Upload
maranantha
View
17
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
LENDER DEFENSE TO RESCISSSION COUNTERED
Citation preview
Beach v Ocwen: 1997 Decision that will be used by banks and servicers
against rescission
Posted on April 16, 2015 by Neil Garfield
For Further information and assistance please call 954-495-9867 and 520-405-
1688.
=======================
See Beach v Ocwen Fla. Supreme Court
I have no doubt that the Banks will attempt to use this decision — but it still is
trumped by Jesinowski and other Federal decisions on equitable tolling. Having the
right to cancel/rescind is described as extinguished by TILA regardless of the
circumstances — including the absence of any enforceable loan contract.
This decision (1998) was rendered far before the idea of securitization was
introduced into mortgage litigation. The interpretation of the extinguishment of the
underlying right made sense in the context of loans from Bank A to Borrower B. In
the era of securitization you have all kinds of questions — like when the
transaction was “commenced”. The courts say it is when the “liability” arose. I
agree — if we are saying that the consummation of the transaction begins when the
lender loans money to the borrower. But in most cases we see that the lender did
not loan money to the borrower and that is corroborated by the absence of any
purchase transaction, for value, when the alleged loan is “transferred.” There is no
reasonable business explanation of why anyone would release an asset worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars without receiving payment — unless it wasn’t an
asset of the “seller” in the first place. The presumption is that TILA rescission
rights run from the date the liability arose from the Borrower to the Lender. If the
Lender was not properly disclosed, then one of two things are true: (1) there is no
loan contract which means a nullification and quiet title action is appropriate or (2)
until the real lender was disclosed, the transaction was not consummated. That
might mean that both the three day rescission and the three year rescission are in
play. If the position of the foreclosing party is that a REMIC Trust was finally
disclosed to the borrower — and that the Trust was the lender, then disclosure is
complete. But that isn’t what happened.
The ultimate decision here is going to be on the question of whether there is in fact
a loan contract, and, if so, who were the parties to it? If there was no contract, it is
the same as rescission by operation of law. No new rights arise on assignment or
even sale of the loan from a pretender lender — unless the purchase was in good
faith FOR VALUE and occurred without notice of borrower’s defenses and NOT
when the loan was already in “default.” This narrow exception arises under the
UCC for a Holder in Due Course to be Protected if they meet the narrow criteria
stated in the UCC, article 3, and the narrow enforcement criteria for the mortgage
expressed in Article 9.
The so called default is another hidden issue. If someone “acquires” the note and
mortgage where the Borrower has already not paid or stopped paying on the
alleged loan, then (1) it isn’t negotiable paper and (2) it provides notice that the
borrower might not be paying because they don’t owe the party or successor on the
note and mortgage (and never did).
When the mortgage crisis began, the banks and servicers were claiming that there
were no Trusts and that they could file suit or initiate non-judicial foreclosure
without any reference to trusts. That was why forensic audits were initially
required — when we thought that REMIC Trusts were the true players. Banks and
servicers argued convincingly in court that the Trust was irrelevant. Now in most
cases (with some notable CitiMortgage, Chase and BOA exceptions) the Plaintiff
or beneficiary is identified as a Trustee, bank or servicer (US Bank usually is the
Trustee these days) on behalf of a REMIC Trust. They are now saying that they
have the right to be in court or initiate foreclosure because (1) the Trust received an
assignment and endorsement of the note and mortgage (2) the servicer has a right
to represent and even testify for the the Trustee on the basis of the rights set forth
in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement or by virtue of Powers of Attorney that
magically appear at trial.
So the banks, servicers and their attorneys are side-stepping the issue of
consummation of the transaction. They are withholding the information
where the right of rescission would first become apparent to the borrower.
When they withhold the information longer than 3 years from the date of the
purported “loan closing”, they claim the right of rescission has expired. That
is cynical and circular reasoning. That “closing” may be the point in time that
the borrower’s “liability” arose, but the liability did NOT arise with the
creditor being the party named on the note, mortgage and required disclosure
documents.
Instead, the Payee was a naked nominee regardless of whether the “lender” was a
thinly capitalized mortgage broker or a 150 year old bank.
Neither one loaned the money. In both cases there were using money essentially
stolen from clueless investors on Wall Street who advanced money for the
purchase of shares (mortgage backed securities) issued by an unregistered Trust
that existed only on paper, had no bank account, and never received the proceeds
of the shares that were supposedly sold to pension funds and other “investors”
(actually victims of a fraudulent scheme).
The real answer is, as I have repeatedly said, that there was no loan contract and
therefore the note and mortgage were induced to sign by both fraud in the
inducement and fraud in the execution. But the courts may turn to a foggier notion
that the disclosures were intentionally withheld and that this entitles the borrower
to equitable tolling of the 3 day or three year statute of limitations. It seems highly
doubtful that the US Supreme Court will reverse itself.
If they deny equitable tolling by allowing stonewalling from the Banks then no
new Bank would be able to enter the picture which is the whole purpose of the
TILA rescission. While courts might find the argument from the banks and
servicers as appealing, history shows that the US Supreme Court is just as
likely to effectively reverse thousands of decisions based upon the wrong
premise that rules and doctrines for common law rescission can be applied to
TILA rescission.
Yet my point goes further. The express wording of the TILA rescission as affirmed
by a unanimous Supreme court in Jesinowski is that the rescission is effective by
operation of law when it is dropped in the mailbox — and that there is nothing
else required by the borrower. If the “lender” wants to challenge that rescission it
must do so before the 20 day deadline for compliance — return of canceled note,
satisfaction of mortgage and disgorgement of all money paid. This makes it very
clear that stonewalling or bringing up defenses later when the borrower seeks to
enforce the rescission is not permissible. The idea behind TILA rescission has been
to allow a borrower to cancel one transaction and replace it with another — which
means that title is clear for a new lender to offer a first or second mortgage free
from claims of the prior pretender lender.
Thus the expected defense from the banks and servicers is going to be that the
rescission was void ab initio because of the statute of limitations or some other
reason. But these are affirmative defenses which is to say they are pleas for
affirmative relief in a formal pleading with a court of competent jurisdiction. That
court does not have any jurisdiction or discretion to find that the rescission
was void ab initio if more than 20 days has expired after the notice of
cancellation or rescission was made. Thus procedurally, the express wording
of TILA and Jesinowski totally bars the banks and servicers from raising any
defenses to the effectiveness of the rescission after 20 days from the date of
notice of rescission. To interpret it any other way is to overrule Justice Scalia in
Jesinowski. It would mean that the banks and servicers and Trustees could later
bring up defenses to the rescission which would completely bar the ability of the
borrower to apply for a substitute loan. No lender is going to offer a mortgage loan
where they are taking on the risk that they are not getting the lien priority that is
required to assure payment and collateral protection.
And the reason why there is no qualifying creditor to bring the action within 20
days will be taken up in an upcoming article “What if a Broker Sold an IPO and
Kept the Proceeds? — The True Explanation of Securitization Fail.” Also see
Adam Levitin on that.