Don’t Hesitate, Because the Banks Won’t! Call 844-920-7200
Articles and Court Opinions
Borrowers who do not understand law or litigation practice make enormously costly errors in defending against foreclosure when they should instead go on the attack. These articles give some vital pointers in what works.
- Staying Alert to Mortgage Fraud – FDIC.pdf (512.96 Kb)
- The Note Is All a Lender Needs to Foreclose.pdf (288.63 Kb)
- The Right to Foreclose and the UCC.pdf (686.36 Kb)
These documents cite case law (court opinions) stating what does not work. Borrowers should not depend upon these arguments for saving their homes because they ultimately lead to foreclosure.
- Cases Homeowners Lost Worthless PSA/Standing Arguments.pdf (473.64 Kb)
- Quiet Title Cases.pdf (127.53 Kb)
- Cases Homeowners Lost Arguing Securitization.pdf (306.98 Kb)
Foreclosure Case Law PDF Files
Millions of borrowers have faced loss of their homes to foreclosure since the year 2000 owing to economic downturns. We have provided this library of court opinions to show you the kinds of arguments that lose in court and the kinds that win.
The US Supreme Court’s Jesinoski opinion became famous for settling a difference of opinion between Circuit Courts of Appeal. Half held that the borrower rescinding conditionally under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) must file suit within the 3 year repose period after consummation to enforce rescission; the second half held that the borrower did not need to sue within the repose period.
The Supreme Court agreed with the second half. Trial and appellate courts across the land have struck down frivolous arguments such as that the borrower rescinds simply by sending notice even though the creditor did not violate TILA.
Tsvetana Yvanova lost her California home to foreclosure and sued for wrongful foreclosure. The Yvanova case dealt with the question of whether the borrower can challenge a deed of trust foreclosure on the basis that a wrongful assignment of the note deprived the foreclosing party of the right to foreclose.
The California Supreme Court said yes and sent the case back to the appellate court for disposition. The appellate court ruled against Yvanova. She had alleged that the note had entered the securitization trust after the closing date of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and that the bankrupt mortgage company had no right to sell the note to the securitization trust, and only the liquidation trustee had that right.
Many court opinions since Yvaonova have struck down similar frivolous argument.