Client goes into the office of an attorney and tells him/her that a notice of rescission was sent. The attorney without studying the issue says the rescission never happened. And so it goes.

In my opinion once the time limits have expired on claims arising from TILA (which includes the debt) the county recorder should remove the encumbrance from the chain of title or be ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction.

One common thread in the emails I receive is the complaint that the borrower’s lawyer failed to agree or find that the the debt, note  or mortgage was owned by a trust. The reason for that is that in order for “the trust” to be the owner of the debt, it must exist.

In most cases, if you look carefully you will see that even in nonjudicial foreclosures and always in judicial foreclosures there actually is no assertion that a trust exists, or that the certificate holders have an interest in the subject debt, or that the “trustee” owns the debt on its own behalf or on behalf of anyone else. Instead, everyone seems to assume that the assertion was made. But I have found no instance in which the assertions were actually made. The result is that homeowners are fighting a ghost.

Legal procedure is difficult to master in one sweep. But in all events you should know that everything before trial is strictly procedure and that your notions about right and wrong are almost besides the point. The purpose of procedural rules is to enable the parties to narrow the issues that must be decided and that usually means testing the sufficiency of what was said. And that simply means a test to see whether what was said actually means something legally.

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

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.

I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of…

By Sydney Sullivan

The main focus on The Foreclosure Hour this week, Blackrock & PIMCO, et al v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, was so powerful it deserves to be highlighted. As usual legal protocol, the Plaintiffs’ claims are accepted by the court to be true. For example, the next move for the Defendant might be to file a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

WARNING: The contents of this complaint is likely to make certain foreclosure judges with hefty Plaintiff hedge funds preferred shares in their investment portfolios extremely nauseous.

Plaintiffs Blackrock & PIMCO and a multitude of subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, closely related and closely held companies for each sued U.S. BANK NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION for BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; BREACH OF DUTY OF INDEPENDENCE; AND NEGLIGENCE.