Soliman asks the authors of the latest loan mod and inability to deliver class action suit the question , "So, why are your pursuing Loan Mod Fraud?"
The claims are NOT simple, the two filings say: “When a large financial institution promises to modify an eligible loan to prevent foreclosure, homeowners who live up to their end of the bargain expects that promise to be kept.”The issue at hand is "Tender”. Here is another wasted class action suit lacking substance for the correct and proper arguments.
Counsel, you have earned my monthly “WTF" award for failing to realize the lenders generous offers are just that. . A source of tender and mere proposition for an offer to assist. God Bless them.Now the offers are made, albeit under a Fed and State (CC {} 2923.56) mandate. Once again a sucker is born every day. Your original lender is broke and gone, the trustee of record replaced by a debt collector, one of the critical recording instruments makes NO logical sense and the transfer by Grant Deed upon sale stinks of something the pride of Chicago, Al Capone, would never participate in.
And you are pursuing Loan Mod Fraud?
With the issue of Modifications, I side with the lender. We know the matter will always come down to a financial capacity argument. And you are trying to qualify for avoiding the judicial right of a lender to a recovery by going to the "Loan Mod Squad" to asset you.Read 1122AB and that’s all I will say about that!
Look, a lender in an economic bail plan that has "parties of a lost interest sold long ago" with their backs against the wall Questions proposed to set the matter for early hearings and dismissal will be - - - "could the borrower offer recognized tender to either
a) Cure the foreclosure or
b) Offer an amount a court could determine to be sufficient consideration.
A lender that assists in a modification effort is not acting as a fiduciary and how many times has a judge told us this. Under the doctrine of "caveat emptor", the borrower could not recover from the lenders transfers and securities registration defects on the property that rendered the loan and obligation unaffordable.
A so too will the court speak to the fact known in Latin as "you-snooze- loose" or pay attention.
So the property is now unfit for ordinary purposes subject to your lack of capacity and market conditions and appraisal changes and NOT THE LENDERS FAULT!
The only exception was if the Lender actively concealed material information and you prove latent defects or target material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.Okay, hear the judge tell you, call a cop, see the DA and "get out" of your home as you lost possession.The caveat emptor rule applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer) and I am using it for the clients advantage in a "lease to own" botched securitization. Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this.
Before statutory law, the debtor had no warranty of the quality of goods or in these case services. In many jurisdictions now, the law requires that goods or services must be of a condition of earnest and quality. However, this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce and may not apply to the exact extent of the law as for mortgage products. Hence, borrowers then and now are still advised to be cautious.
Its funny, when you consider that according to the definitions I researched - - -In addition to the quality of the merchandise, this phrase also applies to the return policy. In most jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for the vendor to provide a refund or exchange. In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide a credit.
So does a modification fall into to a legal category of judicial question as to tangible assets and defects to title? Tough question I will surrender to my Ivy League bearded scholars can help out with the correct response over the years to come.
For now the question of tender and capacity will govern these cases and the lender is sitting on prime USDA evidential material, and all thanks to you and the willingness to once again fall into their trap. It’s called the “Loan Mod Fraud" that you perpetrated against yourself.
M.Soliman
Expert. Witness to Counsel
expert.witness@live.com
References:
Homeowners « Livinglies's Weblog
Plaintiff: Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., by Deborah M. Gallo, Esq. Defendant: Western New York Law Center by Denetra Williams, Esq. ...livinglies.wordpress.com/in-trouble-right-now-press-here/ - 8 hours ago - Cached - Similar
Public Notices | www.amityvillerecord.com | Amityville Record
Sweeney, Gallo, Reich & Bolz, LLP Attorney(s) for Plaintiff 95-25 Queens Blvd., Suite 626, ... Attorney (s) for Plaintiff (s): ROSICKI, ROSICKI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., ... ASSETBACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Plaintiff against DEBORAH VERYZER, .... Dated October 14, 2009 William M. McInerney, Secretary Board of Fire ..www.amityvillerecord.com/common/legals/Public_Notices_010.html - Cached
USFN | Member Directory
Firm Name: Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. ... Fax: (516) 741-4748. Email: crosicki@rosicki.com. Deborah M. Gallo, Esq. Phone: (585) 815-0288 ...www.usfn.org/source/members/DirectoryProfile.cfm?id=16196... - Cached
Debra Gallo & Associates Inc. | Boutique Marketing Agency | Design ...
is a boutique marketing agency and design firm focused on personalized service for individual accounts.
www.debragalloinc.com/ - Cached - Similar
0 comments:
Post a Comment