Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
flordapathy

ka wrote:

Quote:
When we refi'd, the originator did not tell us that our previous loan was being paid down. We did not find this out until after closing while reading the dox.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you asserting that you didn't know that the purpose of a refinance was to pay off the old loan with the proceeds of the new loan?

Quote:
We did not know this, the new lender did not tell us, and instead gave us some new arm mortgage that appeared to be more affordable but come to find out their payment comparison did not include escrow as did the previous mortgage when comparing the two payments.

The standard subprime origination fraud was to make oral representations and then to substitute in the real business terms of the loan in the written documents at closing. You should have read the documents at closing.

The written documents usually supersede all prior oral representations and agreements and preclude you from asserting terms different than those that appear in these documents.

Moreover, your quarrel is mostly with the originator of the loans. The mortgage investor that purchased these loans and the servicer now servicing these loans was not the entity that defrauded you and these will interpose holder in due course immunity to avoid any responsibility for the fraud.

You probably have a proof problem, a limitations problem, a problem finding an entity you can hold responsible that is still in business, a holder in due course problem, etc.

If you have remaining equity in the property, then you probably ought to try to salvage that equity and get out from under an oppressive loan. If the loan is underwater, then you need to decide whether you want to strategically default.

If you think that you are going to sue someone for the origination fraud and win, you are delusional.



Thanks for the insult ka,

I believe a homeowner recently sued Quicken loans for orgination fraud and won 3 million dollars? But I suppose you would say that their council along with the judge was "delusional" as well?

This is not to say I do not entirely agree with your assesment, though you misunderstood a few things I said. I believe I do have a limitations problem, but aside from that I have stopping asking questions pertaining to issues I can not materially prove.

The former lender sent out a quarterly loan statement that shows the loan balance. The loan was only two years old. In the final statements around the time of refinancing, these statements revealed that the loan balance had been slightly reduced. This was an 80/20 arm, and with that there was expectation of any reduction to the loan balance, which is one of the driving reseasons for refinancing into a more affordable loan. (For future security).

To ad insult to injury, the prospective refi lender "Quicken," compared their estimated loan payment to the existing payment in the GFE. What they did was show their estimated monthly payment (- escrow) side-by-side with the existing payment that included escrow. The way they accomplished this was by breaking down the escrow of the existing payment within the designated boxes on the GFE, but for their estimated new payment, they stated as one total sum. This had the effect of allowing us to believe we were viewing an accurate comparison of the total monthly payment on both loans because the GFE clearly states "payment & escrow amt."

There are too many other issues regarding origination to point out at this time, which include doubling of origination fee with no reduction in interest, changing the interest recast dates after closing, insuring loan program and amount before it was even agreed upon, undisclosed county stamp fee charges, inflated-untruthful appraisal, over 60% DTI ratio, failure to include all revolving debts reported, failure to disclose the real reason only sub-prime mortgage products offered despite perfect credit, and failure to provide a net benefit in the refinance over the existing loan.

Our previous servicer as of late, has been sending a monthly mortgage statement that does not accurately reflect our original loan documentation. The balance, monthly interest amount, and monthly payment do not match. This is not due to escrow charges or interest changes because neither have changed. We have never missed a payment. The mortgage balance is currently higher than the contract allows, and higher than the PMI insured ceiling.

A while back we asked the servicer for proof of the debt, they sent unindorsed, unassigned copies of the mortgage and note that were obviously printed out from computer records, as they are not the same as those on file with the county. The mortgage has changed hands 5 times now, and still no update to the county record since 2006.

The satisfaction of mortgage issued by the former lender as evidence of the loan being settled by the refinance, is a DOCx robo-signed fabrication, as is the line of credit satisfaction notice. The mortgage satisfaction from 2005 for the original homeowner from their own bank is also Alphretta, GA robo-signed. That is two forged documents clouding the title to our home within the space of 18 months.

And yes, I can not prove that the refi lender "Quicken" promised to refinance into a 30yr fixed 2-3 years and wave the closing costs. But I do have an offer from Wachovia one year after that shows they could have refinanced at less %, lower monthly payment, closing costs, and origination fee. Quicken declined. And we did not refi with Wachovia in 08 in order to avoid increasing the balance by another 10k in closing costs. Especially, not after Quicken defrauded us in the first place. 
Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
Thanks for the insult ka,

 

flordapathy -

 

ka has once again given some very sound advice!  Ignore it at your own peril!!

 

If you doubt the advice ka has given, then I would agree that you are delusional!

 

I will respond to the balance of your post for the benefit of others.  Your hostility and ingratitude towards those who are seeking to help you really makes you unworthy of further energy.

 

You seem not to have come to the Forum to learn, but rather further confuse others with your own misinformation.

 

Quote:
I believe a homeowner recently sued Quicken loans for
orgination fraud and won 3 million dollars? But I suppose you would say that
their council along with the judge was "delusional" as well? 

 

Why don't you give us the case that you are referring to?  I am NOT going to bother to look for it, because this is almost certainly a WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY.

 

I will add that it is certainly true that juries sometimes award large damage awards in tort cases.  These are usually reduced by the trial judge to some reasonable amount and often such awards are overturned on appeal.

 

I seriously doubt that a borrower ever actually received such an award.  But even if the borrower did, citing such a case as a basis for hope in bring fraud charges is sort of like pointing out a single lottery winner as a justification for the proposition that lottery tickets are good investments!

 

You show NO REASON to believe that the facts of your situation or your evidence is comparable to such another case, nor can we compare the law as to jurisdiction.

 

If you believe that this statement proves anything other than you are possibly an ungrateful IDIOT, then you are really a fool!

 

Quote:
This is not to say I do not entirely agree with your assessment, though you misunderstood a few things I said.  I believe I do have a limitations problem, but aside from that I have stopping asking questions pertaining to issues I can not materially prove.

"Other than that (her husband being assassinated), Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?"

 

If you have a limitations problem with the fraud charges, it is likely to be GAME OVER.  Proof isn't going to matter.

 

See Mr. Roper's prior posts regarding the difficulty of proving fraud and the difficulty in getting limitations tolled under the so-called discovery rule.

 

Quote:
The former lender sent out a quarterly loan statement that shows the loan balance. The loan was only two years old. In the final statements around the time of refinancing, these statements revealed that the loan balance had been slightly reduced. This was an 80/20 arm, and with that there was expectation of any reduction to the loan balance, which is one of the driving reseasons for refinancing into a more affordable loan. (For future security).

 

This statement makes no sense at all and seems only to show that you do not understand either 80/20 loans or loan amortization basics.  If you think you are going to base a fraud charge on this, you have no idea what you are doing.

 

Your case will be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

 

Quote:
To ad insult to injury, the prospective refi lender "Quicken," compared their estimated loan payment to the existing payment in the GFE. What they did was show their estimated monthly payment (- escrow) side-by-side with the existing payment that included escrow. The way they accomplished this was by breaking down the escrow of the existing payment within the designated boxes on the GFE, but for their estimated new payment, they stated as one total sum. This had the effect of allowing us to believe we were viewing an accurate comparison of the total monthly payment on both loans because the GFE clearly states "payment & escrow amt."  

 

This allegation seems to have a bit more substance.  However, even if you PROVED this and showed that limitations do not apply, you seem to totally misunderstand that you would need to also prove a measure of damages.

 

If you were fraudulently induced into a loan with a higher rate of interest or higher and unnecessary fees, these might be recovered from the originator.

 

In most instances, the mortgage investor and/or mortgage servicer will invoke holder in due course protection and will be immune to ANY origination fraud claims.  Most of the originators are out of business.  Many of these have been in bankruptcy and have had all prior liability discharged!

 

By failing to present and make out the fraud as a valid claim against the bankrupt estate of the defunct lender, the liability is usually discharged even if limitations did NOT apply.

 

So even if you COULD PROVE your claims, you get NOTHING.  Whoops!

 

Quote:
There are too many other issues regarding origination to point out at this time, which include doubling of origination fee with no reduction in interest, changing the interest recast dates after closing, insuring loan program and amount before it was even agreed upon, undisclosed county stamp fee charges, inflated-untruthful appraisal, over 60% DTI ratio, failure to include all revolving debts reported, failure to disclose the real reason only sub-prime mortgage products offered despite perfect credit, and failure to provide a net benefit in the refinance over the existing loan. 

 

Doubling the origination fee at closing is part of the classic subprime bait and switch.  It probably WAS fraud at the time.  You had two valid forms of recourse.  You could have REFUSED TO GO FORWARD WITH THE LOAN ON THESE TERMS or you could have gone forward and then rescinded within the three day statutory period.  When you did NEITHER, you probably WAIVED the origination fraud and simply ACCEPTED the alternative business terms.

 

This will almost NEVER support a holding of fraud, but even if it did, limitations and/or the bankruptcy of the originator will pretty much BAR any recovery!

 

Good luck with that!

 

Your assertion of a "changing the interest recast dates after closing" wouldn't typically support a fraud charge.  Rather, if the servicer made an error in the application of the interest rate, you could simply REQUIRE that the servicer apply the interest as provided for in the contract.

 

I am unsure what it is that you think you mean by "insuring loan program and amount before it was even agreed upon", but this looks like some mindless nonsense you copied from either someone else's incoherent pleadings or something you picked up from one of the operators of various debt elimination scams.  There is no valid defensive basis in this incoherent statement.  It simply makes you out to be an ignorant fool.

 

Your mention of "undisclosed county stamp fee charges" reflects a real disconnect with reality.  This might have presented a valid basis for you to WALK AWAY from the closing OR for a rescission.  When you went forward with the loan, you probably waived this issue.

 

IF you succeeded in making out some fraud, the measure of damages would be the amount of the undisclosed fees.

 

This would NOT cover either your filing fees of one hour of an attorney's time in preparing the pleadings.  Including this does nothing but make you out to be a total fool.

 

And IF you could get this to hold up past a basic motion to dismiss, both limitations and the originator's bankruptcy leaves you without a penny of recovery.

 

Your mention of "inflated-untruthful appraisal, over 60% DTI ratio, failure to include all revolving debts reported" further shows that you have no idea the elements necessary to prove fraud.

 

These might support a fraud charge in respect of the originator's sale of the loan to the mortgage investor.  It was the mortgage investor which was injured by the originator's origination of a loan with an inflated appraisal, a DTI ratio in excess of that provided in the lending guidelines, a failure to report all debts, etc.

 

This is the kind of nonsense that debt elimination scam swindlers use to deceive distressed borrowers.

 

When swindling people, it is usually helpful to begin with some germ of truth which makes the other assertions of the swindler seem plausible.  So the scam artists begin with a few various allegations which, IF TRUE and PROVEN, might form the basis for a valid fraud complaint by a mortgage investor against the originator.  Then, these are twisted to assert that these might also form the basis for the borrower to avoid responsibility for the loan.

 

The reason that an inflated appraisal, an excessive DTI ratio and/or omitted monthly obligations would form the basis of a fraud complaint by the investor is that the originator falsely represented to the investor that the invesotr's lending and underwriting guidelines were adhered to, when they were not.

 

It was NOT YOU who were a victim of these misrepresentations.  To the contrary, in OMITTING obligations and YOUR SIGNING the conformed loan application at closing, it is LIKELY THAT YOU COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME IN MAKING A FALSE MORTGAGE LOAN APPLICATION.  Even if you can argue that you were fraudulently induced to make these false representations, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME.

 

Good luck with that!

 

Quote:
Our previous servicer as of late, has been sending a monthly mortgage statement that does not accurately reflect our original loan documentation.  The balance, monthly interest amount, and monthly payment do not match.  This is not due to escrow charges or interest changes because neither have changed.  We have never missed a payment.  The mortgage balance is currently higher than the contract allows, and higher than the PMI insured ceiling.

If there are errors in billing, you need to document these and perhaps you can seek correction in small claims court.

 

Given your misunderstanding of all of the other issues you discuss, I have serious doubts that the mortgage or deed of trust shows an upper limit on the balance.  To the contrary, there is probably an adjustable rate rider to the mortgage which expressly discloses the possibility of negative amortization.  The mortgage also probably expressly contemplates the possibility that unpaid amounts will be added to the balance.

 

The PMI insurance policy is for the benefit of the lender, NOT for your benefit.  Whether the principal balance exceeds some limits on the policy is a matter between the lender and the insurer.  Despite the fact that you PAY FOR this coverage, there is no privity of contract, you are NOT injured and have no right to complain.

 

Quote:
A while back we asked the servicer for proof of the debt, they sent unindorsed, unassigned copies of the mortgage and note that were obviously printed out from computer records, as they are not the same as those on file with the county. The mortgage has changed hands 5 times now, and still no update to the county record since 2006.

 

IF you actually default, you can only HOPE that they are still making this mistake when they file suit.  Making the mistake in response to a QWR does not present you with ANY valid cause of action.

 

Quote:
The satisfaction of mortgage issued by the former lender as evidence of the loan being settled by the refinance, is a DOCx robo-signed fabrication, as is the line of credit satisfaction notice.  The mortgage satisfaction from 2005 for the original homeowner from their own bank is also Alphretta, GA robo-signed. That is two forged documents clouding the title to our home within the space of 18 months.

 

This is simply an ABSURD assertion of harm.  You seem to be claiming that the robo-signing of a release or satisfaction of the prior mortgage has injured you in some way.

 

But absent some assertion by the prior lender that they are still seeking to assert and enforce the prior lien, this is simply an imagined injury.

 

A title insurer insured the title through two prior refinances.  You have not identified any reason to believe that your title is clouded.  This is an imagined injury.

 

It is the type of injury invented by swindlers to persuade you to PAY THEM MONEY to help you out!

 

Quote:
And yes, I can not prove that the refi lender "Quicken" promised to refinance into a 30yr fixed 2-3 years and wave the closing costs. But I do have an offer from Wachovia one year after that shows they could have refinanced at less %, lower monthly payment, closing costs, and origination fee. Quicken declined. And we did not refi with Wachovia in 08 in order to avoid increasing the balance by another 10k in closing costs. Especially, not after Quicken defrauded us in the first place.

 

So, you have NOTHING AT ALL!

 

I have little doubt that you were defrauded.

 

But you probably have NO VALID CAUSE OF ACTION.  IF you had a valid cause of action, you have a proof problem.  You also have a limitations problem.  And you have a problem collecting from a defunct entity.

 

You seem to be an easy mark for swindlers!  You were initially defrauded by the subprime lenders, seemingly more than once.  Now, instead of learning something, you appear at the Forum and despite your ignorance want to teach others based upon the false representations given to you by the swindlers who have once again identified you as a FOOL who can be repeatedly subject to scams and swindles because you are so easily deceived.

 

One of the things you seem to be missing here is that the swindlers who are feeding you this nonsense are some of the very same bad actors who were engaged as loan brokers and mortgage loan consultants during the bubble.

 

By borrowing in subprime loan programs not once, but more than once, you are already identified as a SUCKER.  You are on LISTS of people who are easy to deceive, who believe almost anything and can be easily swindled.

 

You owe ka and others at this Forum an apolgy for (a) ingratitude, (b) wasting everyone's time, (c) further disseminating false information making it more likely that others will be victimized by these swindles!

 

You need to get up in the morning, look in the mirror and DECIDE not to be a victim any more.  Then you need to REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMNT whomever sold you on these false premises to help others to avert being ripped off by these same scams!

 

Quote 0 0
floridapathy
t, thanks for your supportive comments and the very heart-felt insults you stated below:

Quote:

"You owe ka and others at this Forum an apolgy for (a) ingratitude, (b) wasting everyone's time, (c) further disseminating false information making it more likely that others will be victimized by these swindles!

You need to get up in the morning, look in the mirror and DECIDE not to be a victim any more. Then you need to REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMNT whomever sold you on these false premises to help others to avert being ripped off by these same scams!"

 
First I want to say that I was NOT educating anyone, but simply attempting to clarify "ka's" misunderstanding of my situation by offering more details.

Secondly, I wasn't suggesting a lawsuit against anyone, nor did I ever say that I was suing for origination fraud. You took direct aim at me from the beginning and based all of your criticisms on ka's assumptions and misunderstanding of our earlier conversation.

Third, I have been posting and asking questions on MSFraud for years and I am not in any way attempting to mislead anyone. I am grateful to others when they offer helpful advice. But when members such as yourself, insult and attack me simply because you do not understand my questions, well, that's my fault for putting myself out there and expecting to find anything more from an internet message forum.



Quote:
Circuit Court Judge Arthur M. Recht concluded an eight-day trial that spanned 17 months by awarding punitive damages, attorney fees and costs to mother and daughter Wheeling residents Lourie Jefferson and Monique Brown.
http://www.wvrecord.com/news/233771-quicken-loans-on-losing-end-of-3-million-predatory-lending-verdict




Quote 0 0
ka

floridapathy,

 

The West Virginia case you cite, Brown v. Quicken Loans, Inc., is certainly an interesting read:

 

Brown v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 08-C-36 (WV Ohio County, 2011)

http://www.bordaslaw.com/Winning-Experience/10-02-25-Bench-Trial.pdf

 

It is also one of the more egregious inflated appraisal cases I have ever seen, with a property worth about $46,000 appraised at $181,700 to support a loan in the amount of $144,800.

 

Given the decision and without benefit of either the underlying trial record or the appellate briefs, my intuition is that the basic judgment for damages itself might turn out to be sustained.  However, the punitive damages seem almost inconceivable to support on the facts shown.

 

This suit was filed within the limitations period in 2008 on a loan closed in May 2006.

 

The case is now on appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court.  It will be interesting to read the briefs and the decision.

 

Quote:
But when members such as yourself, insult and attack me simply because you do not understand my questions, well, that's my fault for putting myself out there and expecting to find anything more from an internet message forum.

 

Perhaps you need to practice writing with greater clarity.

 

It is unclear to me what the purpose might be in posting the various information you showed if you were not seeking feedback from Forum members.  Were you hoping for a group hug?

 

Others have volunteered considerable time to address what they believed to be questions you were posting.  It turns out that you weren't actually asking any questions, but were rather just posting random information in hopes of wasting everyone's time??

 

Perhaps you are more in need of a therapist or a support group than a Forum on foreclosure fraud and foreclosure defense.

 

You may rely on the fact that I have no further information whatsoever in helping you or further responding to your rather incoherent posts!

Quote 0 0
floridapathy
ka,

I have a copy of the case from Bordas law. They will be happy to email it to you if you give them a call.

Look, I take no offense in your opinion that my post was incoherent. But at the same time couldn't you simply ask me to clarify?

For a long time now, members have been advising everyone not to disclose information that is too personal or identifying in their situations. Perhaps this is where my message becomes convoluted?

I do understand that all my valid TILA claims are time barred, but are they not still valid claims for defense? I'm not in defense now. But it is a real possibility for the future.

Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
I do understand that all my valid TILA claims are time barred, but are they not still valid claims for defense? I'm not in defense now. But it is a real possibility for the future. 

 

No.  Once the claim is time barred, it can be used neither in support of a plaintiff's cause of action, as a defense, nor as a counterclaim.

 

In an actual foreclosure setting, the plaintiff can also usually successfully argue holder in due course immunity, even to most TILA claims, unless the claim would have been readily apparent from the face of the documents.

 

Plaintiffs sometimes screw up their holder in due course immunity by fabrication of documents post commencement, which creates the appearance that a plaintiff obtained its interest in the note after default. 

 

Your claims in respect of origination fraud are usually against the originator only.  Most of these evaporated with the dissolution of these firms.  Some are barred by the originator's bankruptcy proceedings.  Others are time barred.

 

Keeping the details of your case private is a good idea.  

 

The negative reaction is due to the fact that folks who haven't taken the time to really read and understand the law so often seize upon various unproductive avenues and expend vast amounts of time and energy pursuing ineffective strategies.

 

Look through Mr. Roper's various posts and see how much time he devotes to discussing fraud and TILA claims.  Look through the cases where borrowers have actually prevailed on appeal and see how many of these reflect fraud or TILA claims.

 

You found one WV anomalous case with a fantastic result.  The judgment is almost certain to be overturned on appeal to the WV Supreme Court UNLESS Quicken's attorneys failed to properly preserve various errors.  You need to get your head out of the clouds and focus on strategies that can actually work.

 

A $3 million judgment in favor of the borrower is kind of like another Elvis sighting or finding a Leprechaun.  If you want $3 million, buy a lottery ticket.  You have far better odds.  If you want to delay or avert foreclosure, you need to get real.

 

When it comes to the prospect of obtaining large judgments, here is a really simple but effective standard of measure.  Organize your materials and take these to a half dozen capable lawyers.  Ask them if they will take your case on a 1/3 contingency.  Show them the WV case.

 

Hopefully, these will have the professional poise to avoid bursting out laughing.  When NO ONE will take this case on a contingency, it will reflect the attorneys' perception of your chances.

 

If YOU were an attorney and someone brought you a case with a good chance of a $1 million payout for the attorney would you take the case?  Wouldn't you refuse ONLY if you thought that the case was almost impossible or unwinnable?

 

A personal injury lawyer will take a case with a potential far smaller payout rather than litigate something like this because the prospects of winning the smaller case are reasonably good.  If the case really could yield a result like this even 5% of the time, then attorneys would accept these cases.

 

But the Browns/Jeffersons are UNLIKELY to ever realize an amount remotely similar to that shown in the judgment.  These are the kinds of awards that are routinely overturned on appeal.  And you can be sure that it will be Quicken rather than the Bordas law firm issuing the news release to announce the result.

Quote 0 0
Bill

Quote:

When it comes to the prospect of obtaining large judgments, here is a really simple but effective standard of measure.  Organize your materials and take these to a half dozen capable lawyers.  Ask them if they will take your case on a 1/3 contingency.  Show them the WV case.

 

Hopefully, these will have the professional poise to avoid bursting out laughing.  When NO ONE will take this case on a contingency, it will reflect the attorneys' perception of your chances.

 

If YOU were an attorney and someone brought you a case with a good chance of a $1 million payout for the attorney would you take the case?  Wouldn't you refuse ONLY if you thought that the case was almost impossible or unwinnable?

 +1



Quote 0 0
floridapathy
ka, thank you for taking the time to thoroughly respond.

I'm going to let you know what I have in mind regarding my situation, but before i do I would like to clear the air of few of our misunderstandings. I do not wish to pick a fight. I just feel like we are getting off on the wrong foot here and I want to get it out of the way.

1. You said it was delusional to think I could sue for origination fraud and win. But I never said that was my intention.

2. I mentioned the Quicken v. Brown case only in response to your assertion that origination fraud was not a viable cause of action or defense.

3. You said I would have a better chance of buying a lotto ticket than to win a verdict such as in WV.

Like I said, I only mentioned the Brown case to point out that they had infact won an "orgination fraud case." It had nothing to do with thinking I could win on those issues, or obtaining such a hefty verdict. And to your earlier comment regarding the case, I agree that it will likely be over-turned on appeal, or at least the amount of money they won.

I have been asking questions on the forum going back to when I was still within the 3-year rescission period, and sent notice, but could not find legal representation to sue them for their failure to respond. Now the time to bring that action has expired.

It seems now that foreclosure defense is the only half-assed viable play left, but back when the statutes had not yet expired, I was asking questions on the forum and still got the same pessimistic responses as I do now. It seemed that every angle I questioned in my posts always found the same reply like, you can't win.

A few members like Roper, wrote in viable causes of action to which I raised questions regarding exactly the things people were having success with in court, but everytime I asked a question I received the same response or no repsonse at all. Now it is too late?

So its too late for justice? LOL I should just keep paying and forget about asking questions because I have no chance of obtaining justice? Well my only plan is something like challenging the MERS issues and the servicing errors. The servicing errors most importantly, because they are getting worse.

I know the MERS issues are far from settled, and if MERS, as many courts have stated, lacked standing to convey anything, than from what I have read the collection rights on the note revert back to the originator(who is still in business)when other parties have lost standing to foreclose because MERS was not legally able to even assign servicing rights in some cases. But even at that, the mortgage was not signed over to the orginator, it was signed over to MERS. And since MERS can not legally be the originator/ lender, and since MERS is the lender in the mortgage, they may be the only party with a chance at collecting on the note, and not the entities whom obtained conveyance through MERS. But, MERS is not allowed to foreclose, and thus those rights have reverted back to the lender. At least, this is what I have read and I have no idea how to even challenge these issues outside of being in foreclosure. I dont know what I'm even talking about, so maybe doing nothing is a better plan.

I remember seeing a recent story posted on the forum about a man who was current with his mortgage and sued his lender and servicer because there was no recordation of his mortgage tranfers in his county records office? I can't find that story now.

Again, thank you ka. I hope this helps clarify some of my earlier crap. But, if you misunderstood anything I said, please just ask me to clarify.




Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
I have been asking questions on the forum going back to when I was still within the 3-year rescission period, and sent notice, but could not find legal representation to sue them for their failure to respond.  Now the time to bring that action has expired.

 

floridapathy,

 

The entire subject of TIL rescission is another area where wingnuts have put out a lot of misinformation.

 

When a loan is rescinded, it is not a matter of just notifying the lender of an intention of canceling the loan.  It doesn't work that way AT ALL.

 

One rescinds by a notice of rescission accompanied by a tender of the original proceeds of the loan.

 

If I sell you a Ford truck for $10,000, you pay me the $10,000 and I turn over the title to the truck.  If I later want to rescind the transaction and get my truck back, then I PAY YOU the $10,000 that you paid and YOU RETURN THE TRUCK TO ME.  I do NOT simply tell you that I want to rescind the sale and demand the return of the truck without restoring to you your money paid.

 

Rescinding means restoring the parties to their positions before the transaction took place.  If you failed to make a tender of the full proceeds of the loan, then you were not actually rescinding.

 

The entire idea of a TIL rescission has been twisted and distorted by debt elimination scam artists and picked up by wingnuts and sovereign debt fantasists.  Sending a notice of rescission within the period and failing to tender the amount advanced by the lender at closing BUYS YOU NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

 

The reason you "failed to find representation" to sue for their failure to respond was there exists no valid cause of action for failure to respond to a specious rescission.  When you showed up at ANY LAW OFFICE with the idea that you could sue someone on this basis, you self-identified yourself as someone who was completely divorced from any reality of to the way the law works.

 

Some of the sovereign debt wingnuts are actually dangerous.  The law firms didn't want to argue or quarrel with you.  But they obviously would NEVER agree to represent you in such an suit.  To represent you would be (a) to risk sanctions (for the attorney) for filing a frivolous lawsuit, (b) to risk bar disciplinary action and (c) to risk future hostility with YOU when, after taking your money, the case was properly dismissed.  A legitimate lawyer should be concerned about this.  A crook simply takes your money and assumes the risk.  But in NO CASE would you ever prevail.

 

Why don't you post a list of cases where a borrower successfully accomplished a rescission or appellate cases where a rescission was found to have been wrongfully denied.  I wont be waiting up for the list.

 

 

Quote:
It seems now that foreclosure defense is the only half-assed viable play left, but back when the statutes had not yet expired, I was asking questions on the forum and still got the same pessimistic responses as I do now. It seemed that every angle I questioned in my posts always found the same reply like, you can't win.

 

On a TILA rescission, it is not simply a matter of you can't win.  You are not even on the right page.

 

This issue is so clear cut and certain that when a person appears who has the false impression that there exists some right of "rescinding" without tendering the payment to restore the parties to their prior positions, the person brands themselves both as a wingnut and delusional.

 

I am not trying to insult you or hurt your feelingsI am just giving you the unvarnished truth!

 

If I saw that your fly was opened (or if female that your "slip was showing") or similarly told you that there was a bit of spinach caught between your two front teeth, this would be intended not to embarrass you, but rather to spare you from embarrassment.

 

The only attorneys who would ever accept money from you in respect of such a theory are those who are working directly in concert with the swindlers!  They would accept your money NOT to win you any damages or to advance your case, but rather because you had already identified yourself as a good mark for their scam who could be a source of funds.

 

If you have really been participating at the Forum for three years and have been taken in by this nonsense, then I do not think that you have been paying very close attention.  NO ONE WHO IS A SERIOUS FORUM CONTRIBUTOR WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU IN PURSUING THIS WHIMSICAL AND IMAGINED DEFENSE.

Quote 0 0
floridapathy
ka,

Law firm we spoke said we had a valid rescission claim, but would not try that issue because they were not likely to recover all their attorney's fees. The penalty for failure to honor rescission is what, $2500 plus "resonable" attorney's fees. LOL. And although it was explained it would put us back in original position, as you pointed out, we decided since the law firm would not do it, it would make more sense to simply try to refinance. But that option also would have run into the tens of thousands.

We spoke with another law firm, "Ticktin." They agreed that we had a valid case but suggested we defaut, and pay a monthly retainer of $400 a month instead, and asked for 45% of the value of the mortgage on contigency. Our home is only worth 48% of the mortgage.

The next law firm liked the similarities of our case and the Quicken v. Brown (Quicken is?was our lender). They too agreed we had an actionable lawsuit, but wanted $6,000 retainer, and could not tell us how long that retainer would last before another $6,000 payment would be required. I realize we are not getting free representation, but the real reason we did not hire them was because they had never heard of Linda Green and Jessica Leete of DOCX, or how MERS convoluted the whole mortgage process. They acted as if they had not read one case in regard to MERS, and upon showing them cases where MERS lost standing to foreclose, they scratched their heads in disbelief and suggested that the MERS model was a legal way of conducting business. Of coarse,in their defense, this was before MERS decided it would stop foreclosing in its own name.

We contacted ICE legal, no reply. Called Matt Weidner, and left a synopsis of our situation, no reply. There aren't too many left. And since the statutes have all run out, its looking like we will find no representation until we are in foreclosure. As all the lawfirms advertise "Foreclosure defense."


Quote 0 0
Write a reply...