Author Archive

Last month it was in California, this month it was in South Carolina. All across the country we are seeing rescission letters stopping foreclosures in their tracks. Over the last few months I have been writing about how effective a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) rescission of your mortgage could be, and how the banks are getting nervous. Well, the results keep coming in, and they are extremely encouraging!

One of my real estate investor students recently explained to his father how he might be able to use rescission to stop the foreclosure on his home. His father sent in a rescission letter and the 20-day period for the bank to respond went by without a peep from the bank or their attorney. When the auction day came up, the investor and his father went to the courthouse and explained to the judge about the rescission and the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter. The judge pushed their auction to the end of the day in order to move onto other houses. At the end of the day, the judge asked for a copy of the Supreme Court decision to review it. After reviewing the decision, he canceled the auction and called for a new hearing. Read More→

Last month I wrote about how you could use the right of rescission as a silver bullet to stop a foreclosure in its tracks. Once you drop a notice of rescission in the mail, your loan has been nullified as a matter of law and the bank must either comply with the rescission or prove within 20 days that they have the right to enforce the note. Well, over the last few weeks I have been seeing more and more from the banks that the right of rescission has them on their heels. The banks are sending their lawyers around their offices explaining exactly how rescission leaves them vulnerable.

The main point that the lawyers are making to the banks is that mailing in a notice of rescission is all it takes to cancel a borrower’s loan, note, and mortgage. The notice is effective from the moment it is dropped in the mail as an act of law. This was written specifically into the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) so that homeowners wouldn’t have to use an attorney to act on their behalf, thus restricting the remedies provided by TILA to borrowers who can afford an attorney. While the note is canceled immediately as soon as the notice is dropped in the mail, the bank has 20 days from the date of receipt to respond. This is a good reason to send the notice with return receipt requested. This provides you with proof of the exact date the notice of rescission was received. Read More→

If you ask most people they would probably tell you that the foreclosure crisis is over, and that we’re in the middle of a housing recovery. The fact of the matter is that foreclosures are continuing, but the banks have slowed and managed the process a bit to keep the government off their backs. That’s the bad news. The good news is that a recent Supreme Court ruling has provided homeowners with a silver bullet that could stop a foreclosure in its tracks!

As spelled out in a January ruling by the Supreme Court, a homeowner’s right to rescind their loan could immediately stop a foreclosure. The right of rescission is essentially a consumer protection built into the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) that allows a borrower to rescind their loan if the lender failed to fully comply with all of the requirements of TILA. As you might imagine, TILA violations are incredibly common. So how does the right to rescind stop a foreclosure? It’s simple. From the moment you drop your notice of rescission in the mail, the note and mortgage are nullified. The bank can’t foreclose on a note and mortgage loan that have been nullified. The bank has 20 days to challenge the rescission, but until they have effectively argued that they have the right to enforce the note and mortgage (without being able to use the note or mortgage in their proof of standing, the foreclosure cannot continue. It should be noted that this only works on primary residences. It will not work on second homes or investment properties. This also works better on refinance homes than on original mortgages, but it is still possible on original mortgages (purchase money mortgages). Read More→

In my last article I told you how you might be able to wipe out virtually any mortgage through a TILA rescission. The idea of rescinding a loan using the Truth in Lending Act had been around for a while, but its viability in court was completely dependent upon the whims and prejudices of the individual judges hearing the cases. Well, the Supreme Court of the United States cleared all of that up with a unanimous decision that has cleared the way for TILA rescissions. As I explained last month, the opportunity is HUGE, but could our window be closing?

The decision as spelled out by Justice Scalia of the Supreme Court is extremely rigid. It says that a bank has 20 days from the time a notice of rescission is dropped in the mail to contest its validity. After that 20-day window is up, the note has been rescinded as an operation of law. The notice of rescission itself carries all of the power of a court order. No further proof or lawsuit is required from the borrower, and after the 20-day period, no arguments can be made by the bank. The bank must provide the cancelled promissory note, file a satisfaction of the mortgage, and pay back all of the money paid by the borrower. While collecting all of this will almost certainly require the borrower to file an enforcement action against the bank, the ruling allows for no deviation from the letter of the law. It no longer matters what a particular judge thinks of the law. Read More→

That sounds too good to be true! Guess who made this possible… The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)! There is a shockwave moving through the mortgage industry caused by a unanimous SCOTUS ruling in January. The court settled once and for all exactly what a borrower’s Right of Rescission is, and what latitude the courts have when dealing with it. The content of that ruling is a major win for homeowners and real estate investors alike, but what exactly does it mean for you and your business?

First let’s begin with what the Right of Rescission is. It was established by the federal government in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). It gives a borrower the right to rescind any residential mortgage transaction within three days of the lender providing all of the disclosures required by TILA. The traditional Right of Rescission happens within 3 days of the closing and allows the buyer to cancel the transaction and get all funds returned by the lender. The Right of Rescission we are interested in is much more expansive. If the lender does not make the disclosures, or the borrower claims that the lender didn’t provide them, or the lender did not fully disclose the nature of the transaction, or the lender was fraudulent in their representation, the period can be extended up to three years after the borrower discovers the fraud. The bank must give up its claim to the property by providing the borrower with a cancelled note and mortgage and by returning every dollar the borrower has paid since inception of the loan. The lender has to respond within 20 days of the notice of rescission being dropped in the mail by the borrower. Read More→

Picture this: a man purchases a house in 2007 with a loan from a major mortgage lender who then securitizes the loan. After 7 years of making payments, the homeowner loses his job and defaults on the loan. The lender sends a foreclosure notice to the homeowner, claiming the ability to foreclose on the loan. But does the lender actually have the right to foreclose? The answer is a bit complicated, and does not look good for the major banks. To understand why, let’s take a closer look at exactly what the banks did and what it means for homeowners and real estate investors.

When a loan was securitized it was lumped together with a massive pool of loans and then sold in parts to investors around the world. The investors were then paid from the principal and interest payments on the loans based on their percentage of ownership. It sounds simple enough. If it was that simple, why did mortgage lenders begin the process by selling each loan in the massive pool of loans through a sequence of sales? And why was the last sale almost invariably to a single-purpose entity, usually a trust with a major bank as the trustee? The point of this sequence of sales was to separate the pool of loans from the assets and liabilities of the originating lender. They did this in case the lender was to file for bankruptcy or go into receivership. If the loan had not been completely separated from the lender, the lender could then claim the loan by right of redemption, effectively leaving the investors with nothing.

If the homeowner continues to make their payments, this is the end of the process for them until they have paid off the loan. If the homeowner misses payments and the foreclosure process begins on their loan, that’s when things get hairy. Read More→

It took a long time, but New York’s federal courts have finally ruled that forged documents don’t cut it when the banks are trying to foreclose on a homeowner! In a blistering, 30-page ruling, a federal bankruptcy judge from New York’s Southern District has slammed Wells Fargo for falsifying documents in order to foreclose on a home in Westchester County. Not only did the judge take Wells Fargo to task for trying to foreclose using falsified documents, he slammed the bank for its willingness to make up evidence after the fact in order to enforce its claims. This is a huge development for homeowners and real estate investors that could have a real impact on their ability to negotiate with banks.

It has been common knowledge that the banks were faking important documents ever since the robo-signing scandal started five years ago. For some reason, it took years before judges would stand up and forcefully reject the made up documents by the bank. The New York case is a textbook example of the fraud I have been writing about for years. Wells Fargo forged signatures and dates on the endorsement and the assignment of the note in order to foreclose. The exceptional feature of this case is that it includes the testimony of a Wells Fargo employee who was a manager of the default documents department at the time of the foreclosure. This employee admitted to signing up to 150 original documents per day as well as creating assignments when necessary. This proved to the judge that Wells Fargo had a general practice of forging documents whenever necessary in order to foreclose. Read More→

Almost every real estate investor who buys short sales or pre-foreclosures has heard this story a hundred times. A homeowner requests a loan modification from the bank, the bank grants a “temporary” modification, payments were made and accepted, then bank changes its mind and forecloses on the homeowner for not making the full, original mortgage payment. It has been happening every day since the economic crisis began, leading millions of homeowners into foreclosure. This was business as usual for years, until a recent appellate court ruling that modification offers are in fact enforceable contracts that must be honored by the banks.

In this case, Wells Fargo offered a temporary modification to a homeowner. The offer was accepted, and the trial payments were all made and accepted. Wells Fargo then disavowed the modification settlement under the claim that it lacked consideration. Wells Fargo then went ahead with the foreclosure. The trial court ruled that Wells Fargo was correct by saying that there was no consideration. The appellate court reversed that ruling, declaring that there was more than enough consideration. This ruling has led to hundreds of cases in which trial and appellate courts have enforced the modification agreements ignored by banks. Read More→

The banks are turning on each other! Over the past few years, Americans have become aware of the financial fraud that was committed against the country by the major banks. The more the public hears about the Federal Reserve spending $60-70 billion dollars every month to buy garbage loans back from the banks that created them at 100 cents on the dollar, the more upset they get. Well it looks like the banks are starting to get upset with each other, too. Bank of New York Mellon (BONY) has sued JP Morgan Chase for misrepresenting the value of a pool of loans that was sold to BONY for nearly $1 billion. You would think that BONY would expect this sort of thing from Chase. After all, it has been common knowledge for years that the banks have been lying about the values of their loans and mortgage backed securities since the beginning of the housing boom. In fact, we now have the first person testimony of a person who tried to stop the fraud at Chase.

According to Chase whistleblower Alayne Fleischmann, Chase knowingly bundled up garbage loans with good ones, slapped a good rating on them, and sold them off to investors. These garbage loans were referred to as “scratch and dent” in the industry because they were a lot like dinged up cars – worth nowhere near the same amount as cars in good condition. This isn’t just an accusation though. Chase has admitted to selling hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of these loans to investors by lying about their quality. Not only do they admit to doing this, they also admit that they were warned by people like Fleischmann that they were committing fraud by knowingly selling these mortgage backed securities. Read More→

There have been over 20 million foreclosures in the United States since 2007 and more than 5.5 million homes have been repossessed. Meanwhile the major banks have been laughing as they cash in to the tune of $65-75 BILLION dollars every month from the Federal Reserve. According to the regulators in charge of protecting our currency we should rest assured that this was all an innocent mistake. Well we now have leaked documents that show that the major banks created their tangled web of risky financial transactions not by accident, but with the specific intent of bypassing local jurisdictions’ recording requirements and taxes.

By now most real estate investors have heard of MERS as it has taken on a kind of bogey man type of presence. They might not know what it’s all about, but they know it’s bad. The concept behind MERS was fairly simple. The banks were creating so many loans and transferring ownership so much that it became an expensive nightmare to file the right documents in the right jurisdictions and pay the resulting taxes from each transaction. Instead of doing the honest and ethical thing – paying the taxes and filing the paperwork properly – more than 25 of the largest financial institutions and insurance agencies in the nation teamed up to create MERS, Inc. When a loan was originated, MERS would appear as the owner. Meanwhile, in the back office system of MERS, actual ownership and administration of the loan would be bought and sold countless times without the local jurisdictions or borrowers ever being notified, thus allowing the bank to avoid the taxes and document filing that were legally required. Read More→

Another day, another court ruling against the banksters who have fraudulently foreclosed on millions of homes! I have been writing about how the courts have been wising up to the games the banks have been playing to foreclose on properties that they have no claim to, and the latest ruling is one of the biggest. The Federal 6th Circuit Court in Ohio has cleared away a major hurdle that has stopped a lot of homeowners in their tracks.

In many homeowners’ cases, a major claim is that their note never made it into the trust that the foreclosing bank is acting as the servicer for. As soon as the homeowner makes their initial charge that the loan never made it into the trust, the bank would respond saying that, since the homeowner is not an owner or investor in the trust, they have no standing to challenge the validity of the transactions that purport to transfer the note into the trust. Since they have no standing to demand to see the chain of title on the note, their main claim is tossed out by the court, and their case is dismissed.

The 6th Circuit Court’s has ruled that the homeowner DOES in fact have the standing to challenge title and therefore the validity of the transactions that claim to show the note belonging to the trust. Not only that, but the court found that whether or not the homeowner had previously defaulted on his mortgage. The court was incredibly forceful in their ruling, almost recommending a RICO action against the banks. Read More→

In the last four months alone we have negotiated 28 1st mortgages and have successfully negotiated at least a 35% discount in the mortgage balance on all 28! In addition, we have eliminated all of the 2nd and 3rd mortgages. We have been saying for years that the lenders have perpetrated significant fraud in virtually every mortgage written in the last 20 years. The media has led us to believe that the foreclosure disaster is coming to an end. They have even blamed the homeowners for causing the mortgage implosion.

It was almost eight years ago that the foreclosure crisis began. More than 5 million homes were lost to foreclosure during those eight years, many of them belonging to real estate investors who are no longer in business. But things are looking up, right? According to CoreLogic the national foreclosure rate is at 1.7%, down from 2.5% last year. The rate of foreclosure starts is at 2006 levels, and the number of foreclosed homes being sold is back to 2008 levels. So why are many analysts now preparing for those numbers to shoot back up in the next year?

The answer is simple. The government created a bunch of temporary relief programs to try to stop the onslaught of foreclosures without actually fixing the problem. Instead of focusing on principal reduction, they focused on temporarily reducing payments. Over 300,000 homeowners’ HAMP payments will increase next year alone, with 2 million set to increase over the next few years. 40% of those 2 million homes are still underwater. Read More→