You are on page 1of 5

Tim Bulloch email on object to everything and winning cases related from Neil Garfield 10-26-2017

Illinois Trial Court Overruled: Rescission IS Effective


by Neil Garfield

As usual, the trial judge wanted no part of TILA Rescission. In December, 2016 the appellate court said the
failure of Beneficial to respond to TILA Rescission notice within 20 days made the rescission final and
irrevocable --- something I have been saying to nay-sayers for 10 years.

Hat Tip to "Cement Boots"

See TILA- Beneficial Illinois Inc. v. Parker, 2016 IL App (1st)160186

Defendant-appellant, Randall Parker (Randall), refinanced his home loan mortgage with plaintiff-appellee,
Beneficial Illinois Inc., d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage Company of Illinois (Beneficial), in July 2007. In
October 2008, he stopped making the required payments and Beneficial instituted a foreclosure proceeding
in October 2009. In June 2010, Randall attempted to rescind the mortgage by mailing a letter to Beneficial.
Beneficial neverresponded and proceeded with the foreclosure litigation.

It specifically says the response from Beneficial had to be made within 20 days of the notice of rescission.

It specifically states that no lawsuit is required to effectuate rescission, thus strengthening the argument
that the rescission was effective when mailed and could have been vacated by legal action but no
legal action was taken.

(Tim I added this Lance >Whether borrowers reasons for rescinding are right or wrong the
lender must take legal action within 20 days to vacate reverse The above is true in all cases
including mine. Fraud at closing not found out until years after like in my case lender was not
lender, securitization not disclosed, MERS not fully disclosed resets 3 year SOL to date
discovered/realized which in my case was late 2014 and why I sent rescission letter 1/30/2015 after
hearing of 1/15/2015 unanimous 9-0 SC TILA decision in Countrywide v Jesinowski Chase cannot
use note and deed as evidence for standing in Quiet Title!!)

And it shows what happens when neither party files a lawsuit to enforce or vacate the rescission
within one year --- the actions are time-barred after one year. So you are left with a void note and
mortgage thus justifying the cancellation of the instrument in the chain of title.

Thus anyone claiming to be a "creditor" may not rely upon the mortgage or note to enforce collection.
And based upon the wording of the statute, even if there is a genuine "creditor" in the mix, it appears that
no action may be taken to enforce the debt either in any lawsuit.

The choice of the creditor to ignore the notice of TILA rescission is a dangerous choice --- blocking
any right to enforce a void note and void mortgage, rendered void by operation of law; and
blocking any attempt to collect on the debt under any other grounds because they failed to follow
the TILA statutory procedure which appears to be the only procedure available to enforce the debt.
Beneficial's actions display stonewalling and arrogance. The clear intent was to steamroll the judge and
the homeowner, preventing the homeowner from clear-cut relief in the Truth in Lending Act. Now they
have painted themselves into a corner. There is no debt or document left to enforce.

Neil Garfield | October 2, 2017 at 11:31 am | Categories: foreclosure | URL: http://wp.me/p7SnH-dGR


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NNardolillo V. Chase Northern District of California Motion to Dismiss Denied


Posted on September 20, 2017 by Neil Garfield
Note: Our ongoing gratitude to Investigator Bill Paatalo of BP Investigative Agency for keeping us updated with significant
developments in nationwide foreclosure defense cases. Paatalo is the preeminent investigator regarding WaMu/JPMorgan Chase
merger issues.
See Nordolillo v. JPMorgan Chase Nardolillo v. Chase

Tim I have the 10 page Lexis Nexis citation on this

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JPMorgan Chase and the Fed in Collusion: The National Mortgage


Settlement Sham
by Neil Garfield
https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/jpmorgan-chase-and-the-fed-in-collusion-the-national-mortgage-
settlement-sham/

Six years ago, in February 2012, JPM was fined $5.3 billion under the National Mortgage Settlement reached with
Attorney General Eric Holder. It was one of those sweetheart deals that Holder cut over and over with the big banks
by imposing cost-of-doing-business fines, instead of criminal charges, in keeping with his too big to jail policy.

However, as financial muckraker David Dayen reports at The Nation, only $1.1 billion of that $5.3 billion total had to
be paid in cash; the other $4.2 billion was to come in the form of financial relief for homeowners in danger of losing
their homes to foreclosure.

Heres the rest of the story: JPMorgan moved to forgive the mortgages of tens of thousands of homeowners; the
feds, in turn, credited these canceled loans against the penalties due under the 2012 and 2013 settlements. But
heres the rub: In many instances, JPMorgan was forgiving loans it no longer owned it had sold the mortgages
years earlier to 21 third-party investors.

The dirty details are now coming to light in a federal lawsuit being heard in New York. Grab the popcorn...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BofA Coerces Homeowners Into Keeping Quiet About


Their Victory
by Neil Garfield
Most lawyers, most judges and most homeowners are under the mistaken impression that they cannot win
a foreclosure battle. They don't hear about all the homeowners who were successful. There are tens of
thousands of them. Any news, like the $45 million verdict described in the article below, is squelched.
This time the Judge is not so interested in accepting the settlement that includes a news blackout. He
thinks the world should know just how brutal BofA acted in flagrant disregard of law, procedure and basic
decency.

Homeowners who won are silenced through coercion --- in order to get the fruits of their victory they feel
they must sign an agreement in which they will be restricted by total confidentiality (blackout) of any news
or information about their case. Their attorneys understandably advise their client to sign the agreement
because that is the safe thing to do for their client. The impact on millions of other people facing
foreclosure is not taken into account.

The sqelching is achieved through coercion and domination by entities with limitless resources against a
homeowner who has been drained dry by the financial, mental and emotional impact of defending their
home against people and entities that use the foreclosure system as part of a larger fraudulent scheme.

So the rest of us go on thinking that we don't have a chance and that the law favors the banks. Not true. The
law favors perseverence.

,see https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/2017/10/04/bofa-judge-isn-t-warm-to-erasing-foreclosure-abuse-ruling

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-


6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or
make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY
INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back them into a corner Request for Admissions


by Neil Garfield
As part of my consultation on a case involving PennyMac and Citi, I suggested a strategy (see below) using the
procedural route of a Request for Admissions. If not answered, the requests are deemed admitted --- which in most
cases will completely undermine the foundation for any of the evidecne proffered by the foreclosing party. If
admitted, the same result applies. If denied, you have something to ask for in further discovery. If objections are filed
then the lawyer must be prepared with cases, statutes and treatise authority to back up his claim that he/she is
entitled to the information and that without it the trial will be a sham.

The usual response to a request for production is that they already gave you the paperwork --- when you know and
they know that isn't what you were asking for. You hopefully asked for all documents in which there was an
exchange of money for the subject debt, note and mortgage. Experience shows me that people who win on this
point in court usually start getting good settlement offers --- or the bank simply backcs away and won't return phone
calls.

The foreclosing party will most likely claim privilege or otherwise try to obscure the issues with legal presumptions
that since they have possession of the note, they are presumed to own the note or presumed to own the right to
enforce. This flies in the face of the knowledge that the creditor is unknown to the foreclosing party and therefore the
forceclosing party could have no contract or communication with the investors who own the debt.

Need help drafting documents in litigation? We do that.


Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-
6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or
make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY
INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
-
They are avoiding any hint that they have or that you are entitled to see any documents that actually show
that a transaction occurred. A Motion to Compel and perhaps Request for Admissions could push them to
the wall. In case you need to amend the request for production or send out another set, you might use the
following as a potential guide. The Request for Admissions might include something like this:
1. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action did not participate in any transaction in which money or
property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject debt.

2. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action is relying solely on the documentation that has been produced
as evidence of a transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject debt.
3. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action did not participate in any transaction in which money or
property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject note.
4. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action is relying solely on the documentation that has been produced
as evidence of a transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject note.
5. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action did not participate in any transaction in which money or
property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject mortgage.
6. Please admit that the named Plaintiff in this action is relying solely on the documentation that has been produced
as evidence of a transaction in which money or property was paid in exchange for ownership of the subject
mortgage.

7. Please admit that the documentation previously produced as stated in Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Request
for Production do not contain any reference to a transaction in which the subject debt, note and/or mortgage was
purchased by payment of money or property for the subject debt, note and/or mortgage.
8. Please admit that one or more Citigroup entities claim an interest in the proceeds of the foreclosure of the subject
debt, note or mortgage.

9. Please admit that Plaintiff has no knowledge of any kind as to the identity of a party that has or will suffer
economic damages arising out of the nonpayment of the debt.
10. Please admit that Plaintiff has no knowledge of any kind as to the identity of a party that has or will suffer
economic damages arising out of the nonpayment of instruments deriving their value from the subject debt.

11. Please admit that the Plaintiff has no risk of economic loss arising out of nonpayment of the debt.
12. Please admit that the Plaintiff has no current economic loss arising out of nonpayment of the debt.
13. Please admit that the Plaintiff has no expectation of economic loss arising out of nonpayment of the debt.

14. Please admit that Plaintiff claims servicing rights over the subject loan as a result of a written agreement
between a CitiGroup entity and Plaintiff.

15. Please admit the existence of an investor who claims rights to monetary proceeds arising out of the subject debt,
note or mortgage.
16. Please admit that Plaintiff has no knowledge of any kind as to the identity of a creditor that has or will suffer
economic damages arising out of the nonpayment of instruments deriving their value from the subject debt.

17. Please admit that instruments whose value is derived from the proceeds of the subject debt, note or mortgage
have been issued and sold.

18. Please admit that the Plaintiff has made no entry or posting on its general ledger or otherwise in its financial
records that identifies the subject debt, note or mortgage as an asset of the Plaintiff.

19. Please admit that the Plaintiff has made no entry or posting on its general ledger or otherwise in its financial
records posting liability for a reserve for default (or any reserve for economic loss) arising out of Plaintiff's ownership
of the subject debt, note or mortgage.

20. Please admit that Plaintiff's claims for foreclosure are derived from its claims of ownership of the note and
mortgage.

21. Please admit that Plaintiff does not own the subject debt.

If they deny, then you have something to ask for --- in interrogatories or further requests to produce.

Neil Garfield | September 20, 2017 at 10:17 am | Categories: foreclosure | URL: http://wp.me/p7SnH-dCi

---------------------------------------