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.

Hunter vs Aurora: Fla 1st DCA Business Records Gets Tougher

Show me any other period in American history where banks lost so many cases.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.
 ================

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

—————-

see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1664754.html

The heat on the banks has been steadily increasing for the last three years and has increased at an increasing rate during the past 18 months. More and more banks are losing in what the bank lawyers call a “Simple, standard foreclosure action.” Show me any other period in American history where banks lost so many cases. There is obviously nothing simple and nothing standard about these foreclosures that have caused ruination of some 25 million people living in around 9 million homes.

If things were simple, we wouldn’t be looking at musical chairs in servicing, plaintiffs and “holders.” If things were standard, the creditor would come forth with clear proof that it paid for this loan. Nobody I know has EVER seen that. I have written about why. Suffice it to say, if there was a real creditor who could come forward and end the argument, they would have done so.

Two years ago the Hunter case was decided. The court was presented with a panoply of the usual smoke and mirrors. The court took on the issue of the business records exception as a guide to the trial judges in the 1st District and to the trial lawyers who defend homeowners in foreclosure. This is a sample of the part of the analysis we do. Here are some quotes and comments from the case:

Aurora alleged in its “Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage and to Enforce Lost Loan Documents” that it owned and held the promissory note and the mortgage, [note that the allegation is never made that Aurora was the owner of the debt or was the lender. Why not? Who is the actual creditor?]
 *
original owner of the note and mortgage was MortgageIT, and that MortgageIT subsequently assigned both to Aurora. A letter dated January 27, 2007, from Aurora to Mr. Hunter entitled, “Notice of Assignment, Sale, or Transfer of Servicing Rights,” directed him to remit mortgage payments to Aurora beginning February 1, 2007. The “Corporate Assignment of Mortgage” executed on June 11, 2007, and recorded on January 8, 2008, showed MortgageIT as the assignor and Aurora as the assignee. [MortgageIT was a thinly capitalized originator/ broker who could not have made all the loans it originated. Hence the presumption should be that it didn’t loan money to Hunter. Logically it follows that it never owned the debt and should not have had its name on the note or the mortgage. Nor did the source of funds ever convey ownership to MortgageIT. So what value or validity is there in looking at an assignment or endorsement or even delivery from Mortgage IT? And given that behavior (see below) do we not have circumstances in which the paperwork is suspect? Should that be enough to withhold the statutory presumptions attendant to “holding” a note?]
 *
To establish that it held and had the right to enforce the note as of April 3, 2007, Aurora sought to put in evidence certain computer-generated records: one, a printout entitled “Account Balance Report” dated “1/30/2007,” indicating Mr. Hunter’s loan was sold to Lehman Brothers—of which Aurora is a subsidiary and for which Aurora services loans—and payment in full was received on “12/20/2006;” the second, a “consolidated notes log” printout dated “7/18/2007” indicating the physical note and mortgage were sent—it is not readily clear to whom—via two-day UPS on April 18, 2007. Neither document reflects that it was generated by MortgageIT. -[Interesting that Aurora is identified as a subsidiary of Lehman who was in bankruptcy in October of 2008. Aurora usually represents itself as a stand-alone company which is obviously not true. Equally obvious (see discussion above) is that the reason why Mortgage IT was not identified on the printout is that it had nothing to do with the actual loan money — neither payment of the loan as a lender nor payment for the loan from the homeowner. Mortgage IT, for all intents and purposes, in the real world, was never part of this deal.]

Section 90.803(6) provides one such exception for business records, if the necessary foundation is established:

A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or as shown by a certification or declaration that complies with paragraph (c) and s. 90.902(11), unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness. (e.s.) – [THIS is the point of my article. Under current circumstances both in the Hunter case and in the public domain the court should have considered the fact that the parties were well known to have fabricated, forged and otherwise misrepresented documents, together with outright lying about the existence of underlying transactions that would track the paperwork upon which courts have heaping one presumption after another. My argument is that Aurora should not have been given the benefit of the doubt (i.e. a presumption) but rather should have been required to prove each part of its case. My further argument is that virtually none of the foreclosure cases should allow for presumptions in evidence after the massive and continuing settlements for fraud relating to these residential mortgages. If this doesn’t show lack of trustworthiness, then what would?]

— If you want this kind of analysis done on your case —
See a description of our services  click here: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/32498
===========================

Why We Developed the TILA Rescission Package

We start with the simple and irrefutable premise that if the parties are NOT in litigation, only a timely lawsuit filed by a party with legal standing could be considered to vacate the TILA rescission that is effective, as a matter of law, when it is mailed. The note and mortgage become void at that moment. Any claim of standing based upon the void note and void mortgage is by definition frivolous.

The banks want to place the burden on the homeowner to explain why this court should consider the rescission effective. But that is not the law. The burden is on the Banks to bring a timely action by a party with legal standing explaining why the rescission should be set aside or vacated.

Despite the simplicity of 15 USC §1635 it appears that the entire TILA rescission issue is being re-litigated even in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court decision that made it abundantly clear that what you read below is not theory, claim or defense: it is a fact.

For a description of our services  click here: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/32498
===========================

We are offering a Rescission Package for those lawyers and homeowners who are considering rescission as a potential strategy in their fight against the banks.

The whole point of the TILA rescission statute was to enable homeowners to avoid lawyers and judges when they canceled their loan contracts. Most jurists think this is a ridiculous thing to do. But their job is to enforce the law not make the law or “interpret” a statute that is perfectly clear on its face — especially when the highest court in the land (the boss of bosses in the judicial system) says there is no right, power, or authority possessed by ANY judge on ANY level to interpret this particular statute. The Jesinoski court said unanimously that this statute is clear on its face. THAT is the law of the land and the final instruction to every judge dealing with TILA rescission.

It should not be necessary to offer such a Rescission package. And considering the wording of the statute and the Supreme Court, there ought not to be litigation on whether the TILA rescission was effective when mailed — but that is exactly what is happening anyway. Judges who don’t like this statute should take it up with the legislature; they cannot and should not attempt to over-rule their boss — SCOTUS.

It is also true that the parties who brought the foreclosure have neither the legal standing nor (in most cases) a timely claim to vacate the rescission. So it is important to know what is happening on the ground with trial judges and appellate cases in order to anticipate how and when you will be met with opposition to a rescission that was and remains effective when mailed, as a matter of law. Despite the simplicity of 15 USC §1635 it appears that the entire rescission issue is being re-litigated even in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court decision that made it abundantly clear that what you read below is not theory, claim or defense: it is a fact.

The banks clearly have a problem with legal standing as they are losing an increasing number of foreclosure cases on exactly that point. And they already lost the fight over what TILA rescission means, when it is effective and how it is accomplished (i.e., a letter). But they continue to litigate, filing improper motions without standing and making all sorts of arguments that have already been heard and rejected by SCOTUS. The problem is that no matter how empty the arguments of the banks, if you don’t vigorously oppose them, the judge will “go with his gut” rather than the law.

It has become necessary to inform the public of what options exist for those who have sent notices of rescission either long ago or in the present and the answers differ. It also is necessary to know what to do with the rescission whether foreclosure has been started or not.

We start with the simple and irrefutable premise that if the parties are NOT in litigation, only a timely lawsuit filed by a party with legal standing could be considered to vacate the TILA rescission that is effective, as a matter of law, when it is mailed. The note and mortgage become void at that moment. Any claim of standing based upon the void note and void mortgage is by definition frivolous.

The problem seems to be that most of the discussion and litigation regarding rescission occurs in the context of litigation already exists. In that context the rescission is attacked by motion by the same parties who are pursuing foreclosure allegedly on behalf of some unknown real creditor. They do not allege they own the debt or that they are holders in due course.

Instead they say they are “holders” or “possessors” of the note with rights to enforce. They are appearing in a Representative capacity using the note and mortgage, and assignments and endorsements and even powers of attorney upon which they rely to have the court infer the existence of a right to foreclose. But when rescission becomes effective (upon mailing) the note and mortgage are void — and no legal claim or relief or legal standing exists when it is based upon a void instrument.

Once we read the Statute (15 U.S.C. §1635) and Regulations and supplement that with the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States (Jesinoski v Countrywide) there is and can be no doubt that the loan contract has been lawfully and non-judicially canceled, and the note and mortgage are void.

Hence the foreclosing parties lack legal standing to oppose the rescission not only because it is already effective but also because even if they had legal standing and they were bringing a proper lawsuit the time is over. And unless the foreclosing party forgot to mention that they own the debt and thus fulfill the definition of the word “creditor” or “lender” they don’t have legals standing either. This is counter-intuitive for those who have not studied and analyzed the procedural remedy of TILA rescission.

*

So we provide elaboration in our package that shows the lawyer options on how to argue the points in each particular case, where the facts always differ in some small way.

*
I seem to be getting the same questions. All of then are essentially the same — “The TILA Statute says that TILA rescission does not apply to [fill in the blank]. Why are you saying that rescission is still effective where there are potential claims that would result in the rescission being vacated or set aside.?” The answer is that all TILA rescissions are effective when mailed, regardless of whether they are disputed or whether they could be disputed. The questioners are assuming that the “facts” are true and that they would lose if the pretender lender goes to court and shows that the subject alleged loan contract was for a purchase money mortgage, or was more than 3 years ago etc.
*
Yes, my answer is that the rescission is effective and yes, it seems like a good strategy in many cases. In a nutshell the reasons are that (1) the actual creditor with standing has made no claim that the rescission should be set aside or vacated and (2) they have missed their opportunity to do so. (20 days from receipt of the notice of rescission). Third, there has never been such a lawsuit. And the reason for that lies deep within the analysis of “securitization fail” (see Adam Levitin) which produces an anomalous result that is nevertheless the consequence of bad actors on Wall Street, to wit: there appears no “party” who could meet the definition of an actual creditor to whom the money is actually owed (i.e., the party at the end of the line of the money train).
 *
And because this seems impossible, it is assumed to be untrue. Yet that is precisely what the Banks are counting on when they assert status as “holder”, or that they are possessed with rights to enforce even if they don’t disclose the identity of the creditor.
 *
The best analogy I can conceive is in contract law. If A makes an offer to B and B accepts the offer, they have an “executory” but not enforceable contract. But once A gives something of value to B and B gives something of value to A, pursuant to the terms of the oral or written contract, the contract becomes enforceable. All this occurs without any judge, and perhaps without any lawyer involved in the mix.
*
The contract (a) exists and (b) is effective as a matter of law without judicial intervention. If there is a lawsuit it is going to be about whether there was a breach of the contract, not about whether the contract exists or was legally effective (except for some rare exceptions).
*
Nearly all social and business contracts are meant to occur without court intervention and are valid and enforceable, as a matter of law, because the statutes and common law say they are. If you think that no contract shoudl be considered effective until a judge rules on it, then we would need to add about 1 million more judges.
 *
Here is the analogy to TILA Rescission: Add to our example above a VALID statute that is clear on its face that says that B can cancel the entire contract with a letter. Then add the Federal Regulation that states everything that was signed or done after the start of the enforceable contract (consummation) becomes VOID at the moment the letter is sent.
 *
Assume B sent the letter canceling the contract. What do you have? Answer — an unenforceable contract and a bunch of void instruments and acts that were performed pursuant to the enforceable contract. The issue of fair or not was taken up by the legislature and they decided that this is fair. Can a judge over-rule a valid statute? No. Now add SCOTUS saying that the statute is valid and clear and no interpretation is allowed. What can a Judge do about the letter canceling the contract. Nothing — unless A sues B, alleging that it is still the party to an actual transaction that occurred between A and B and alleges facts supporting a conclusion that B was wrong to cancel the contract, and A asks the court, in a timely lawsuit, to vacate the cancellation.
 *

The problem might best be expressed as procedural law versus substantive law. The rescission statute is a procedural law passed by Congress to administrate the substantive provisions of The truth in lending act.

*

As pointed out by the Supreme Court of United States, this statute expresses how TILA Rescission is initiated and when it is effective. This statute makes no distinction between disputed an undisputed rescissions. And that point was expressly stated by Justice Scalia when writing for a unanimous Supreme Court. All rescissions are effective on the day they are mailed regardless of whether the thinking of the borrower is ignorant, defective, or arguable.

*

The rescissions are effective by operation of law. By the express wording of the statute, the regulations, in the Supreme Court of United States, the mailing of a notice of rescission makes the rescission of effective as a matter of law.

*

The position staked out by Congress and the Supreme Court of United States does not limit access to the courts for an aggrieved creditor. Such a creditor may file a complaint against the borrower seeking to vacate the rescission which is now effective as a matter of law. Obviously such a complaint could only be filed by a party possessing legal standing to contest the statutory nonjudicial rescission.

*

Your questions are about how to deal with a prospective lawsuit that has not been filed. And your question presumes that the creditor would win that lawsuit based on the assumption that a court would interpret the consummation of the transaction to have been a purchase money mortgage.

*

But the procedural question is whether the creditor can actually bring such a claim not only because of the question of legal standing but also because more than 20 days has elapsed since the rescission was received.

*

The Creditor only has a 20 day window in which to file any contest of the rescission. We know this because of the wording in the rescission statute and the interpretation of that statute by the Supreme Court of the United States. That court overturned thousands of decisions from trial court and appellate courts that required a lawsuit to be filed by the borrower in order to make rescission effective. In The unanimous Court rejected that interpretation for two reasons, to wit:

*

(1) the statute was clear on its face and the TILA statute made it clear that the notice of rescission was effective when it was placed in the mail. Therefore no lawsuit was required to determine whether or not the rescission was effective. It was effective as per the express wording of the statute. The only time limit expressed in the statute for compliance by the”Lender” is 20 days from the date of receipt. The banks want to place the burden on the homeowner to explain why this court should consider the rescission effective. But that is not the law. The burden is on the Banks to bring a timely action by a party with legal standing explaining why the rescission should be set aside or vacated. 

*

By combining the first day of TILA rescission as being the date of mailing and the last day of TILA rescission being 20 days from the date of receipt by the “lender”, it is obvious that any attempt to extend that period of time would essentially translate as meaning that the notice of rescission was not considered effective until a judge ruled upon it. This is opposite to what Congress said, what the Supreme Court said, and what the Federal regulations say. Banks are attempting to re-litigate this despite the fact that the highest court in the land rejected their argument already.

*

(2) the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has expressly ruled that this statute is clear on its face and is not subject to any interpretation of any kind. Specifically the court simply restated the content of the statute which provides that the notice of rescission is effective upon mailing, which means that there is no lawsuit required to make the rescission effective, and the court noted that the statute made no distinction between disputed an undisputed rescissions.

*

Hence it is premature to attempt to resolve questions relating to prospective issues which might be alleged in a lawsuit directed at vacating the rescission.

*

This is only counter-intuitive if you assume that borrower’s should not have such power to cause such a huge impact by merely writing a letter. But the law is filled with such examples, most notably the Power of Sale in nonjudicial states. In both instances a private action carries the force of law.

*

In nonjudicial states the consequence is the most severe remedy allowed in civil litigation — loss of property and in most  cases, the homestead of the property owner. In the case of rescission, the borrower procedural removes any allowed use of the alleged loan contract, debt, note or mortgage. But it is entirely possible and even probable in many if not most cases that no loan contract was ever consummated in actuality by consideration from the payee on the note to the maker of the note.

*

Consummation is another “fact” that can only be determined by a court after due process — pleading, defenses and a trial. Such a case is NOT about whether the rescission was effective. It is about whether the rescission should be vacated or enforced as to the three duties of the “lender” after receipt of the TILA Rescission.

*

If that lawsuit is not currently pending and timely filed, there is no option for the creditor except compliance, to wit: (a) return canceled note (b) release encumbrance and (c) disgorgement and payment of of money to the homeowner. Only AFTER those duties are fully satisfied may a creditor make any demand for payment, and even then there is no collateral for the debt that the creditor says is due.

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

Chase Loses on Assignment and Assumption Argument with WAMU

A purchase and assumption agreement was not enough to prove JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s legal standing in a foreclosure case before the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
——————
For a description of our services  click here: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/32498
===========================

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

—————-

see http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/law-news/id=1202753997800/JPMorgan-Chase-Loses-Foreclosure-Case-After-5-Debt-Sales?mcode=1202617860989&curindex=2&slreturn=20160315114531

Congrats to Attorney Ricardo Corona, Esq., the one who won this case.

On the road today.

I just wanted to point out that what I had testified 8 years ago in a class action is pretty much well-settled now, despite the nagging naysayers that always emerge when confronted with an observation that conflicts with their assumptions. WAMU originated around $1 trillion in loans. Any cursory overview of their financial statements would show that they could not possibly have loaned even a substantial fraction of that amount. It follows that all of them were pre-funded through conduits of conduits who were illegally using investor money obtained under false pretenses.

For most of the loans, therefore, WAMU never owned them because they were never the lender. The rest were “sold” (without ever receiving one cent of consideration) into the secondary market where they were subject to false claims of securitization. The financial equivalent of a house of mirrors.

Any three year old understands that if you give away that tasty apple you don’t have it anymore. So when the FDIC took over WAMU, who had virtually no assets, and then combined with the US Trustee in bankruptcy to sell the servicing rights and other services of WAMU, Chase was the buyer of everything EXCEPT the loans. No assignments exist because none were executed. I spoke to Richard Schoppe the FDIC Trustee who directly confirmed this to me years ago.

It therefore makes sense that the paperwork used in court is fabricated, forged or irrelevant to ownership, authority or even balances. In a case Patrick Giunta and I won about a year ago, a veteran Judge ruled that the Trust never owned the loan, that the transfer  documents were meaningless, that the “new servicer” had no right to service the loan, and that Chase probably owed our client money for fooling around with the escrow account. Lawyers for US Bank as trustee for the inactive REMIC Trust tried using all kinds of documents including brand new powers of attorney that said nothing of value.

The “WAMU” notes, by the way, were mostly destroyed. Almost all of the notes you see today and represented as originals would not survive a real forensic examination. Many of the loan documents were printed and mechanically signed within hours or days of being presented in court as the originals signed by the homeowner. That is why I always caution against admitting the signature — it usually isn’t the original signature but it sure looks like it. Now Chase is walking this practice back because the executives wish to avoid civil and maybe other prosecution. So they are using “substitutes” for the notes.

“Because they didn’t have possession of the note, they had to rely on the purchase and assumption agreement, which the Fourth DCA found insufficient,” said defense attorney Ricardo M. Corona Jr. of the Corona Law Firm in Miami.

Table Funded: The Student Loan Scam

The essential question I pose is this: if the student loan was table funded (and it does appear to me that they were, in many cases), then why is the originator/broker receiving the government guarantee and the exemption from discharge? By definition they didn’t loan any money to the student. It seems to me that government, lawyers, and courts are overlooking the fact that many banks (large and small) have been acting as brokers and not as lenders.

Like the so-called mortgage loans, the underwriting decisions lie outside of the organization that “granted” the alleged loan from an undisclosed third party. Yet they claim and receive and sell government benefits as though they were lenders.

My theory under current law is that if the loan was funded from the sale of student debt pools there are two outcomes, to wit: (1) the government guarantee does not attach because there is no loan or risk of loss to guarantee and because the actual lender is not the broker, pretender who appears on the note, (i.e., they were not entitled to the government protections because they brokered the transaction instead of loaning the money) and (2) since the government guarantee and other conditions are no longer involved, there is no reason to prevent discharge in bankruptcy.

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

—————-

see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-wall-street-profits-from-student-debt-20160414

Wall Street is like that closet in your house where you throw everything in that you probably won’t need for a while or maybe not at all. When you open the closet door everything falls out on top of you. In this case it is $1.2 Trillion on student debt with “default” rates rising sharply and interest rates rising into double digits. We are in effect making it impossible for the brightest minds to get the education we need for the sake of our society. Anyone want a doctor or lawyer who has been poorly education or not educated at all?

It’s all about money in education. Like medical insurance, the more distance you put between the consumer and the the actual delivery of the service, the less people think about it and the the more the vendors charge. In the end education becomes a process of justifying the cost of a commodity rather than creating the best possible education possible.

Somehow the banks managed to intervene between students and institutions of higher learning, such that they enjoy very high interest rates (after the student completes education) and a guarantee from the Federal government or at least a guarantee that the debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

The government loans work the way they are intended and there are many programs to provide relief to students who in many cases are burdened for life with student debt. But the private loans, which now dominate the marketplace, are putting a drag on our prospects as a nation — but still great business for the banks. Most other countries do not allow graduating students to be burdened by this debt; and those countries that provide free tuition (up to a point) or who pay for their citizens to travel and learn in countries who have quality institutions for higher learning, end up with an increasing GDP stemming from the contribution and productivity of highly educated, trained people who became employees, officers and leaders.

But here is the rub — banks making student loans in most cases  enjoy immunity from bankruptcy and so they use all sorts of sales techniques to get the prospective student to borrow as much as possible for tuition and”expenses.” They do this for the same reasons that homeowners or home buyers were encouraged to put as much into  their alleged mortgage loan as possible — landscaping and other improvements to the house that did not raise the value of the home.

The game, once again, is securitization. Even if we assume that the claims of securitization of these loans are true, we see a basic inconsistency in the choices the banks make as to how to deal with the risk of loss. The answer, like the mortgage loans, is that they have no risk of loss. They have already sold the student loans into a secondary market for securitization. That being true, the premise behind the exclusion of student debt from the benefits of bankruptcy is false.

The first premise is that banks would not provide funding for higher education without the guarantee that the loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and, in other cases, without the guarantee of repayment by the government. This is not true. By securitizing the loans (or at least subjecting them to claims of securitization in the secondary market), the banks are making tons of money as brokers and conduits without any risk of loss whatsoever. Our previous system of public loans for high learning worked far better than the current one in which private lenders dominate the market despite the “reforms” that have been enacted.

The second premise is that both the loans and these government guarantees are salable to “investors.” This is the controversial part. Given the premise behind the government guarantees, why should a broker be able to sell that government guarantee at a profit? What gives them the right to sell government promises? The object was to provide capital to students — not to increase the number of arcane financial products in the marketplace. If the loans are not salable without those government guarantees, it is because (as we know from the mortgage market) the loans make no sense. These are flawed financial products based upon the same “bad underwriting” we have seen in the continuing mortgage crisis.

Thus my premise and my question are the same: why should a bank or other “lender” make a profit on a bad loan? Why should banks be freed from the risk of loss that the government guarantees are meant to cover? Why have we strayed from existing law in which the “banks” (which we have all presumed to be “lenders”) are the party primarily responsible for the viability of the loan? Why should these bad loans be subject to sale to “investors” whose only interest in the student loans is the elimination of risk because the government has guaranteed benefits? Why should young people, before they get their education, be held to a higher standard of responsibility than the banks who are setting them up for failure?

My proposed legal theory is that once a bank makes the election to sell the student loan into the secondary market, the government guarantees should vanish. My theory under current law is that if the loan was funded from the sale of student debt pools there are two outcomes, to wit: (1) the government guarantee does not attach because there is no risk of loss to guarantee and because the lender is not the broker, pretender who appears on the note, (i.e., they were not entitled to the government protections because they brokered the transaction instead of loaning the money) and (2) since the government guarantee is no longer involved, there is no reason to prevent discharge in bankruptcy.

Then we will have close attention paid to the value of the loans and the manner in which they were sold. Once sold, these loans should be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Once sold these loans should offer no safe haven to investors that the loan will be paid by the U.S. government. Whether this can be done in the courts under current law is debatable. But it can and should be done through Congress and state legislatures. Without these reforms we are essentially eating our young.

MISSION CREEP NOTICE: Wall Street is now looking to “Securitize” health care loans. There is hardly anything they are not claiming to securitize.

—————-
For a description of our services  click here: https://wordpress.com/post/livinglies.wordpress.com/32498
===========================
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.
================================

 

Rescission Procedure Explained — Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

More than 40,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.
===============================
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688.  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.

—————-

The following is lifted from the content of a report you can get by clicking on https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies. The review, report and analysis includes a 30 minute consult. Legal opinions are rendered to attorneys in all 50 states and to clients in the State of Florida.

  1. TILA Rescission is an event. It is not a theory, claim or defense. It is a nonjudicial procedural remedy. It is accomplished by mailing a letter. In most cases it is an event that has indisputably occurred. The effect of TILA Rescission is, as a matter of law and by operation of law, to cancel the loan contract, and to render the note and mortgage void. In its Motion to Dismiss, the pretender lenders seek to have courts assume that the rescission exists but is not effective, despite all law to the contrary. The matter is well settled, to wit: if the rescission exists, it is effective as a matter of law.
  2. The effectiveness of a TILA Rescission is not predicated upon any judicial analysis of the likelihood of the borrower’s success if a lawsuit to vacate the rescission is filed by a party with legal standing. Any such interpretation would be opposite to the holding in Jesinoski that the rescission is effective upon mailing, whether disputed or not.
  3. The pretender lenders do not dispute that rescission has occurred but seek to invoke issues in a case that is not and cannot be before any Court, to wit: whether the rescission is effective. And they seek to do so through motions in which they deftly avoid the requirement of pleading and proving facts in a proper lawsuit to vacate the rescission, thus depriving the homeowners of their right to raise appropriate defenses to the non-existent lawsuit seeking to vacate the rescission.
  4. Pretender lenders want the courts to enter an order that would impliedly vacate the rescission.

The pretender lenders seek to have the court assume facts about the consummation of the alleged loan including the date or dates when consummation occurred and the source of funding for the alleged loan. They even want the court to assume that disclosures were adequate. These are questions of fact requiring a lawsuit, discovery and trial. They seek to have courts adopt the premise that the rescission is not effective upon mailing if there are potentially defects in the reasoning or actions of the borrower. SCOTUS has expressly rejected that argument. (Jesinoski v Countrywide). SCOTUS clearly stated that the rescission is complete upon mailing, regardless of whether it is disputed or not.

This does not remove the ability of the creditor to vacate the rescission but it does eliminate the right of any creditor to raise a challenge based upon the theory that the rescission was not effective when mailed. That issue is completely settled by SCOTUS.

All three branches of government are in unanimous agreement: TILA Rescission is effective upon mailing by operation of law. Nothing further is required from the borrower.

DEBT vs. Note: What is the difference?

 current trial court decisions are getting reversed because the courts are waking up to the reality of the rule of law. What they have been following is an off the books rule of “anything but a free house.”

the Courts may think they are saving the financial system, the economy and our society from disintegration, but in truth they are undermining all three.

A recent Yale Law Review article eviscerates the assumptions of a “free house” for the homeowners and destroys the myth that somehow that policy has saved the nation. Yale-In Defense of Free Houses 2016 03 23

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 formhttps://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.

—————-
Like many other cases, current trial court decisions are getting reversed because the courts are waking up to the reality of the rule of law. What they have been following is an off the books rule of “anything but a free house.” A recent Yale Law Review Article eviscerates the assumptions of a free house for the homeowners and destroys the myth that somehow that policy has saved the nation.
The Trial Judges are making the assumption that there is an underlying debt and an underlying liability of the homeowner to make a payment to the parties in litigation even if the paperwork was found to be defective. Or worse, they are disregarding the rule of law altogether and ruling for the banks and servicers because of policy reasoning (a province exclusively reserved to the legislative branch of government and excluded from the judicial branch).

The key legal analysis goes back to basic contract law pounded into our heads in the first year of law school, to wit: the note is not the debt, it is evidence of the debt.” So if there is no debt and the homeowner challenges on that basis, the homeowner SHOULD win every time. The mistake made by pro se litigants and lawyers alike is that they cannot conceive of the notion of “there is no debt.” That’s because they don’t complete the sentence, to wit: There is no debt owed to the beneficiary or claimed beneficiary on the deed of trust (non judicial states) or there is no debt owed to the mortgagee or claimed mortgagee named in the mortgage.”

Basic contract law: an enforceable contract must contain three elements and a hidden fourth element. The three key elements without which there can be no enforcement are OFFER, ACCEPTANCE AND CONSIDERATION. The hidden fourth element is that contracts in violation of public policy are void.

*
In nearly all cases where there are claims of securitization and most where no such claims are brought forward (but still exist) they are missing consideration (i.e., PAYMENT) from the origination and/or acquisition of the loan. The DEBT was never created in favor of the party receiving documents.
The documents, including the note refer to a transaction in which the originator loaned money to the homeowner. This is nearly always NOT true. And the contract, even if it existed, is part of a larger plot to defraud both the borrowers and the investors in which the originators, brokers, servicers, Master Servicers and Trusts are the fraudsters.
*
These cases thus involve contracts to violate both laws and public policy — particularly those in which prior agreement is executed in which the parties to agree to create table funded loans as a pattern and practice — something which REG Z clearly says is PREDATORY PER SE.
Either predatory or predatory per se mean something or they don’t. But if they mean anything they set the bar such that parties who violate this provision cannot claim “clean hands.” And if the court of equity is being asked by the violators for the equitable remedy of foreclosure sale based upon, at best, dubious documentation (without proof of the debt or who owns the debt) then the availability of foreclosure should be barred.

Lawyers must meet this challenge head-on and stop pussy footing around. If the alleged loan was table funded, then there was never any completed loan contract. If the money came from a third party, then that third party has the right to the note and mortgage — if the note and mortgage are executed in favor of that third party or if the “originator” was in privity with the third party through contract. There is no other way.

BUT if the identified third party was just a conduit for a source of funds outside the circle of the originator and the party through whom the funds were sourced, then the homeowner owes the DEBT to someone else. What Wall Street banks did in its simplest form is to relieve the investors of money in such a way that the investors would see very little of it ever returned because the Wall Street banks had reached for and grabbed the holy grail of finance — selling financing for nonexistent entities and keeping the proceeds.

And the same logic then applies. If the FOURTH party was somehow in privity (contract) with the originator then the homeowner owes the debt to that fourth party. BUT unless the note and mortgage are properly delivered and executed in favor of the fourth party, neither the fourth party nor any agent or “servicer” for the fourth party can claim rights under the note and mortgage which should never have been released, delivered or recorded in the first place.

In short, without BOTH the money trial and the paper trail being synchronized there is no loan contract. And that means there is no valid note or mortgage which are then VOID ab initio. Can the real source of funds collect? Yes of course, but they do not own a claim that is secured by a mortgage or deed of trust. And they cannot use the note as direct evidence of the debt. This has always been the law. Ironically, nearly all “borrowers” would gladly execute notes and mortgages with the real investors that would be fully enforceable and would represent workouts that would protect both the investor and the borrower. But in order to do that, the banks and servicers in the false securitization industry must be benched and a new group of entities employed directly by investors must arise.

*

As stated in the recent Yale Law Review article, document defects do not occur as a result of any action or fault of the alleged borrower and there is no reason not to apply the rule of law to any situation, much less one in which a party can lose their personal residence.

The theory of anything except a free house for the homeowner is full of holes that are amply challenged in the Yale Law Review article. As the authors point out, the trial judges may think they are saving the financial system, the economy and our society from disintegration, but in truth they are undermining all three.

See Yale-In Defense of Free Houses 2016 03 23

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,385 other followers

%d bloggers like this: