Hypocrisy of Bank Arguments — Borrowers Bound by PSA But Can't Challenge it

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

====================

Suburb Brief Filed in California — Arguments to be used in any state

see Replybriefasfiled3-19-2015

Lawyers are getting better and better at confronting the specious arguments of the banks. The time is nearing when we realize as a nation that the foreclosure crisis was a sham — a fraudulent scheme to benefit the banks and the executives who run them.

Amongst many compelling arguments in this Brief filed in California is the hypocrisy of the bank arguments about whether the borrower can challenge the right to foreclose and even the validity of the mortgage based upon the PSA. Their idea is that the borrower can’t challenge the validity of the note and mortgage based upon the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Their reason is very attractive to Judges at first because their reason is that the borrower could not possibly be able to enforce a document or agreement to which the borrower was not a party.

This brief tears that arguments into pieces better than anything I have done on these pages. The writer cites the fact that the same bank making the argument that the borrower has no rights to challenge based upon the provisions of the PSA is, in the same case, trying to argue that the borrower is bound by the provisions of the PSA. That by all accounts makes the borrower a party who has obligations under the PSA and therefore a party who has rights to challenge those obligations. The banks want to pick up one of the stick without picking up the other. It can’t be done.

Hence the violation of the PSA in the origination or acquisition of a loan must inevitably lead to a burden of proof that those transactions actually took place in the chain relied upon by the banks; it also must also inevitably lead to the conclusion that the borrower must be allowed to challenge the existence of non-existent transactions presumed by fabricated documents that were never actually used — BECAUSE the bank is saying that the “Trust” took ownership of the loan by virtue of the the terms of the PSA.  Otherwise US Bank as Trustee for whoever, has no standing in court.

I consider this argument incontrovertible.

Tags: PSA, third party beneficiary
Posted in Uncategorized |