Since I am making the point repeatedly in emails and calls I thought I might bring it up on the blog.I have changed one of my suggested strategies and I no longer recommend the immediate introduction of the term “pretender lender.”
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE USE OF THE WORDS “CREDITOR” AND “LENDER”.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE USE OF THE WORDS “LENDER, “SERVICER”, “REAL PARTY IN INTEREST” ETC. AND “NON-BANK.”
Here’s the deal. If you use the word “lender” you are already conveying the sense that this is a legitimate loan, that your opposition is a party “in interest” who has advanced funds to the homeowner borrower, and that you are trying to dance your away around the inevitable. Anything you say after that is an attempt to regain ground you already lost. So object when they use the wrong terms and don’t fall into the trap of using the wrong terms yourselves.
It is far more accurate to refer to your opposition as a non-bank participant in the securitization scheme.
It is often the case that the parties seeking foreclosures are NOT banks or any kind of financial institutions. But even if the opposition says they represent “Wells Fargo” you should remind the court that Wells Fargo is acting in a non-bank capacity — they neither advanced funds nor processed the loan.
Then when you say you are seeking the identity of the creditor, the court won’t be confused. And by pounding on your opposition with the correct statement that they are a non-creditor seeking to enforce the mortgage without any interest in the note, it becomes clearer to the court as well.
Words make a difference. If you want to use the term “pretender lender” bring it up AFTER you have properly introduced the subject. This is a CHANGE FROM PRIOR SUGGESTIONS I HAVE MADE. Experience reported to me from lawyers and pro se litigants in court indicates that the words “pretender lender” are cute and might make a point, but not until you are fairly sure that you have the judge on your side or at least wavering.


