Our legal history has many examples of enormous errors committed by the Courts that were obvious to some but justified by many. The result is usually mayhem. The cause is a bias toward some underlying fact that was untrue at the time. Some examples include
  1.  the infamous Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court ruled that a black man is not a person within the meaning of the constitution and therefore could not sue to protect his rights because he was not a citizen by virtue of the FACT that his ancestors had been brought to America as slaves. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that “negroes” were fundamentally subhuman. It took a civil war that took 500,000 casualties and a constitutional amendment to change the results of that decision. We are still dealing with lingering thoughts about whether the color of one’s skin is in any way related to our status as humans, persons and citizens.
  2. the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on the basis of national security. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that people of Japanese descent would have loyalty to the Empire of Japan and not the United States. People of German descent were not interred, probably because they looked more like other Americans. As the war progressed and the military realized that people of Japanese descent were resources rather than enemies, the government came to realize that acknowledging these people as citizens with civil rights was more important than the perception of a nonexistent threat to national security. Americans of Japanese descent proved invaluable in the war effort against Japan.
  3. the Citizens United decision in which the Supreme Court gave the management of corporations a “Second vote” in the court of public opinion. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that entities created on paper were no less important than the rights of real people as citizens. The additional underlying bias was that corporations are better than people.
  4. the hundreds of thousands of decisions from thousands of courts that relied on the fictitious power of the court to rewrite legislation that Judge(s) didn’t like. A current perfect example was reading common law (inferior, legally speaking) precedent to override express statutory procedures for the exercise and effect of statutory rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act. Over many years and many courts at the trial and appellate level the Judges didn’t like TILA rescission so they changed the wording of the statute to mean that common law procedures and principles apply — thus requiring the homeowner to file suit in order to make rescission effective, and requiring the tender of money or property to even have standing to rescind. This was contrary to the express provisions of the TILA rescission statute. Approximately 8 million+ people were displaced from their homes because of those decisions and the property records of thousands of counties have been forever debauched, likely requiring some legislative action to clear title on some 80+ million transactions involving tens of trillions of dollars. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that the legislature could not have meant that individuals have as much power as big corporation and they should not have such power. Then the short Supreme Court decision from a unanimous court in Jesinoski v Countrywide made the correction, effectively overturning hundreds of thousands of incorrect decisions. A court may not interpret a statute that is clear on its face. A court may not MAKE the law.
  5. the millions of foreclosures that have been allowed on the premise that the “holder” of a note should get the same treatment as a “holder in due course.” More than 16 million people have been displaced from their homes as a result of an underlying bias that was and often remains axiomatically true: decisions in favor of homeowners would give them a free house and decisions that allow foreclosure protect legitimate creditors. Both “axioms” are as completely wrong as the decisions about TILA Rescission.
It is the last item that I address in this article. A holder in due course is allowed to both plead and prove only the elements of Article 3 of the UCC. Article 3 of the UCC states that a party who purchases negotiable paper in good faith without knowledge of the maker’s defenses and before the terms are breached is presumed to be entitled to relief upon making their prima facie case — which are the elements already listed here. Even if there were irregularities or even fraud at the time of the origination of the loan or at a later time but before the HDC purchased the paper, the HDC will get judgment for the relief demanded. A “holder” (on the other hand) comes in many flavors under Article 3 but they all have one thing in common: they are not holders in due course.
The fundamental error of the courts has been to treat the “holder” as a “holder in due course” at the time of trial. It is true that the holder may survive a motion to dismiss merely by alleging that it is a holder — but fundamental error is being committed at trial where the holder must prove its underlying prima facie case. It should be noted that the requirement of consideration is repeated in Article 9 where it states that a security instrument must be purchased by a successor not merely transferred. So regardless of whether one is proceeding under Article 3 or Article 9, no foreclosure can be allowed without paying real money to a party who actually owned the mortgage. The Courts universally have ignored these provisions under the bias that it is axiomatically true that the party seeking to enforce the paper is so sophisticated and trustworthy that their mere request for relief should result in the relief demanded. This bias is “supported” by an additional bias: that failure to enforce such documents would undermine the entire economy of the country — a policy decision that is not within the province of the courts. And deeper still the bias is that it is axiomatically true that the paper would not exist without the actual existence of monetary transactions for origination and transfer of the paper. These “axioms” are not true.
As a result, courts have regularly rubber-stamped the extreme equitable remedy of foreclosure in favor of a party who has no financial interest in the alleged paper, nor any risk of loss or actual loss. The foreclosures are part of a scheme to make money at the expense of the actual people who are losing money. If this was not true, there would have been thousands of instances in which the “holder” presented the money trail that supposedly was the foundation for the paper that was executed and delivered, destroyed or lost. They never do. If they did, the volume of litigated foreclosure cases would drop to a drizzle. And these parties fight successfully to avoid not only the burden of proof but even the ability of the homeowner to inquire (discovery) about the “transactions” about which the paper is referring — either at origination or in purported transfers. Backdating assignments and endorsements would be unnecessary. “Robo-signing” would also be unnecessary. And the constant flux of new servicer and new trustees would also be unnecessary. Many of these events consist of illegal acts that are routinely ignored by the courts for reasons of bias rather than judicial interpretation.
A holder in due course proves their prima facie case by
a) proffering a witness with personal knowledge
b) proffering testimony that allows the commercial paper to be admitted as evidence (the note). This evidence need only be to the effect that the witness, or his company, physically has possession of the original note and presents it in court.
c) proffering testimony and records showing that the paper (the note) was purchased for good and valuable consideration by the party seeking to enforce it. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
d) proffering testimony and records showing that the mortgage, which is not a negotiable instrument, was purchased withe the note.
e) proffering testimony and records that the transactions were real and in good faith
f) proffering testimony that the purchaser of the paper had no knowledge of the maker’s defenses
g) proffering testimony that no default existed at the time of purchase of the paper.
Because of bias, the Courts, just as they did with TILA rescission, have mostly committed fundamental error by allowing to alleged “holders” a lesser standard of proof than the party who is legitimately in a superior position of being a holder in due course. It starts with a correct decision denying the homeowner’s motion to dismiss but ends up in fundamental error when the court “forgets” that the enforcing party has a factual case to prove beyond mere possession of an instrument they say is the original note.
The holder, in contrast to the holder in due course, is not entitled to any such presumptions at trial, except that they hold with rights to enforce. They don’t hold with automatic rights to win the case however.
A holder proves its prima facie case by
a) proffering a witness with personal knowledge
b) proffering testimony and records that allow the commercial paper to be admitted as evidence (the note). This evidence need only be to the effect that the witness, or his company, physically has possession of the original note and presents it in court.
c) proffering testimony and evidence as to the chain of custody of the paper the party seeks to enforce.
d) proffering testimony and records together with proof of payment of the original transaction (a requirement generally ignored by the courts). This means proof that the original party in the “chain” relied upon by the party seeking to enforce actually funded the alleged “loan” with funds of its own or for which it is responsible (e.g., a real warehouse credit arrangements where the originator bears the risk of loss).
e) proffering testimony and records showing that the paper (note) was purchased for good and valuable consideration by the creditor on whose behalf the party is seeking to enforce it. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
f) proffering testimony and records showing that the mortgage was also purchased by the creditor for good and valuable consideration. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
g) proffering testimony and records that the transactions was real and in good faith
h) proffering testimony that no default existed at the time of purchase of the paper. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be commercial paper and the party seeking to enforce would need to allege and prove  its standing and its prima facie case without benefit of the note or mortgage.
It should be added here that the non-judicial foreclosure states essentially make it even easier for an unrelated party to force the sale of property. Those statutory procedures are wrongly applied leaving the burden of proof as to UCC rights to enforce squarely on the homeowner who in most cases is not even a “borrower” in the technical sense. Such states are allowing parties to obtain a forced sale of property in cases where they would not or should not prevail in a judicial foreclosure. The reason is simple: the procedure for realignment of the parties has been ignored. When a homeowner files an action against the “new trustee” (substituted by virtue of the self proclaimed and unverified status of a third party beneficiary under the note and mortgage), the homeowner is somehow seen as the party who must prove that the prima facie case is untrue (giving the holder the rights of a holder in due course); the homeowner is being required to defend a case that was never filed or alleged. Instead of immediately shifting the burden of proof to the only party that says it has the rights and paperwork to justify the forced sale. This is an unconstitutional aberration of the rights of due process. The analogy would be that a defendant accused of murder must prove he did not commit the crime before the State had any burden to accuse the defendant or put on evidence. Realignment of the parties would comply with the constitution without changing the non-judicial statutes. It would require the challenged party to prove it should be allowed to enforce the forced sale of the property. Any other interpretation requires the the homeowner to disprove a case not yet alleged, much less proven in a prima facie case.

Recording the Rescission

Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products


For more information please email us at or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located.

LAWYERS AND JUDGES TAKE NOTE: “Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.” Justice Scalia, Jesinoski v Countrywide. [EDITOR’S NOTE: The only possible meaning to this is that the homeowner can use a letter and then, if it is disputed, it must BE BROUGHT to A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION to vacate the rescission. An order that denies a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based upon the fact that the rescission was sent does nothing to change the fact that the rescission was effective as of the date it was mailed and still is effective by operation of law. The only way it can be removed is with another operation of law that is properly brought by the real party in interest. An order vacating the rescission without any pleading requesting that relief does absolutely nothing except assure that the judge’s order will be reversed. And if the rescission is recorded before the foreclosure judgment (judicial states) or sale (nonjudicial states) the judgment and sale are void respectively.]
 Every state has its own forms and requirements and fees for filing anything in the public records. It is wise to record any rescission that was sent regardless of the timing, in my opinion, but that would be subject to advice from a lawyer in your jurisdiction. Litigation is expected on numerous issues after the nonjudicial cancellation of the loan contract, note and mortgage. Here are some of the issues that might be presented when the rescission is sent and/or recorded:
  1. Since the rescission is effective upon mailing, the loan contract, note, and mortgage are void (not voidable). This means in states whose recording statutes are either “notice” or “hybrid”, anything that transpired after that in which the note or mortgage were used for collection, enforcement or foreclosure are also void. Title would then stay with the homeowner if the homeowner does not know that he/she still has title. Any deed issued in foreclosure would accordingly be a wild deed.
  2. If the state recording statutes are purely “race” then if the notice of rescission was not recorded before the foreclosure, the foreclosure sale and deed might well be binding even if it was “fraudulent” or otherwise wrong or illegal.
  3. State statutes of limitation might effect (limit) the ability to collect damages for trespass or wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract or other common law or statutory remedies. The FDCPA might help depending upon how long it has been since the notice of rescission was sent.
  4. If the notice of rescission is sent and recorded before the foreclosure judgment in judicial states or before the sale in nonjudicial states, then in all states it would appear that the the loan contract, note and mortgage were rendered void at the moment of mailing, by operation of law, which is the same thing as a judge’s order declaring the note and mortgage void.
  5. There is no provision in the TILA rescission statutes that allows any lender, creditor or servicer to contest the rescission with a letter. That power is only given to the borrower. Their subsequent action in proceeding to foreclosure “judgment” should be subject to being vacated because they were obtaining relief based upon a void instrument — the mortgage (and the note).
  6. In a strictly “notice” state, as long as they knew about the rescission the foreclosure is automatically wrongful and actionable, in my opinion. “Notice” might need to include a third party purchaser, who often does know of the existence of the borrower’s defenses and does know about the rescission. The issue here is that at the time of the rescission it was widely and wrongly believed that a lawsuit was necessary to make the rescission effective (i.e., the borrower had to plead and prove a case for rescission under common law rules). TILA rescission is exactly the opposite. So everyone, including appellate courts (other than the Supreme Court of the United States) was proceeding under the wrong assumption.
  7. The action following rescission should not be to establish the effectiveness of the rescission. That is already complete by operation of law.
  8. The action could be enforcement of the rescission if filed within one year of the date of mailing of the rescission. At the end of that period, the borrower is barred from filing an enforcement action and the “lender” assuming they have done nothing, is barred from claiming the debt.
  9. After the expiration of one year from date of mailing of the notice of rescission, the action would be simply for quiet title and perhaps trespass (see above). This action could be brought during the one year period either in lieu of enforcement or with enforcement. An action for injunction preventing the banks, servicers or trustees from attempting to use the void note and mortgage might also be advisable.
  10. If an action for enforcement is brought during the one year period it is important not to plead as though the rescission might not be effective. it is a fact. See Jesinoski. The relief sought is NOT to have a declaration from the court that the rescission was valid. The pleading must assume that it is already legally binding as per 15 USC 1635 et seq and that the only issues remaining are the duties of the “lender” who should not be described as a lender but only someone who has asserted the rights of a lender, holder, mortgagee, beneficiary or servicer or trustee.
  11. An attack on standing is appropriate at every step when the “servicer” or Lender” seeks to challenge the rescission without filing an actual lawsuit or pleading. The banking side of the equation has NOT been granted the power to contest with anything other than some other recognized “operation of law.” The only such exercise would be a lawsuit seeking to vacate the rescission on the grounds that it was wrongful or deficient in some way.
  12. STANDING: This is where most cases will be won or lost. Since the note and mortgage were rendered VOID as of the date of mailing, the party seeking to vacate the rescission would need to plead that they are injured by the rescission, to wit: they are going to lose the ability to enforce a legally binding debt. And they would need to establish standing WITHOUT the note and mortgage, which are void (see above).
  13. Thus the pleader would need to establish themselves as a party who either funded the loan and is still the creditor, or who has purchased the loan from someone who owned the loan because they funded it. This we believe is going to be impossible for the lenders because their money trail leads straight to investors whose money was used improperly and whose money was never paid to the trust that issued the mortgage backed securities. The investors were left out in the cold without a mortgage backed security issued by any entity that had mortgages, without a note and without a mortgage. That leaves them with empty promises from the “Servicer” and no enforcement mechanism to collect from either the borrower or the investment bank. None of that is the fault of the borrower.

The Florida Statute below shows the intent of recording such notices. Using the form that is already approved by statute makes recording a lot easier:

712.05 Effect of filing notice.

(1) A person claiming an interest in land or a homeowners’ association desiring to preserve a covenant or restriction may preserve and protect the same from extinguishment by the operation of this act by filing for record, during the 30-year period immediately following the effective date of the root of title, a written notice in accordance with this chapter. Such notice preserves such claim of right or such covenant or restriction or portion of such covenant or restriction for up to 30 years after filing the notice unless the notice is filed again as required in this chapter. A person’s disability or lack of knowledge of any kind may not delay the commencement of or suspend the running of the 30-year period. Such notice may be filed for record by the claimant or by any other person acting on behalf of a claimant who is:

(a) Under a disability;
(b) Unable to assert a claim on his or her behalf; or
(c) One of a class, but whose identity cannot be established or is uncertain at the time of filing such notice of claim for record.

Such notice may be filed by a homeowners’ association only if the preservation of such covenant or restriction or portion of such covenant or restriction is approved by at least two-thirds of the members of the board of directors of an incorporated homeowners’ association at a meeting for which a notice, stating the meeting’s time and place and containing the statement of marketable title action described in s. 712.06(1)(b), was mailed or hand delivered to members of the homeowners’ association at least 7 days before such meeting. The homeowners’ association or clerk of the circuit court is not required to provide additional notice pursuant to s. 712.06(3). The preceding sentence is intended to clarify existing law.

(2) It shall not be necessary for the owner of the marketable record title, as herein defined, to file a notice to protect his or her marketable record title.
History.s. 5, ch. 63-133; s. 798, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 97-202; s. 1, ch. 2003-79; s. 7, ch. 2014-133.

Bank Lawyer’s Seminar: Rescission Changes Everything

QUOTE FROM SEMINAR: “The bottom Line: Until 3 years have elapsed, a mortgage is only as secure as the lender’s proof of compliance with TILA.”


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


see tila-right-of-recission-041415

From one of my readers, I received the Power Point Presentation given by a law firm representing the banks. It confirms everything I have been saying. It also offers a glimpse of some of the ways they will try to wiggle out of it. Suffice it to say that in addition to losing far more cases than what has been previously been reported, the banks are now stuck with a problem that they can’t fix, to wit: when they try to “securitize” a pool of new loans they cannot say that the deal is done because the borrower could assert a right to rescind triggering a nightmare of problems for all the parties starting with origination. The appetite for mortgage backed securities is almost certainly going to decline or vanish completely.

Key points from seminar: (You would think I was the presenter!)

  1. Mailing the notice is sufficient to cancel the loan, note and mortgage.
  2. No tender of money or property is required
  3. It is risky for lender to ignore notice of rescission
  4. Rescission is really a borrower’s remorse remedy
  5. Bringing suit immediately is the only way to end the issue — but only if you have absolute proof of the loan and the disclosures conforming to TILA. [Editor’s note: any failure to disclose compensation off the books of the “closing” would probably be evidence of non-disclosure on multiple levels]
  6. AFTER the lender has complied with 1635(b) (termination of security interest), after the lender has returned the canceled note and after the lender has complied with 12 CFR 1026.23(d)(2) (Return of any money or property that has been given to anyone) THEN the borrower must tender [Editor’s Note: This imposes a requirement that will put the trusts in immediate conflict with the investors and the facts. In order to “return” the money to borrower somebody has to pay it. The servicers, the banks sand the trusts don’t have any investment in these loans. They have been getting a free ride for years. They can’t go to the investors for the money and ask them so they can only advance the funds and hope they will get it back or just steal it from investors, which looks eerily like the start of mortgage securitizations]
  7. According to TILA the lien is void upon mailing of the notice.
  8. Banks better do their homework and identify all the loans that are not supported by TILA disclosures. [Editor’s note: My observation is that this is approximately 90%-96% of all alleged mortgage loans. As I said in 2007-2008: In my opinion the vast majority of all loans produced void notes and mortgages or were subject to rescission which results in the same thing — cancellation of the note, cancellation of the encumbrance, and disgorgement of all money paid.]

TILA Rescission in a Nutshell

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

NOTE: There are strategic nuances here on when to do what. That is included in our rescission package. Some things are better left unsaid in a public forum. This is not an opinion of law upon which you should rely. You should find an attorney who has studied this issue carefully and then rely on their advice.


On the one hand you have a bunch of lawyers and judges who have studied the remedy of TILA rescission and all of them have come up with a unanimous conclusion: the deal is canceled when a notice of rescission is put in the mail.
On the other hand you have a bunch of judges and lawyers who have not studied the situation and who have arrived at the mistaken conclusion that they may reinterpret the TILA rescission anyway they want and that the rules of common law rescission will be applied.
Who is right? Answer: group #1. How do I know? Because the Supreme Court in the Jesinoski decision has already ruled and there is no higher place to go. The ruling from the US Supreme Court was unanimous which in our highly polarized world is as unusual as the TILA rescission remedy which they affirmed. The Supreme Court is not always right, but it is always final — their ruling is the law of the land. People can differ on whether they were right or wrong in Jesinoski — but either way there is nothing anyone can do about it. Only Congress can change the law.

TILA Rescission is a strategy that should considered in virtually all consumer loan cases. This might involve an enforcement action in Federal Court or State Court. The sooner you send the rescission the sooner the 20 days will expire. It is ONLY after the 20 days that you can take the position that they are in violation of statute and that they have waived any objection to the rescission — unless they file a lawsuit against you seeking to vacate the rescission, which IS effective by operation of law, the moment you drop it in the mailbox.

There are three TILA RESCISSION duties that arise for every lender and one remedy to get out of it. The three duties are (a) return of canceled note (b) filing any papers necessary to remove the mortgage encumbrance from the homeowner’s chain of title and (c) return of all money ever paid by the borrower or to anyone in relation to the loan whether it be for fees, interest, principal or other compensation. If they want to stop these duties from being applied against any of the people in the chain that made allegations of ownership, balance, servicing or default, they must file suit, as a creditor, within 20 days from the date of the notice and get an order within that time that vacates the rescission.

The creditor has 20 days in which to comply. If they don’t comply ( or sue and get a court order) there are the following consequences: (a) they are in violation of statute, subject to an enforcement suit on their duties under rescission (b) they have waived any objection to the rescission that should have been brought as their own lawsuit within the 20 days and (c) if they continue to stonewall their obligations for one year, the creditor (if there is one) waives any right to demand any payment on the rescinded loan — the debt is extinguished along with the previously extinguished note and mortgage. Standing for the lawsuit can only be by way of allegations that they are the true creditor and cannot be based upon the void note and void mortgage because you can’t use a void instrument as the basis for any claim.

Note that the suit to enforce the rescission is NOT a suit to make the rescission effective by operation of law. The cancellation of the note and mortgage has already happened as the Jesinoski decision made abundantly clear. The note and mortgage are void as of the date of mailing of the notice of rescission.

This is a very unusual remedy for borrowers that both judges and lawyers have been misinterpreting for years. The idea that a borrower, on their own, could end a loan involving hundreds of thousands of dollars with a simple letter is NOT what the Judges or lawyers think is the right approach. It doesn’t matter what they think. Congress passed this law and it was signed into law by the President 50 years ago.

The Courts cannot reinterpret it to mean something else without violation of separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislative branches of government.What matters is that It was not until the Jesinoski decision that thousands of Judges and tens of thousands of lawyers were told that they were wrong for the last 15 years. The loan is cancelled by the mailing of the notice of rescission.

TILA Rescission is a specific statutory scheme that is different from common law rescission. What the Judges and lawyers failed to perceive when they started messing around with the interpretation of a perfectly clear statute is that if their approach was upheld, the entire system of nonjudicial foreclosure would be subject to the same reinterpretation. And for those of you who recall in nonjudicial states, the challenges to nonjudicial foreclosures were met by the banks arguing that the courts have no business interpreting a specific statutory scheme that is very clear on its face and can only be overturned if it is deemed unconstitutional on its face or in its application. The banks won, which means borrowers win on the issue of rescission.

The January ruling from a unanimous Supreme Court was unusual unto itself. The opinion written by Justice Scalia was terse and caustic — showing the court’s irritation at having to remind judges and lawyers that there is a basic rule of law that says that the court may not “interpret” a statute that is unambiguous. This statute is clear as it could be. So even if a Judge doesn’t like it or doesn’t believe it should be the law, or doesn’t like the result, the Judge has no choice but to follow the rule of law set forth in TILA, in Reg Z and in the Supreme Court decision issued in January. The only way this can change is if Congress passes a new law.

The key to your rescission strategy is going to be the answer to this question: under what circumstances is the effective date of the rescission delayed or contingent? The answer is none. That answer follows from the fact that the rescission IS effective on the date of mailing BY OPERATION OF LAW. So the issue has already been decided by Congress, the Federal Reserve (reg Z) and the US Supreme Court. Like any order or act that is effective by operation of law, rescission may be vacated — but not ignored. And like other orders or actions that are effective by operation of law, there are limits on the ability to sue for temporary or permanent injunction.
And THE bank or alleged servicer writing a letter to YOU saying that you have no right to rescind means nothing except that they received the notice — just like when you write a letter to them asking them to please not foreclose because you have in fact made all your payments. The banks and servicers ignore those letters and get foreclosure judgments and sale of the property no matter how many letters you write. If you don’t challenge them IN COURT it means nothing.

Once the 20 days has expired you need to consider whether to hire counsel to prosecute the enforcement of the rescission. Those allegations consist of reference to the note and mortgage, the fact that you did rescind the transaction and that the loan contract is canceled and then the fact that the creditors are in default of their obligations under TILA. The upside is that it should result in cancelling the foreclosure case because the mortgage and note will then be void by operation of law. The Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment of foreclosure on a mortgage that is void at the time the court hears the case. The downside is that if you win the enforcement action it is going to result, if they comply, in them sending the canceled note, filing the satisfaction of mortgage and giving you the money that was paid. But THEN the creditor may, for the first time, demand payment on the old loan. [see our rescission package on further details and strategies on this]

Rescission enforcement actions are the next really big thing

For more information on rescission, our rescission package or any other topic, please call 954-495-9867 nor 520-405-1688.
Rescission enforcement actions are the next really big thing. Its effect is to immediately unencumber the property from any claims of lien or mortgage and any claim on the note which is void and must be returned marked “cancelled”. If the parties collecting or enforcing the loans really have a right to do so they may demonstrate that in court by filing a lawsuit to set aside the rescission based upon any factual grounds they wish to raise, applying the rules of the TILA statutory scheme for rescission. But if they don’t do that within 20 days they waive their defenses. AND if they don’t comply with TILA by returning the canceled note, filing a satisfaction of mortgage and returning all money paid by borrower, then they are barred from making even an unsecured claim for “damages.”
The action to enforce rescission would essentially consist of an allegation that the notice was sent, it has been more than 20 days since the notice was sent, and therefore the parties claiming to be creditors owe (1) return of canceled note, (2) filing a satisfaction of mortgage and (3) return of all money paid by borrower since the inception of the alleged loan contract. We will refuse to get into an argument about whether the rescission should have been sent. THAT is something that the parties would have had to allege in a lawsuit against the borrower(s) to set the rescission aside.

According to TILA, Reg Z and the US Supreme Court (Jesinowski decision) the rescission IS effective (by operation of law) the moment it is put in US Mail. The borrower does not have to be right to send it. THAT issue is left to the banks and servicers to allege in a lawsuit to vacate the rescission. And they must do so within 20 days. All issues that are confusing everyone — statute of limitations, purchase money first mortgage, etc. are questions of fact that need to be raised by the other side. They cannot do so after 20 days. We would move to strike those defenses when raised in our lawsuit to enforce rescission.

There are dozens of lawyers across the country that agree with my interpretation of the TILA rescission statutes and who are filing these rescission enforcement actions. In some cases, Ocwen has agreed that the rescission is effective and even agreed that the original payee was not the lender. That is an interesting juxtaposition of theories. Because if there was no funding by the payee on the note (“lender”) then there is no loan contract. If there is no loan contract, there is nothing to rescind. But the rescission under TILA might still apply as to the note and mortgage and the right to obtain disgorgement of money paid by borrower might be partially blocked by the standard statute of limitations governing contract disputes or the statute regarding tort actions.

It sounds weird, I know. But the fact is that Congress specifically decided that the act of the borrower in sending a notice of rescission cancels the loan and Reg Z (Federal Reserve) says that by operation of law that means the note and mortgage become void as of the date of mailing of the notice of rescission. Void means void, not voidable. It means that the the note and mortgage no longer exist and that is final. So even if the “lender” tries to bring a lawsuit to set aside the rescission they would need to establish standing presumably without the note and mortgage which can no longer be used because they are void. Standing could only be established by alleging that the pleading party is suffering actual damages — which is not really possible if they never paid anything for the loan and even if they did, is also not possible since they still could bring a claim against the borrower (unsecured) for the money that is due as the balance of the loan.

Congress specifically provided this method so that the old “lender” could not block the ability of the borrower to get another loan from a different (and presumably real) lender which would have first priority and would enable the borrower to either pay the old lender or not (if the old lender had not complied with TILA as to its duties in the event of rescission).

It was the specific intent to prevent the old “lender” from stonewalling and thus trap the borrower into a deal he or she didn’t want. And THAT is why the rule is that the note and mortgage are VOID by operation of law regardless of whether or not the “lender” returns the cancels note, satisfies the mortgage or pays the money to disgorge all funds paid by borrower starting with the origination fees, cost of closing and all interest and principal paid up to the date of the rescission.



Statute of LImitations Running on Bank Officers Who Perpetrated Mortage Crisis

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



It appears that the statute of limitations might be running out this year on any claim against the officers of the banks that created the fraudulent securitization process. Eric Holder, outgoing Attorney general, made an unusual comment a few months back where he said that private suits should be brought against such officers. The obvious question is why didn’t he bring further action against these individuals and the only possible answer I can think of is that it was because of an agreement not to prosecute while these officers and their banks “cooperated” in resolving the mortgage crisis and the downturn of the US economy.

People keep asking me what the essential elements of the fraud were and how homeowners can use it. That question involves a degree of complexity that is not easily addressed here but I will try to do so in a few articles.

The first point of reference is that the investment banks sold mortgage backed securities to investors under numerous false premises. The broker dealers sold shares or interests in REMIC Trusts that existed only on paper and were registered nowhere. This opened up the possibility for the unthinkable: an IPO (initial public offering) of securities of an “entity” that would not complain if they never received the proceeds of the sale. And in fact, as I have been advised by accountants and other people who were privy to the inner workings of the Securitization fail (See Adam Levitin) the money from the offering was never turned over to the Trustee of the “Trust” which only existed on paper by virtue of words written by the broker dealers themselves. They created a non existent entity that had no business and sold securities issued by that entity without turning over the proceeds of sale to the entity whose securities had been sold. It was the perfect plan.

Normally if a broker dealer sold securities in an IPO the management and shareholders would have been screaming “fraud” as soon as they learned their “company” was not receiving the proceeds of sale. Here in the case of REMIC Trusts, there was no management because the Trustee had no duties and was prohibited from pretending that it did have any duties. And here in the case of REMIC Trusts, there were no shareholders to complain because they were contractually bound (they thought) to not interfere with or even ask questions about the workings of the Trust. And of course when Clinton signed the law back in 1998 these securities were deregulated and redefined as private contracts and NOT securities, so the SEC couldn’t get involved either.

It was the perfect hoax. brokers and dealers got to sell these “non-securities” and keep the proceeds themselves and even register ownership of interests in the Trust in the name of the same broker dealer who sold it to pension funds and other investors. Back in 2007-2008 the banks were claiming that there were no trusts involved because they knew that was true. But then they got more brazen, especially when they realized that this was an admission of fraud and theft from investors.

Now we have hundreds of thousands of foreclosures in which a REMIC Trust is named as the foreclosing party when it never operated even for a second. It never had any money, it never received any income and it never had any expenses. So it stands to reason that none of the loans claimed to be owned by the Trusts could ever have been purchased by entities that had no assets, no money, no management, and no operations. We have made a big deal about the cutoff date for entry of a particular loan into the loan pool owned by the trust. But the real facts are that there was no loan pool except on paper in self-serving fabricated documents created by the broker dealers.

Investors thought they were giving money to fund a Trust. The Trust was never funded. So the money from investors was used in any way the broker dealer wanted. The investors thought they were getting an ownership interest in a valid note and mortgage. They never got that because their “Trust” did not acquire the loans. But their money was used, in part, to fund loans that were put on a fast track automated underwriting platform so nobody in the position of underwriter could be disciplined or jailed for writing loans that were too rigged to succeed. Then the broker dealers, knowing that the mortgage bonds were worthless bet that the value of the bonds would decrease, which of course was a foregone conclusion. And the bonds and the underlying loans were insured in the name of the broker dealer so the investors are left standing out in the wind with nothing to show for their investment — an interest in a worthless unfunded trust, and no direct claim for the repayment of loans that were funded with their money.

The reason why the foreclosing parties need a foreclosure sale is to create the appearance that the original loan was a valid loan contract (it wasn’t because no consideration actually flowed from the “lender” to the “borrower” and because the loan was table funded, which as a pattern is described in Reg Z as “predatory per se”). By getting foreclosures in the name of the Trust they have a Judge’s stamp of approval that the Trust was either the lender or the successor to the lender and that makes it difficult for anyone to say otherwise. And THAT is why TILA was passed with the rescission option.

So through a series of conduits and sham entities, the Wall Street investment banks lied to the investors and lied to the borrowers about who was in the deal and who was making money off the deal and how much. They lied to the investors, lied to the public, lied to regulatory agencies and lied to borrowers about the quality of the loan products they were selling which could not succeed and in which the broker dealers had a direct interest in making sure that the loans did not succeed. That was the whole reason why the Truth In Lending Act and Reg Z came into existence back in the 1960’s. Holder’s comments are a clue to what private lawyers should do and how much money there is in these cases against the leaders of the those investment banks. Both borrowers and lawyers should be taking a close look at how they get even for the fraud perpetrated upon the American consumer and the American taxpayer.

It is obvious that someone had to be making a lot of money in order to spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising and promoting 2% loans. There is no profit there unless someone is stealing the money and tricking borrowers into signing loan papers that instantly clouded their title and created two potential liabilities — one to the payee on the note who never had any economic interest in the deal and one to the investors whose money was used to fund the loan. Most investors still don’t realize what happened to their money and many are still getting payments as though the Trust was real — but they are not getting payments or reports from the REMIC Trust.

And most borrowers don’t realize that their identity was stolen, that their loan was cloned, and that each version of their loan that was sold netted another 100% profit to the investment banks, who also sold the bonds to the Federal Reserve after they had already sold the same bonds to investors. Thus the investment banks screwed the investors, screwed the borrowers and screwed the taxpayers while their plan resulted in a cataclysmic failure of the economies around the world. Investors mostly don’t realize that they are never going to see the money they were promised and that the banks are keeping the investors’ money as if it belonged to the bank. Most investors also don’t realize that the investment banks were their servant and that all that money the bank made really belongs to the investor, thus zeroing out the liability of the borrower but creating an enormous profit to the investors. Most borrowers don’t realize that they certainly don’t owe money to any of the foreclosing parties, but that they might have some remote liability to the clueless investors whose money was used to fund this circus.

Rescission Summary As I see It

If you read my blog for the last 3 weeks or so you should get a good idea of where I am coming from on this. If you still have questions or need assistance call me at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. The basic thrust of my argument is that

  1. BOTH Congress and US Supreme Court agree that there is nothing left for the borrower to do other than dropping notice of rescission in the mail. It is EFFECTIVE BY OPERATION OF LAW at the point of mailing. The whole point is that you don’t need to be or have a lawyer in order to cancel the loan contract, the note and the mortgage (deed of trust) with the same force as if a Judge ordered it. No lawsuit, no proof is required from the borrower. No tender is required as it would be in common law rescission. The money for payoff of the old debt is presumed to come from a new lender that approves a 1st Mortgage loan without fear that they will lose their priority position.
  2. Lender(s) must comply within 20 days — return canceled note, satisfy mortgage, and return money to borrower.
  3. Lenders MUST file a lawsuit challenging the rescission within 20 days or their defenses are waived. Any other interpretation would make the rescission contingent, which is the opposite of what TILA and Scalia say is the case.
  4. Therefore a lawsuit by borrower to enforce the rescission need only prove mailing.
  5. Any attempt to bring up statute of limitations or other defenses are barred by 20 day window.
  6. The clear reason for this unusual statutory scheme is to allow borrower to cancel the old transaction and replace with a new loan. This can only happen if the rescission is ABSOLUTE. It can be declared void or irregular or barred or anything else ONLY within the 20 day window. If the 20 day window was not final (like counting the days for filing notice of appeal appeal, motion for re-hearing, etc.) then no new lender or bank would fund a loan that could be later knocked out of first priority position in the chain of title because the rescission was found to be faulty in some way. This is the opposite of what TILA and Scalia say.
  7. The content of the rescission notice should be short — I hereby cancel/rescind the loan referenced above. You merely reference the loan number, recording information etc. at which point the note and mortgage become VOID by operation of law.
  8. BY OPERATION OF LAW means that the only way it can be avoided is by getting a court order.
  9. If any court were to allow “defense” in a rescission enforcement action AFTER the 20 day window the goal of allowing the borrower to get another loan to pay off the old lender(s) would be impossible.
  10. Hence the ONLY possible logical conclusion is that they MUST file the action within 20 days or lose the opportunity to challenge the rescission. And any possible defenses are waived if not filed during that period of time. That action by the “lender” or “creditor” must be an equitable action to set aside the rescission, which is already “effective” by operation of law.

The worst case scenario would be that rescission is the most effective discovery tool available. If the lender(s) file the 20 day action they would need to establish their positions as creditors WITHOUT the note and mortgage (which are ALREADY VOID). This would require proof of payment and proof of economic interest and proof of ownership and balance. Any failure to plead these things would fail to establish standing. The attempt to use the note and mortgage as proof or the basis of pleading should be dismissed easily. The note and mortgage are void by operation of law by the time the bank or servicer files its action.

In all probability the only parties who actually have an interest in the debt are clueless investors who by contract have waived their right to enforce or participate in the collection process. The problem THEY have is they gave their money to a securities broker. They can neither show nor even allege that they know what happened to their money after they gave it to the broker.

The important thing about TILA Rescission is that it is a virtual certainty that the borrower will be required to file an enforcement action. In that action they should not allow themselves to get sucked into an argument over whether the rescission was correct, fair, barred by limitations or anything else, all of which should have been raised within the 20 day window. AND that recognition is the reason why we have been inundated to prepare pre-litigation packages, analysis and reports to assist lawyers in filing actions to enforce rescissions, whether filed today or ten years ago.

Caveat: I have no doubt that attempts will be made to change the law. The Supreme Court has made changing the law impossible by a ruling from the bench, That means state legislatures and Congress are going to be under intense pressure to change this law or the effect of it. But as it stands now, I don’t think any other analysis covers all the bases like the one expressed here.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,087 other followers

%d bloggers like this: