9th Circuit Uses Yvanova Reversing Trial Court

It seems obvious that if a complete stranger to the transaction (see the wording from the San Francisco study), is attempting to enforce a debt or seek a foreclosure, they should have no rights at all. And if a party accepts a modification application, they are making several representations about their authority and what they will do with the application. But the courts have resisted all such notions until very recently.

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

—————-

see 9th Circuit Quotes Yvanova13-17297

This is the stuff that  makes lay people crazy.

Plaintiff Newman filed a lawsuit in California to stop a foreclosure claiming BONY didn’t have the right to foreclose. The trial court dismissed his case because he supposedly didn’t have standing to raise that issue. Then he filed an appeal. During his appeal, the Yvanova decision was released.

So the 9th Federal Circuit applied Yvanova to the pending appeal and reversed the trial court, adding that there could be an action, as Newman had brought, to hold parties responsible for handling of a modification request. That should be a no-brainer but the courts keep getting twisted up in the idea that the banks need to be protected when it is the homeowners who need protection.

Of course for good measure the decision is announced as not to be used for precedent — but it is difficult to see how it could not be precedent.

The bottom line, I think, is that the Courts are very reluctantly coming around to the view that they will allow those actions or defenses that they must allow while they allow wide latitude to pretender lenders. It’s another step toward equality under the law but we are a still quite some distance to a level playing field.

It seems obvious that if a complete stranger to the transaction (see the wording from the San Francisco study), is attempting to enforce a debt or seek a foreclosure, they should have no rights at all. And if a party accepts a modification application, they are making several representations about their authority and what they will do with the application. But the courts have resisted all such notions until very recently.

The trend over the last decade is giving rise to a new fraudulent industry. Posing as the creditor and even suing upon the debt is cloaked in presumptions that the fabricated documents are true, putting the burden on the average citizen to disprove a nonexistent fact. And accepting a modification application as part of a larger scheme to force the homeowner into foreclosure was and might still be OK, because servicers supposedly are under no duty to do anything — not withstanding Dodd Frank and other statutes and regulations.

Schedule A Consult Now! or call 202-838-6345

Rescissions and Preemptive Lawsuits by Borrowers — 2 Things the Courts Dislike the Most.

For short-term results it is absolutely essential that discovery be pressed as hard as possible and that attorneys prep for a punishing cross examination of the corporate representative of the company claiming to be the servicer for the company that claims to be the trustee or successor for a trust that by implication claims to own the loan but won’t allege that. Layers upon layers.

I have heard dozens of judges caution the “banks” that they better show up with someone who doesn’t need to place a call or wait to get authorization. But that is exactly what they do.

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

Listen to Attorneys Neil Garfield and James Randy Ackley discuss this issue:

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

—————-

Based upon reports coming in across the country it appears that we are actually receding from the application of law again. The two things that the Courts obviously don’t like and essentially refuse to enforce are preemptive lawsuits and TILA Rescission, even where they give it lip service approval. What are now known as preemptive lawsuits in which the borrower tries to head off their title and collections problem by demanding the real data on identification of a creditor who owns the debt, note and mortgage or deed of trust are a bridge too far although California looks like it is edging toward that the fastest amongst the states. See Yvanova decision

In both cases the Courts are grasping at straws because of the fear of undermining the entire banking system causing another financial collapse. As I did in 2008-2009 I am predicting that these cases will be decided in favor of the borrower. And again it might take more years to get there. Having examined pleadings and orders from across the country there is no doubt in my mind that everything we have said is true and these are useful tools for the borrower.

But for short-term results it is absolutely essential that discovery be pressed as hard as possible and that attorneys prep for a punishing cross examination of the corporate representative of the company claiming to be the servicer for the company that claims to be the trustee or successor for a trust that by implication claims to own the loan but won’t allege that. Layers upon layers.

In 2008 I had a conversation (previously reported) with one of the architects of this scheme and he predicted that the legal presumptions attached to the notes and mortgages and assignments would overcome any factual rebuttal regardless of how persuasive the rebuttal. I thought he was wrong. He was right, but back then I could tell he wasn’t as sure as he is today. It worked. Millions of foreclosures proceeded in favor of entities who had already stolen the money from investors and now were stealing their security.

Proof of all my basic premises is abundantly clear but well hidden by confidential settlements under seal. Cash offers to settle the case seem almost always to produce a settlement that includes damages for wrongful foreclosure.

Mediations continue to proceed almost exclusively with “representatives” who lack full settlement authority and truth to be told, they lack any settlement authority. This point is getting under the skin of many judges and should be pressed. I even said to one judge who ordered mediation that I questioned when his orders “meant anything at all.” He was upset but he started entering other orders that required real action by my opposition.

Mediations by definition under Supreme Court rules require the presence of the parties with full settlement authority. Instead the alleged servicer shows up with representative that has only one duty — handover an application for modification without any discussion or authority to settle. That is the stuff of motions for sanctions. I have heard dozens of judges caution the “banks” that they better show up with someone who doesn’t need to place a call or wait to get authorization. But that is exactly what they do and frequently they get away with it. Don’t expect sanctions to be ordered until the “bank” fails to “show up” more than twice.

Usually the attorney represents the servicer and if pressed, sometimes you can get an admission that the attorney is not able to assert they represent the plaintiff. The representative also might admit that he is there on behalf of the servicer but not the Plaintiff. In those cases I think you are well on your way to getting sanctions, but not until you are ordered back into mediation multiple times.

The problem remains the same — the servicer derives its alleged authority from the Plaintiff who derives its power to enforce from legal presumptions derived from possession and its declaration that it is the “holder.” The Plaintiff rarely alleges that it owns the debt, loaned the money or anything like that and they never allege that they are holders in due course which would mean, by definition, that the trust paid for the loan. The trusts did not pay for the loan and the creditor is, at least according to some live testimony I got in court, a group of unnamed investors. By definition then in hearings for sanctions relating to mediation, you can elicit admissions that defeat the foreclosure.

Once you get to the fact that the Trust never was in operation and was never funded it goes without saying that as an inactive business with no history it could not possibly have paid for the debt or even accepted the assignment. Having cut the chain (the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone etc) the strawman figure must collapse. NO authority flows from such an entity —especially when the representative says the creditors are the investors.

My prediction is that while it may still take some time, the courts are eventually going to routinely require real proof instead of relying exclusively upon legal presumptions arising from fabricated, forged, robo-signed documents. Real proof means real transactions — something that will unwind claims by the servicer and Trustee or successor like pulling a thread from a poorly made sweater.

DONATE

 

Realities of Rescission Litigation

Since it appears that Judges around the country are finding wiggle room where none exists, it may be wise to add the fraud charges to the initial complaint seeking enforcement of rescission, injunction, and quiet title.

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

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

—————-

Just a short note on why people should have us analyze their situation before they get into rescission litigation. It is true that there should not be any litigation where the rescission was sent, received and the “creditor” did nothing for more than 20 days and frequently more than 1 year and even several years. But Judges are continuing to resist the application of the procedure clearly set forth in TILA rescission slamming the door, where they can, based upon a presumptive finding of fact that the loan contract was consummated, and presuming it was consummated when the documents were apparently signed. Once again we are dealing with presumed facts that are most likely untrue.

And once again, despite Jesinoski, the courts are reading into the statute on procedure and saying that various conditions apply when the statute and the Supreme Court say otherwise. All rescissions are effective when mailed regardless of whether or not they are disputed.

So after due consideration I am inclined to say that even though it goes against what I think is correct procedure, it might be wise to consider filling the complaint with your allegations of fraudulent concealment etc that might equitably toll the 3 year expiration of rescission, and might convince the judge that there are questions of fact that need to be raised and just possibly might force the defendants to answer instead of relying on their motion to dismiss.

And this would enable the filer to argue against the use of common legal presumptions because the documents are not trustworthy when they are backdated, fabricated, forged, robo-signed etc. If the Judge agrees with that proposition then there is no basis on which the Judge can say the three year expired, the loan was purchase money, etc. It’s all thrown back on the “lending” side to allege the facts and prove them with legal standing — i.e., without the use of the note and mortgage.

Their singular problem might be revealed — that they don’t have an identified creditor and they have no way of finding the creditor because the money for the loans actually came from a dynamic dark pool.

Comments welcome.

https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/how-to-prepare-for-a-consult-with-neil-garfield/

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

 

Unanimous Montana High Court Affirms $426,000 Damages Against Bayview

the “mistakes” of “lenders” are neither mistakes nor are the parties seeking foreclosures “lenders” or “servicers.”
================================

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

—————-
===========================

see http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-high-court-upholds-award-over-mortgage-foreclosure/article_29fd6721-27a7-59f1-b3d3-6b5da1077d1d.html

In yet another case of illegal conduct in a foreclosure the high Court of Montana affirmed an award of $427,000 against Bayview who will undoubtedly get the money from CitiMortgage for whom they were fronting the foreclosure. As these cases increase in their frequency, judicial attitudes will change — specifically that the “mistakes” of “lenders” are neither mistakes nor are the parties seeking foreclosures “lenders” or “servicers.”

Some quotes from the case that are self-explanatory:

The total award includes damages and attorney’s fees awarded because Bayview Loan Servicing LLC of Coral Gables, Florida — despite losing their case — notified Robin and Kathleen Jacobson that it was adding over $50,000 of its attorney’s fees to their mortgage.

“We do not find error with the District Court’s damage award because it is reasonable compensation for the substantial injury and financial detriment suffered by the Jacobsons,” state Supreme Court Justice Michael Wheat wrote in the 5-0 ruling Wednesday.

The Jacobsons’ problems with Bayview haven’t ended, the couple’s attorney, Ray Kuntz, said Thursday. They can’t determine from county records to whom they should be making their mortgage payments and on Tuesday, Bayview sent them another default notice, Kuntz said.

Over the next several years Bayview encouraged the Jacobsons not to make mortgage payments so they could qualify for a loan modification, made false promises to them about modifying their loan and then misinformed them about their rights, court documents said.

Call now for our special on 1/2 hour consult with Neil Garfield, expert in the securitization of alleged mortgage loans. 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.

The Mortgage Loan Schedule: Ascension of a False Self-Serving Document

At no time were the Trusts anything but figments of the imagination of investment banks.

As an exhibit to the alleged Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the Mortgage Loan Schedule” appears to have legitimacy. Peel off one layer and it is an obvious fraud upon the court.

The only reason the banks don’t allege holder in due course status is because nobody in their chain ever paid anything. The transactions referred to by the assignment or endorsement or any other document never happened — but they are  wrongly presumed to be true.

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

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

Our Services: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

—————-

I’m seeing more and more cases where once again the goal post keeps moving, in order to keep the court and foreclosure defense counsel off balance. Now it is the attachment of a “Mortgage Loan Schedule” [MLS] to the PSA. As an exhibit to the alleged Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the “Mortgage Loan Schedule” appears to have legitimacy. Peel off one layer and it is an obvious fraud upon the court.

Here is my thought. The MLS supposedly attached to the PSA never has any proof as to when it was attached. It has the same problem as the undated endorsement on the note only worse. It is not a facially valid document of transfer. It relies, derivatively on the PSA that was created long before an MLS existed even if they were telling the truth (which they are not — the trusts are empty).

The securitization process is described in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement along with the parties who are involved in the purchase, Sale and ownership of the alleged loans that were “purchased” by the Trust. But there was no purchase. If there was a purchase the bank would assert status as a holder in due course, prove the payment and the borrower would have no defenses against the Trust, even if there were terrible violations of the lending laws.

First you create the trust and then after you have sold the MBS to investors you are supposed turn over the proceeds of the sale of mortgage backed securities (MBS) to the Trustee for the Trust. This never happened in any of the thousands of Trusts I have reviewed. But assuming for a moment that the proceeds of sale of MBS were turned over to the Trust or Trustee THEN there is a transaction in which the Trust purchases the loan.

The MLS, if it was real, would be attached to assignments of mortgages and bulk endorsements — not attached to the PSA. The MLS as an exhibit to the PSA is an exercise in fiction. Adhering strictly to the wording in the PSA and established law from the Internal Revenue Code for REMIC Trusts, and New York State law which is the place of origination of the common law trusts, you would THEN sell the loan to the trust through the mechanism in the PSA. Hence the MLS cannot by any stretch of the imagination have existed at the time the Trust was created because the condition precedent to acquiring the loans is getting the money to buy them.

The MLS is a self serving document that is not proven as a business record of any entity nor is there any testimony that says that this is in the business records of the Trust (or any of the Trust entities) because the Trust doesn’t have any business records (or even a bank account for that matter).

They can rely all they want on business records for payment processing but the servicer has nothing to do with the original transaction in which they SAY that there was a purchase of the loans on the schedule. The servicer has no knowledge about the putative transaction in which the loans were purchased.

And we keep coming back to the same point that is inescapable. If a party pays for the negotiable instrument (assuming it qualifies as a negotiable instrument) then THAT purchasing party becomes a holder in due course, unless they were acting in bad faith or knew of the borrower’s defenses. It is a deep stretch to say that the Trustee knew of the borrower’s defenses or even of the existence of the “closing.”By alleging and proving the purchase by an innocent third party in the marketplace, there would be no defenses to the enforcement of the note nor of the mortgage. There would be no foreclosure defenses with very few exceptions.

There is no rational business or legal reason for NOT asserting that the Trust is a holder in due course because the risk of loss, if an innocent third party pays for the paper, shifts to the maker (i.e., the homeowner, who is left to sue the parties who committed the violations of lending laws etc.). The only reason the banks don’t allege holder in due course status is because nobody in their chain ever paid anything. There were no transactions in which the loans were purchased because they were already funded using investor money in a manner inconsistent with the prospectus, the PSA and state and federal law.

Hence the absence of a claim for holder in due course status corroborates my factual findings that none of the trusts were funded, none of the proceeds of sale of MBS was ever turned over to the trusts, none of the trusts bought anything because the Trust had no assets, or even a bank account, and none of the Trusts were operating entities even during the cutoff period. At no time were the Trusts anything but figments of the imagination of investment banks. Their existence or nonexistence was 100% controlled by the investment bank who in reality was offering false certificates to investors issued by entities that were known to be worthless.

Hence the bogus claim that the MLS is an attachment to the PSA, that it is part of the PSA, that the Trust owns anything, much less loans. The MLS is just another vehicle by which banks are intentionally confusing the courts. But nothing can change the fact that none of the paper they produce in court refers to anything other than a fictional transaction.

So the next question people keep asking me is “OK, so who is the creditor.” The answer is that there is no “creditor,” and yes I know how crazy that sounds. There exists a claim by the people or entities whose money was used to grant what appeared to be real residential mortgage loans. But there was no loan. Because there was no lender. And there was no loan contract, so there is nothing to be enforced except in equity for unjust enrichment. If the investment banks had played fair, the Trusts would have been holders in due course and the investors would have been safe.

But the investors are stuck in cyberspace without any knowledge of their claims, in most instances. The fund managers who figured it out got fat settlements from the investment banks. The proper claimant is a group of investors whose money was diverted into a dynamic commingled dark pool instead of the money going to the REMIC Trusts.

These investors have claims against the investment banks at law, and they have claims in equity against homeowners who received the benefit of the investors’ money but no claim to the note or mortgage. And the investors would do well for themselves and the homeowners (who are wrongly described as “borrowers”) if they started up their own servicing operations instead of relying upon servicers who have no interest in preserving the value of the “asset” — i.e., the claim against homeowners for recovery of their investment dollars that were misused by the investment banks. An educated investor is the path out of this farce.

 

PRESUMPTIONS, PLEADING, PROCEDURE AND PROOF REALLY MATTER IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

In the final analysis nearly all foreclosures have been rubber-stamped based upon facts that are presumed to be true but which are untrue.
 *
In my opinion every case lost by homeowners has been the result of the court using legal presumptions and shifting the burden of persuasion onto the homeowner who has been stonewalled, with the court’s help, during discovery and stonewalled before there was any foreclosure when the homeowner submitted qualified written requests and debt validation letters. Hence the court shifts the burden to the homeowner and then helps the bank by not allowing access to information that would prove that the presumed fact is rebutted by competent evidence.
================================

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

Our Services:  www.livinglies.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

As if it isn’t hard enough to defend foreclosure actions, pro se litigants and lawyers alike get caught up in a spiral of presumptions that are said to apply because of state law.
 *
Florida Statute 90.302 makes it clear that if there is credible evidence to sustain a finding of nonexistence of the presumed fact then the existence of nonexistence of the presumed fact shall be determined from the evidence without regard to the presumption. In other words the banks must plead the facts upon which they want relief and not rely upon presumptions of fact that are clearly untrue or at least debatable. After they plead those facts they must prove those facts. In other words the burden of persuasion is on the banks to show the fact is true instead of being on the hapless homeowner to show that the fact is untrue. The only party who actually knows, and the only party that has access to the information that would prove it one way or the other is the bank or entity that is initiating foreclosure.
 *
This provision is often overlooked — especially when arguing to compel discovery. Patrick Giunta, Esq. (Ft. Lauderdale)  has had success in demanding discovery that would rebut the rebuttable presumption. The bank responded with alarm.
*
For example, the promissory note that is facially valid (complies with statute to be a negotiable instrument) enables the bank to invoke the legal presumption that everything in the note is true. That in turn gives rise the presumption that the Payee in that note is a lender.
*
But that is also a rebuttable presumption. So discovery requests for information that might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence showing that the Payee was not a lender, but rather a broker would be appropriate. Courts have almost uniformly used the rebuttable presumptions as though they were conclusive presumptions. During discovery they will most often deny requests for information about one instrument or another and the underlying presumption of a real transaction for which the note is evidence.
*
The note is evidence of the debt, not the debt itself. Theoretically at least, demanding information about that underlying transaction should produce no prejudice to the bank. But he fight on presumptions is so intense that it leads one to conclude that the banks are winning cases based upon facts that are not true but taken to be true as a result of the application of legal presumptions.
*

It isn’t enough to know that the loans and foreclosures are fraudulent generally. It must be specific to the case. But I am leading the attack now on legal presumptions. I am attempting to use the information in the public domain and, where possible, inconsistencies in specific case filings, to show that the rebuttable presumptions that are normally applied should not be applied because of the common wording in the statutes that say if there are circumstances that show lack of trustworthiness about what appears to be a facially valid document then the party who proffers that document must prove their case without the benefit of legal presumptions. This, if accepted, would shift the burden of proof squarely on those attempting to use the vehicle of foreclosure, requiring them to prove the actual loan from a specific party, and the actual ownership of the debt by a specific party.

*
The argument from the banks should be interesting. On its face there is obviously no prejudice requiring the banks to prove a fact that is true. What if the presumed fact is untrue? The banks will fight it because without the presumption they cannot prove the truth of  the matter asserted in the “facially valid” document. My proposition is this: they can’t prove those facts because they are not true. In the final analysis nearly all foreclosures have been rubber-stamped based upon facts that are presumed to be true but which are untrue. In my opinion every case lost by homeowners has been the result of the court using legal presumptions and shifting the burden of persuasion onto the homeowner who has been stonewalled, with the court’s help, during discovery and stonewalled before there was any foreclosure when the homeowner submitted qualified written requests and debt validation letters.
 *
Hence the court shifts the burden to the homeowner and then helps the bank by not allowing the homeowner to access information that would prove that the presumed fact is rebutted by competent evidence.
 *

Whether this attack will be allowed is another story. The underlying bias is that regardless of the malfeasance of the banks, the homeowner shoulders the entire burden of the wrongdoing. As stated in Yvanova while legally it matters whether the homeowner owes any money or anything else to the initiator of a foreclosure, in practice this is NOT followed in most court actions. The simple truth is that the courts are allowing the banks to bend, break or twist the rules and laws — until the bank wins. This obviously is wrong on many levels. The decisions being made during this 10 year holocaust will come back to haunt us on a variety of levels. These cases will be cited to enable fraudsters of all stripes and colors to escape liability and even accountability in civil and criminal courts.

*

I have marveled, for example, at how the small fish have been convicted of white collar crime for issues relating to “mortgage fraud” when in fact they were doing exactly what their “victims” had wanted them to do. They were merely tossed under the bus to make it appear that a mega bank would never have sanctioned such behavior. In truth, they not only allowed continuous violations of lending laws, they invented most of the ways that lending laws were ignored. And the violations continue because the banks are obviously immune from serious prosecution.
 *
Both political parties are responsible for that and thus all three branches of government are infected with what has repeatedly been shown to be a fatal virus — fatal to the middle class who make up the vast majority of the consumer driven economy. We are undermining ourselves every time another foreclosure is allowed. In each foreclosure we remove another family from the ranks of consumers whose purchases normally make up 70% of GDP.  Look that up — the economists have replaced consumer purchases with the movement of paperwork linked to worthless financial instruments. Where the financial industry pretty much had an important place at 16% of GDP, it is now reported as just under 50%. But Wall Street is allowed to exist because it is a conduit for capital. How could the currently reported figures be right if the middle class has been indisputably decimated? What is so valuable on Wall Street that it now makes up half of our GDP? What are they measuring — inflated salaries and bonuses?
 *
As long as this bias remains true, the continuing epic financial fraud revealed in 2007-2009 will dominate our legal and living landscape.
—————-
For a description of our services  click here:
===========================

Consummation- Is an Act not an Illusion

by William Hudson

Neil Garfield is adamant that if consummation did not occur, there can be no contract. His belief is supported by hundreds of years of contract law (including the marriage contract). In regards to marriage, most people know if consummation occurred, yet when it comes to taking out a securitized loan like a mortgage, most people only assume it did.   Without proof one can only speculate that consummation occurred.

Due to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, any lender in America should be capable of producing the needed documentation to prove they own a Mortgage and Note- and that consummation occurred. With the click of a computer mouse, instantaneously the journal entries in the lender’s financial, accounting, and general ledger systems should show that a loan was consummated and the Note was assigned to a valid trust. Instead, the banks resort to forgery and fraud. If they had the documentation, fraud would not be necessary.

Since around 2001 banks have been mocking up documents to create a paper trail to create the illusion of ownership- but in light of all the fabricated document fraud, it is time that homeowners demand to see the money trail and are permitted to do so. The money trail should begin at consummation of the loan between the two parties who agreed to contract: the homeowner and lender. However, this is not the way that consummation works in a securitized mortgage transaction. By design, the homeowner is not allowed to know who they are borrowing funds from- and transparency is of no concern.

Can you imagine this occurring in any other consumer transaction?  Imagine the chaos that would ensue, for instance, if you thought you were financing a truck through Ford Credit, yet unbeknownst to you, Honda funded the loan.  You may have ended up with the truck, but you may have been induced into a contract you didn’t agree with (especially if your goal was to “buy American”).  Why should Mortgage loans be any different?  And why should Congress bother passing laws like TILA if the banks are going to ignore consumer protection laws with impunity?

There can be no consummation when the party lending the money is never disclosed to the borrower. A homeowner is conned into believing the party listed on their note and mortgage is actually the party who is taking the risk by lending their own funds- when this party who is named on the Note is an originator- not a lender.

Has anyone stopped to ask why all the secrecy?   The only reason for secrecy is to hide the truth- whatever that may be (dark pools? empty trusts? stolen funds?). There is a reason for the deception that begins at the closing table, endures through servicing, and only ends upon sale of the property or payoff.

Consummation under the Federal Truth-in-Lending-Act occurs when the state law on contract or lending says it begins. According to attorney Neil Garfield, “Most state laws require offer, acceptance and consideration. So while the door is open to inconsistent results, in order to find that consummation did happen and that the date of consummation is known, we still must visit the issue of consideration.” Consideration is basically the exchange of something of value in return for the promise or service of the other party. Take note, consideration is not the exchange of value in return for the promise or service of an unidentified third party. However, modern securitization has nothing to do with the name of the original “lender” on the Note that in 99% of all cases did not loan anything of value.

When a homeowner is not provided the name of the party who is actually taking the risk and has skin in the game- they lose their ability to negotiate in good faith with this party (the investors of the trust). Over the span of a 30 year loan, “life” happens. It is terrifying that a bank can use one late payment as an excuse to create a default.

Banks were once responsive to homeowners because they had an actual investment and needed the homeowner to successfully make payments.   If a homeowner had a short-term cash flow problem, the banks were willing to work with them- it was in their best interest to do so. Homeowners no longer have the luxury of negotiating with the party who provided the funds, but must attempt to solve any mortgage issues with a loan servicer who is financially rewarded by engineering a default- by failing to provide responsive customer service to the homeowner (or by blatantly misleading the homeowner).

In fact, this week the CFPB announced that consumers made almost 900,000 complaints about their loan servicers between March and April 2016. The complaints center around three areas:

  1. Problems when consumers are unable to pay: Consumers complained of prolonged loss mitigation review processes in which the same documentation was repeatedly requested by their servicer. Consumers also complained that they received conflicting and confusing foreclosure notifications during the loss mitigation review process.
  2. Confusion over loan transfers: Consumers complained that they were often not properly informed that their loan had been transferred. As a result, payments made to either the prior or current servicer around the time of the transfer were not applied to their account.
  3. Communication issues with servicers: Consumers complained that when they were able to speak with their servicer, the information they received was often confusing and did not provide the clarifications they were hoping for.

According to the report, the mortgage companies with the worst records between November 2015 to January 2016 were Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Ocwen, and Nationstar Mortgage. Consumers are not receiving customer care because by design servicers profit when a default can be engineered. Based on the CFPB findings, it is obvious that the longer the servicer can prolong loss mitigation, the more fees they will potentially receive. A default allows them to collect thousands in late fees and penalties; and if they are lucky- foreclose on the home.

The servicer has no skin in the game and is incentivized to create a default by any means necessary- whereas, a true creditor does not want a default. The problem with the way the system is rigged is that the homeowner is prevented from knowing who they borrowed money from and therefore cannot negotiate in good faith with the party who has a vested interest in the homeowner making payment.

The central problem in all securitized mortgages is that the homeowner has no idea who they consummated the loan with. Although it is considered a predatory practice under Regulation Z to conceal the true lender, no government regulatory agency has stopped the practice of concealing the identity of the true lender at closing.  The TILA laws are on the books, but have no teeth.

Neil has said in the past that consummation only occurs after the closing agent receives and disburses the funds according to the alleged loan contract. Therefore, consummation does not occur on the date that the closing papers are signed. The requirement of giving the borrower disclosure papers three days before the closing is complete might put some daylight between the assumption that consummation occurred on the day the papers were signed.

Garfield states, “The simple argument is that the industry practice has always been that the borrower signs papers and THEN the closing agent requests or receives the money for the “loan.”” Therefore, Garfield doubts there is any support for saying that the borrower is contractually obligated to comply with the terms of the note or the mortgage if the money never came at all. Neil Garfield says that where the true problem lies is what occurs in the NEXT step.

“If we can agree that if no money ever came from anyone, the borrower doesn’t owe anyone anything and is not bound by the “facially valid” loan contract, then it follows that if no money came from the named Payee on the note and mortgagee on the mortgage, (beneficiary in a deed of trust), the “borrower” doesn’t owe anything to anyone,” states Garfield. If contract law was strictly followed, the homeowner is under no obligation to repay a party who didn’t lend them a dime.
This is where the issue of consummation becomes difficult to understand. “If money is sent to the closing agent by a party unrelated to the named payee on the note, then under what theory do we say that the note is evidence of the debt? It certainly should not be used to show that the borrower owes the payee any money because the payee did not make the loan and nobody related to the payee made the loan,” Garfield has repeatedly stated. Neil Garfield agrees with the assumption that the borrower owes back the money that was advanced on behalf of the borrower, but that transaction is not a debt nor a contract- it is a potential liability to the party whose funds were used to send to the closing agent.

That claim could not be in contract because the source of funds and the “borrower” never entered into a contract. The liability would be in equity and would exist independently of the false note and false mortgage, which means the claim from a real source of funds would not be subject to the note and mortgage but simply due on the basis of fairness in equity: the borrower received the benefit of the money from the money source and under quantum meruit would be obligated to repay the money.

This is where most people get lost on Garfield’s Rescission theories. Garfield never advocates that money is not owed to someone- what he argues is that the Note and Mortgage represent a transaction that never occurred- and therefore should be rescinded under TILA. Rescission would allow the REAL creditor (or investors) to come to the table and demand/receive payment.

And yet, loan servicers wanting to protect their unlawful gains (at the expense of the investors) are successfully deceiving the courts that consummation did occur. The entire mortgage scheme is rigged by a system of smoke and mirrors. There is evidence that the closing did not occur according to the contract- if the homeowner can manage to obtain the information through Discovery (but in 99% of all lawsuits the bank will not be compelled to reveal actual evidence). The courts could demand sua sponte that the servicer provide the actual business records and settle the matter- but this would reveal the truth that everyone has gone to great lengths to keep hidden.

When Congress wrote the Truth in Lending Act, they deliberately stated that the homeowner could rescind the Note within three days of consummation (they specifically did not say origination). The Supreme Court in Jesninoski reinforced the right to rescind and TILA was enacted so that banks would self-regulate and not devise reckless and predatory schemes (like what has happened). The homeowners and investors should not be punished for the deliberate obfuscation of the true terms of the “loan”.

All this analysis is aimed at one single point, to wit: that the source of funds does not meet the definition of a creditor to whom the money is owed. Most people understand Neil Garfield’s point but reject it regardless of how well it is founded in law and fact. They reject it because it upsets the mortgage securitization scheme started 20 years ago by the investment banks. It would mean that there is no creditor, there is no contract, and there is no obligation to comply with the payment terms under the note and mortgage. This is an unacceptable result for most people. They worry that the entire system would collapse if they were to follow the law as it has been written and decided for centuries.

But the feared consequence is not based in fact. The entire system does not collapse under this scenario. What happens is that the investors who bought fake Mortgage backed securities could deal directly with the borrowers and workout the terms of a mortgage loan that is both legal and enforceable. More importantly it would be a loan that would survive in value to the investor. As things stand now the Wall Street banks are driving as many cases as possible toward foreclosure because that is the way they collect the most fees — when the equity in the property is no longer higher than the claims for money upon liquidation.

So accepting the application of existing law as stated here, would mean that investors would suffer much lower losses and the homeowners would regain the equity in their homes or at least the prospect of equity while the wild terms and wild appraised prices of the past are abandoned. Obviously the SERVICERS would hate this equitable solution- because it would cost them the huge profits they receive through document fabrication, robosigning and other creative “solutions” that require fraud.

Let’s remember that when TARP was first announced, it was all about losses from mortgage defaults. When the government realized that homeowner defaults had little to do with TARP they expanded its meaning to include failing mortgage backed securities. But there were no bank losses from MBS because the banks were selling MBS not buying them. So then they expanded it again to include losses from credit default swaps, insurance contracts and other hedge products.

This was all based upon the premise that there MUST be a loan contract in there somewhere. There wasn’t in most cases. Nearly all of the foreclosures that have been rubber stamped by the court system were not only unnecessary, they were patently illegal based upon false representations from the banks. The foreclosure was a legal cover for all the prior illegal actions.

With that being said, if the homeowner only recently discovered that consummation did not occur; does the 3-year TILA window is likely untolled and the 3-day/3-year expiration time may never have commenced in the first place. Remember that according to law, Rescission is the act of rescinding; the cancellation of a contract and the return of the parties to the positions they would have had if the contract had not been made; rescission may be brought about by decree or by mutual consent.

Congress did not give you the Right to Cancel under TILA but the Right to Rescind. Cancellation means termination of the entire agreement by the act of parties/law. Whereas Rescission places the person back to the condition they were PRIOR to the contract; cancellation merely voids the contract and has no restorative properties. Congress could have simply allowed homeowners to cancel under TILA, but instead opted for Rescission. Cancellation would have stopped the bleeding, but Rescission actually reattaches the Limb. The judiciary must recognize that Congress used the words CONSUMMATION and RESCISSION not ORIGINATION and CANCELLATION in the Truth-in-Lending-Act so why should any Judge ignore the intention of the Act?  Rescission will eventually be won based on lack of consummation- but it may take another hearing before the Supreme Court before the state courts accept what consummation means.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,418 other followers

%d bloggers like this: