You got the loan didn't you? Maybe not.

*

OK so let’s address that. It is quite natural to think that in ordinary circumstances that a loan was made and therefore some amount of money is due to somebody. So how do we address that natural bias? Allow me to play with that here.

*

The presumption that a loan was made is just that — a presumption. It isn’t a fact unless the alleged borrower agrees he received money and that it was a loan transaction — or it is proven (which never happens). It is a conclusive presumption in the absence of a challenge by the borrower because that is how our system works. It takes the customary experience and makes it into a presumption.

*

And clearly the fact that the borrower executed documents that are considered to be part of a loan agreement, raises two presumptions. The first is that there was money paid and the second is that it was a loan. And in the context of what we were all accustomed to seeing in the marketplace and what we were all taught in law school this is reasonable and almost unassailable presumption. Almost. It is still presumption which means that theoretically at least it is subject to rebuttal.

*

All presumptions fail if the court finds that the source of documents used as the basis for the presumption of particular facts come from a source that is suspicious or not credible. The fact that documents come from an interested party does not in and of itself result in the failure of a presumption if the documents are otherwise deemed to be trustworthy.

*

So on what basis could a homeowner claim there was no loan or even deny that a loan of money was made? The fact that the homeowner believes that in the refinancing no money actually exchanged hands is clearly insufficient to challenge anything. So is there anything to this?

*

Well to begin with the homeowner actually has no idea what happend at the “loan closing.” But one thing we know for sure is that no loan closing involves any money until after the closing. The documents are signed in the expectation of consideration not upon the receipt of consideration. And since the homeowner is not party to anything that happens after closing, the homeowner is without knowledge as to whether there was money paid, and if so, to whom or why. So his proper response to any implied or actual representation or allegation of a payment of money is that he is without knowledge and accordingly denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

*

This should probably be added to the Answer wherever it is possible to do so such as “Defendant denies knowledge and accordingly denies the implied allegation that money was paid and demand strict proof thereof.”

*

This procedurally puts the matter in issue although not plausibly in the eyes of any judge. Thus the door is open for discovery as to payment contemporaneous with closing, by whom to whom and in what amount. Proof of payment will reveal in nearly all cases that the money came by wire transfer from an intermediary for an investment bank and not from any account owned or controlled by the named originator.

*

Based on that fact the homeowner could establish that there was no consideration between the homeowner and the originator — unless the originator could establish that it was operating as agent for the investment bank.

*

The problem of course is that nobody has ever received an answer to that demand in discovery.  So you need to get an order compelling an answer and then sanctions for failure to comply and then an order in limine preventing the foreclosure mill from introducing any evidence to the effect that value was paid by the originator. You are certainly entitled to an inference, if not a presumption, that no value was paid.

*

And at trial, if there was one, failure to object based upon lack of foundation would be fatal to the homeowner who would have given up his hard won gains in one swift fell swoop.

*

Assuming money was paid by someone, next is the issue of whether it was a loan. This seems obvious so it is a steep climb to get a judge to think otherwise. But let’s look at this.

*

The documentation was presented as a loan but was that presentation a disguise for another different transaction that the homeowner knew nothing about? Who were the parties to that transaction? What was the nature of the transaction? What were the terms of the transaction?

*

The only way you can bring this into an issue of fact is by denying (not denying knowledge) the implied allegation that the execution of the note and mortgage was part of a loan transaction. You’ll need an affidavit that says it was something else. That puts the matter in issue and then subject to discovery as stated above but the judge is going to be highly skeptical of what appears to be a slam dunk.

*

So it is better practice to not only deny the implied allegation but affirmative assert (affirmative defense) that it was a disguised transaction (violating TILA disclosure, RESPA and alter FDCPA) in which the homeowner’s signature, name, reputation and property were used in a plan that was entirely devoted to selling securities such that the end result was that nobody was holding an asset receivable reflecting the principal or interest due on the alleged “loan.”

*

In short the risk of loss was eliminated and nobody suffers financial injury from nonpayment. In fact, all parties on the back end were paid and are getting paid. Again that puts the theory in issue and opens the discovery door which terrifies the banks even though most foreclosure mills are not knowledgeable enough to recognize the danger of such a defense.

*

To spice things up, the homeowner should allege that had proper disclosure been made he would have a choice of potential counterparties to such a securities issuer agreement and then bargained (quantum meruit) for more compensation than the mere receipt of a sum of money that had to be repaid. And in fact there is actual evidence out there that this is exactly what is happening — with the offers of payment of closing costs, no interest for 6 months, etc. The homeowner simply doesn’t know why such offers are being made.

*

And to further spice things up you seek damages in the affirmative defense for violations of all relevant statutes, including securities statutes because the securities issued included the note and mortgage which were converted into securities. Remember that the statute of limitations does not apply to affirmative defenses which are limited in recovery to the amount sought by the claimant, plus attorney fees. (recoupment)

*

Once again you will never get a response to discovery so you need to go through the process of compelling response,, sanctions motion in limine and objections in court. And you argue that you are entitled to an inference that the execution of the note and mortgage was merely a ruse for the commencement of a transaction that the homeowner (never refer to them as “borrower”) knew nothing about.

*

And so you arrive at the conclusion that the scheme was about the business of issuing of securities without which no payment would ever have occurred for any purpose by the parties who are supposedly involved in what they called a “loan” and which they want the court to treat as a “loan” even though nobody owns the debt because everyone has already been paid. Nobody who paid value ever received ownership of the debt, note or mortgage. And nobody who received  an instrument of conveyance ever paid value. It was all a ruse to create the appearance of a foreclosure when in fact they were seeking profit.

*

The homeowner is not getting a free house. The homeowner is getting what the investment bank deemed was “enough” to compensate the homeowner for his consent to the sale of his name, signature, reputation and home data. Maybe that compensation was enough and maybe it wasn’t.

*

But what we do know is that the homeowner never had a chance to bargain for anything different and that the investment banks and all players in the issuance and trading of securities and all players in foreclosure have generated revenue and net income far in excess of what they claim to be a loan and far greater than what they should have disclosed if in fact the execution of the note and mortgage was a loan closing.

*

Since they didn’t disclose it and they refused to be identified as lenders, they should not then be allowed to treat the transaction as a loan. Their failure to disclose was an admission that they were not lending money and that their business model did not require repayment from the homeowner. The foreclosure therefore is the continuing pursuit of profit rather than repayment of a debt, which is not owned by anyone as an asset receivable on any books of account. In short it is not a foreclosure nor even a proper cause of action — because there is no cause of action for loss of expected profit unless there is a contract expressly providing for it.

*