View Single Post
Old 09-03-2009, 06:59 AM   #10 (permalink)
Social Apocalypse
Senior Member
  
 
Social Apocalypse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 526
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Social Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant futureSocial Apocalypse has a brilliant future
Re: If Lenders Don't Respond To Rescission?

I would rescind as soon as possible, tipping off the attorneys will not be a problem, because if your rescission is VALID, there will be NOTHING they can do. The violations either exist or they don't. No amount of "preparation" will change anything. Contracts are contracts.

A TILA/REG Z violation that causes a right to rescind to three years is actually VERY specific and limited. You must have ONLY a violation to your material disclosures (these are all listed on ONE page, your "Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement" that you signed at closing) and in the actual notices of right to rescind you recieved (or DIDN'T recieve) and their content. THAT'S IT, (unless you have a HOEPA LOAN, then there are a few other things).

If your numbers on your TILA Disc. don't compute within the margins outlined in regulation Z, then you have a valid rescission.

Here is the nightmare that is currently happening to me:
my rescission is valid. I rescinded properly for valid violations.
Yesterday, I consulted with a very good attorney in my state (I had to travel 200 miles to speak to her and it cost me a lot of money for just one hour)
She confirmed that tho my rescission IS valid, I won't be able to be successful if I cannot TENDER THE LOAN because IN THE 9th CIRCUIT COURT (where we are) there is a case referred to as the "Yamamoto case" (occurred in 2003) where the court upheld their rescission CONDITIONALLY on the borrower's ability to tender the loan. This is in direct opposition to what the TILA law states, and there has been MUCH controversy about it, but as yet, nobody has been successful in overturning this precedent in practice.

So the judge (I am told) will say, "Yes, you got hosed on this loan, they are laughing all the way to the bank on the glaring violations on your TILA Disclosure, but it doesn't matter, because now that the loan has BROKEN you finanancially, you can't qualify for a loan to tender the rescission because you are about to file bankruptcy to keep your house, and that will give you destroyed credit for the first time in your life, and nobody will give you a loan."

Make sense? Well, I cried for hours. I have worked so hard.

The law should make the crooked lender MAKE me a new loan.

I advise you to get GOOD legal advise early on, and insist on an attorney who practices in predatory lending litigation and KNOWS the judges they will be appearing before and what they will likely have happen.

I was also told in no uncertain terms that my mistakes might be there, but the judge would probably deny the rescission because I waited so long to do it, I mean, WHAT TOOK ME SO LONG? Why didn't I do it before?

I didn't know the decision to uphold the black-and-white evidence of a TILA/Reg Z violation was influenced by the judges opinion of whether or not I "deserved" to rescind based on my "reasons for doing it". I thought that my reasons for doing it were because it existed. Period.

Anyway, yesterday was a very bad day for me. Very bad. GOOD LUCK TO YOU.
__________________
Another Paramount Equity Mortgage Customer who may soon be living in a van down by the river:
Washington State Reaches Settlement Agreement With Paramount Equity Mortgage

SAVE AMERICA: STOP PAYING SERVICERS TO FORECLOSE!

Follow Me On Twitter @SocialApocalyps
Social Apocalypse is online now   Share with Facebook