The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall on Post-Jesinoski Strategies

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The West Coast Radio Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall, featuring Investigator Bill Paatalo.

Bill Paatalo’s Revised Appeal: Paatalo Final Appeal Reply Brief – TILA

Bill Paatalo’s Opening Appeal Brief: Opening Appeal Brief – Oregon – TILA

Illinois Rescission Case: Illinois Appeal – TILA Rescission

The rescission is ALWAYS effective upon mailing and must be vacated or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction upon the filing of timely claims by a party with legal standing.

Neil Garfield states, “You can compare rescission to foreclosure. When the sale is complete and the deed is issued,  the event has happened. It is no longer a claim. Even if the sale can be voided because of a void assignment or whatever, the sale still has happened.”  He reinforces that, “The sale is in its history and it in the chain of title.”  See Neil Garfield’s Recent Rescission post here.

A rescission is ACCOMPLISHED when it is dropped in the mail, and it then becomes a historical event that happened. “ANY decision that implies or states that rescission was not effective because of this or that is wrong. The rescission is effective even if it was wrong, because it happened by operation of law,” Garfield reminds homeowners that the Supreme Court of the United States made this ruling with the intent that the banks would play by the rules by providing homeowners with the option to rescind. SCOTUS was very clear that by dropping a letter in the mail to rescind the loan, that a lender with standing had 20 days to oppose the rescission, otherwise it stands.

The ONLY entity who can sue to vacate the rescission is a party with legal standing. Since the rescission IS effective if unopposed, the note and mortgage are void. “That means they can’t use the note and mortgage to establish standing,” claims Garfield, because, “THAT is jurisdictional!!”

Investigator Bill Paatalo rescinded his note and mortgage and is waiting for the 9^th Circuit to issue a decision on his rescission.  Paatalo looks to Jesinoski and Yamamoto vs. Bank of New York, 329 F. 23d. 1167, which held that when the creditor acquiesces or fails to respond within the 20 (twenty) day response period, rescission is accomplished automatically when the consumer has given notice.   Paatalo points out that no such condition is imposed either by statute or by interpretation.  In his Appeal, he argues that the lower court erred in

imposing one.  His case is simply that direct.  Furthermore, a contract is voidable if it violates public policy (Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., dba Mt. Bachelor Ski and Summer Resort, 2014 Ore. LEXIS 99.

In Paatalo’s compliant he states that Jesinoski says plainly that “the language leaves no doubt that rescission is effective when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind. “The Court also says that there is no condition precedent to rescission at law, and that the act does not imply rescission in equity.  2 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 9.3(3).  “The clear import of1635(a) is that a borrower need only provide written notice to a lender in order to exercise his right to rescind.  This is all Appellant was required to do.

Paatalo also believes that there is a common misfire in arguing that rescission applies to loans that were table funded due to lack of consummation. If the contracts are void and unenforceable due to being table-funded or never consummated, then there is nothing to rescind.

Eric Mains, a former FDIC team leader, recently discovered an investor case where the investors rescinded all the bunk loans it was sold by a party who didn’t own the loans it sold the investors.  Livinglies has reached out to Eric Mains and asked him to provide information about this case in the near future.

Charles Marshall, Esq.

Law Office of Charles T. Marshall

415 Laurel St., #405

San Diego, CA 92101

cmarshall@marshallestatelaw.com

Phone 619.807.2628

Investigator Bill Paatalo

Office: (406) 328-4075

bill.bpia@gmail.com

www.bpinvestigativeagency.com

Posted in Uncategorized |