis’ demonstration of an ability to tender the loan proceeds. After Ms. Lavis filed this action to enforce her rights, RMS did not file a counterclaim for return of the loan proceeds. It did not file a motion or other response requesting that the Court alter the procedures set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b). Instead, it continued to insist, even through the end of trial and in its briefings considered here, that it could simply ignore Ms. Lavis’ rescission of the loan.[2](e.s.)

A finding that RMS is entitled to tender, despite its disregard of its obligations over a period of years and its failure to take any measures to preserve its rights under the statute, would incentivize lending institutions to follow RMS’ poor example.

Tonight! 6PM EDT HOW MEDIATION CAN BE A POWERFUL WEAPON AGAINST PHANTOM TRUSTS, TRUSTEES AND SERVICERS

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

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

Tonight we talk about mediation and modification. It turns out that mediation, if played properly, can be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the dubious authority of anyone to initiate foreclosure, or appear at mediation.

As for mediation most people do not realize that mediation is an extremely potent tool for homeowners. What you want is an order that commands all parties to be present with complete authority to negotiate a settlement through either lump sum payment or modification of the current installment payments.

None of the Banks, Servicers, trustees etc. can comply with that simple order.

If a judge orders the parties to mediation and one of them doesn’t show up, the sanctions usually are judgment or dismissal for the other side. If the court order says the persons showing up must have all the authority necessary to make a final decision and execute a binding settlement agreement and their appearance is by some doofus on the telephone who won’t give his full name and is only authorized to offer you an application for modification, the order has been violated as well. The results are strikingly favorable to homeowners.

The facts show that in most cases the party named by lawyers as having initiated foreclosure are not showing up and never will show up. And that is because there is no trust, there is no trustee, there is no trustor, there is no beneficiary, and there are no assets that have been entrusted to the trustee to actively manage on behalf of named beneficiaries of a legally existing and valid trust.

Boarding Process is a Legal Fiction

Here is a case in which the court ordered certain parties and witnesses and lawyers to show cause why they shouldn’t be held in criminal contempt for lying to the court about the boarding process.

I don’t have time to do more than tell you to read it if your case involves DiTech, Greentree or Ocwen.

Notable reference: more than 1.4 million boarded loans at Ocwen with no checking for errors.

see 2017_11_20-Order-to-Show-Cause-Why-Ditechs-Witness-and-Ditechs-Atty-Should-not-be-Held-in-Indirect-Criminal-Contempt-of-Court

Matt Taibbi Puts Things in Perspective

The bottom line is that everything Taibbi suspected in 2008, everything he knew in his gut was just plain wrong, is only the tip of an iceberg that will continue to affect billions of people worldwide for generations to come. The simple truth, as Bernanke eventually conceded long after government policy had failed the nation and the world, is that top down economic policy is idiotic and history won’t treat any of us kindly unless we take the steps to tilt the board back up to a level playing field. As Taibbi says, “Losers must be allowed to lose.”

His article tells us why nobody cares about the continuing and now increasing number of foreclosures. The market continues to be tilted toward the banks and away from the consumers, without whom there would be no economy. I think most people know in their gut that the meltdown worked to the advantage of the banks and to the disadvantage of everyone else — homeowners, taxpayers, consumers, and of course pension funds, most of whose losses are still being concealed in the vain hope that somehow they will make up ground.

Until it becomes politically necessary to run against the banks, the playing field will be contorted. We are the ones who make things politically necessary. That alone should make you want to vote for candidates who want to address the bank control over our government’s policies.

see Matt Taibbi article in Rolling Stone

Here are some interesting passages from his article.

history is written by the victors, and the banks that blew up the economy are somehow still winning the narrative

Banks like Lehman had lent billions to fly-by-night mortgage mills like Countrywide and New Century. Those firms in turn sent hordes of loan hustlers into lower-income neighborhoods offering magical deals to anyone who could “fog a mirror,” as former Countrywide executive Michael Winston once put it to me. The targets were frequently minorities and the elderly.

The loans were designed to have short, fragile lives, like fruit flies. They had to stay viable just long enough to be sent back to Wall Street and resold to secondary buyers, who took the losses.(e.s.)

the game had nothing to do with whether or not the homeowner could pay. The homeowner was not the real mark.(e.s.) The real suckers were institutional customers like pensions, hedge funds and insurance companies, who invested in these mortgages.

A blizzard of post-2008 lawsuits involving pension funds testifies to this. One State Street fund lost 28 percent of its value. Plaintiffs like the Iowa Public Employees’ Union or an Electrical Workers’ Union in Illinois or even the Zuni Native American tribe in Arizona and New Mexico all lost millions because of mortgage investments.

The Special Inspector General of the TARP put the gross government outlay at $4.6 trillion, with over $16 trillion in guarantees. Bloomberg concluded the rescue expenditure was $12.8 trillionFortune (which saluted the investment as hugely profitable for America in the end) put the number at $14 trillion. The Levy Institute at Bard College did probably the most extensive study, and put the number at $29 trillion.

everyone in the upper echelon of the finance community got Paid In Full in the bailout, even the exact people who screwed up the worst (e.s.). But outside Manhattan? It was like Warren Buffet’s partner Charlie Munger sneered: People should just “suck it in and cope.”

 

You don’t just need a lawyer that “Gets It”

You need a lawyer who can sell it.

How Does the Debt Get Transferred?

Basic Black Letter law: A debt can only be transferred by the owner of the debt. The owner of the debt may use agents or intermediaries to accomplish the transfer of the debt. If an intermediary executes a document of transfer without reference and identification of the owner of the debt, the document has potentially fatal defects.

Parole evidence may be admitted, upon discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction. But in the end, the party claiming authority to enforce the debt in a foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust must prove that it is doing so on behalf of the owner of the debt.

The simplest way of doing this is by alleging or asserting the name of the owner of the debt and the fact that the enforcer is representing the owner of the debt. In the absence of such allegation or assertion it is more likely than not that the enforcer is not representing the owner of the debt and therefore has no authority to enforce the foreclosure.

Promissory notes may be enforced without ownership of the debt. Mortgages and deeds of trust cannot. Article 9 of the UCC as adopted by all 50 states as their state law requires that the debt be owned or purchased for value as a condition precedent to the right of the claimant to enforce a mortgage through foreclosure.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consent to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

The courts are hiding the issue but there is full consensus on the fact that a mortgage without ownership of the debt is useless. If you analyze the decisions it is always there. But the courts are creative in coming to the conclusion that the transfer of ownership of the debt MUST have occurred (even if it didn’t).

They are bridging that divide by making some legal presumptions like “why execute the assignment of mortgage if you were not transferring the debt?” This of course ignores the question of whether (1) the assignor owned the debt (2) the assignor also specifically referenced transfer of the debt either in the assignment of mortgage or in an indorsement on the note.

I have already explained in many different ways that the ownership of the debt is completely dependent upon actual payment of value and the assumption of the risk of nonpayment.  And I have often explained that the last person in the fictitious chain used by enforcers is virtually never the owner of the debt nor an authorized representative of the owner of the debt.

The rule is this: At some point in the fictitious chain, payment was not made because the loan was already sold. This could be as early as before the loan “Closing” to as late as the most recent assignment of mortgage. Note as well that where assignment of mortgage is abandoned at trial the case ceases to become a foreclosure case and converts solely to an action for damages for nonpayment on the note.

Transfer of the note is evidence of transfer of the debt. The matter asserted is that the debt was transferred. If the transferor of the note actually owned the debt, the evidence of transfer of the debt becomes fairly conclusive. But without evidence showing that the transferor owned the debt, no legal presumption should arise. And if the maker of the note challenges (denies) the transfer of the debt, the burden is on the enforcer to establish a chain of evidence starting with the owner of the debt. One way to put this in contention is simply denying that the note is held or owned by the enforcer which makes them prove it. In many cases the enforcer ahs been successful at fabricating a new “original.”

*
There is also an issue that is more grounded in law: the delivery of the note signals transfer of the debt because the note is like the title to a car. You become the legal owner when you get it. When you receive the note the presumption arises that the only evidence of the debt has been transferred to the recipient. Whether the note really is the only evidence of the debt is of course subject to dispute and normally not true. Dozens of documents at closing reflect the existence of the debt but not necessarily the owner of the debt. The only real conclusive evidence of the debt is evidence of actual payment by the Payee on the note to or on behalf of the Maker.
*
The creative courts dodge (1) the question about whether the prior possessor owned the note or debt and (2) whether the original note was actually physically delivered. In most cases only an image was delivered electronically, the original most likely having been destroyed or “lost.” Other sales of the image of the original note have almost always occurred. However, up to this point in time, the payoff to the underwriter/investment bank is not counted as reducing the receivable from the borrower to zero, even if the amount received is a multiple of the original note. If the investment bank was acting in the interest of investors to whom it sold Trust certificates, then the first money would have been return of capital to the investors and subsequent payoffs would have been shared between the underwriter and the investors.
*
The problem of course is that there would be no subsequent sales without the illusion that the loan still exists. So the investment banks created a convoluted trail to make it appear that the receivable (debt) existed while at the same time not titling it as such in the name of anyone. It was a brilliant act of deception. And THAT is the reason why they won’t identify the creditor. And it is the reason why no bank has ever challenged a TILA rescission by filing a suit to vacate the rescission. THERE IS NO CREDITOR, DESIGNATED OR OTHERWISE. Hence all such enforcement claims lack legal standing. TILA rescission strips away the veneer. If the banks actually had a creditor they would have buried anyone using rescission with a simple lawsuit vacating the rescission. They don’t because they can’t.

MA Appellate Court Tells Chase They Can’t Sit on Two Chairs With One Ass

As Charles Marshall just quoted to me “it’s always refreshing when you find a judge who follows the law.”

Chase can’t say that the Trust owns the loan since 2006 and that the loan was owned by WAMU in 2008. It can’t be both. And it can only be one allegation that survives — the “first sale.”

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

I provide advice and consent to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.

PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

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

see Starkey v Deutsche – MA Ct of Appeals

The big question is when if ever is Chase, through its lawyers, going to try to prove that the “Trust” exists and now owns the debt, note and mortgage.

Chase knows that WAMU didn’t own the loan because they bankrolled the very same loan that is at issue. But they used OPM (Other People’s Money).

Chase also knows that the OPM nature of the transaction makes the investors the owner of the debt with equitable rights to the mortgage and note.

Chase knows that the trust was written but not created. Nothing was ever entrusted to a trustee to actively manage on behalf of beneficiaries. Investors are not beneficiaries if all they get is a promise from a nonexistent entity (the trust) and they have no right, title or interest to the “underlying loans.”

Chase knows that the so-called underlying loans does NOT include ownership of the debts.

Chase knows that there is no transaction in the history of the world in which the trust purchased any loans.

Chase knows that it never allowed the investor money into the trust.

Chase knows that the named trust has no power even to inquire into the affairs of the “trust.”

Chase knows that it using the trust name as an unregistered fictitious name whereby OPM is converted into Chase assets.

Chase doesn’t care. For the most part homeowners do not fight.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: