Artwork

Content provided by THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Why most mortgage liens are void: Back to Basics --- Two schemes, One Contract

31:00
 
Share
 

Manage episode 269150162 series 2453550
Content provided by THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
The simple fact that lies at the root of most foreclosures is that the underlying obligation was never purchased or sold, and in most cases not even from the homeowner. The fact that the homeowner recieved money is not conclusive that the reason the hoemowner received money is that it was part of a valid loan agreement. If lawyers and homeowners want to win cases filed for enforcement of mortgages or deed of trust (foreclosures) then they must understand and use the fact that the homeowner agreed to two contracts --- not one. Operating parrallel to the apparent loan agreement was a concealed securitization agreement. Both are fatally deficient (unenforceable) unless they are combined into one agreement through the legal (equitable) process of reformation. The loan agreement is fatally deficient because it purposely fails to establish an actual loan account in which the underlying debt is owned as an asset on the financial statement of some person or company. This is how the investment bank funds what appears to be a loan without ever being disclosed as a lender. Since it never receives any conveyance of the debt, note or rmotgage it is not lender and therefore not subject to any laws governing lending or servicing. But since it in fact funded the transaction but refuses to be considered a lender, the transaction is not a loan but rather something else. And because it removes every trace of funding trhough a bogus sale to itself acting under the name of a fake trust, it can't call itself a successor either. In plain langauge there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no valid loan contract and no valid securitization contract.
  continue reading

300 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 269150162 series 2453550
Content provided by THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
The simple fact that lies at the root of most foreclosures is that the underlying obligation was never purchased or sold, and in most cases not even from the homeowner. The fact that the homeowner recieved money is not conclusive that the reason the hoemowner received money is that it was part of a valid loan agreement. If lawyers and homeowners want to win cases filed for enforcement of mortgages or deed of trust (foreclosures) then they must understand and use the fact that the homeowner agreed to two contracts --- not one. Operating parrallel to the apparent loan agreement was a concealed securitization agreement. Both are fatally deficient (unenforceable) unless they are combined into one agreement through the legal (equitable) process of reformation. The loan agreement is fatally deficient because it purposely fails to establish an actual loan account in which the underlying debt is owned as an asset on the financial statement of some person or company. This is how the investment bank funds what appears to be a loan without ever being disclosed as a lender. Since it never receives any conveyance of the debt, note or rmotgage it is not lender and therefore not subject to any laws governing lending or servicing. But since it in fact funded the transaction but refuses to be considered a lender, the transaction is not a loan but rather something else. And because it removes every trace of funding trhough a bogus sale to itself acting under the name of a fake trust, it can't call itself a successor either. In plain langauge there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no valid loan contract and no valid securitization contract.
  continue reading

300 episodes

모든 에피소드

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Quick Reference Guide