Artwork

内容由THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
Player FM -播客应用
使用Player FM应用程序离线!

Elevator Pitch on Foreclosure Defense

30:00
 
分享
 

Manage episode 321826378 series 2453550
内容由THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
So the Defense in your case is that there is no claim, that the named designated claimant is a nominee and has no claim, and that the designated company claiming to be a servicer is not servicing (i.e., it does not receive, account for or disburse payments from homeowners) and has no authority to declare a default much less prove that a default occurred --- i.e., that the designated claimant suffered some actual economic injury arising from nonpayment that can be corroborated by admissible evidence. And just to put a finer point on it, I strongly recommend that it should be brought against the named Bank and not "as trustee" for anything. This is because the basic premise of your defense is that there is no trust that owns any underlying obligation owed by you to the trust. Your secondary defense is that there is no underlying obligation owed to the Bank. And your third line of defense is that any agency authority claimed by a company that has been designated as a "servicer" is irrelevant and immaterial and therefore not admissible into evidence unless the principal (US Bank) owns an underlying unpaid obligation due from the homeowner to U.S. Bank. See 9-203 UCC. You do NOT advance some theory of securitization except as context. DO not attempt to try to prove the way the current iteration of securitization operates. You will fail. But if you attack the simple most basic elements of the claim against you at the earliest possible time you will usually win the case --- simply because there is no claim and no viable claimant.
  continue reading

300集单集

Artwork
icon分享
 
Manage episode 321826378 series 2453550
内容由THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
So the Defense in your case is that there is no claim, that the named designated claimant is a nominee and has no claim, and that the designated company claiming to be a servicer is not servicing (i.e., it does not receive, account for or disburse payments from homeowners) and has no authority to declare a default much less prove that a default occurred --- i.e., that the designated claimant suffered some actual economic injury arising from nonpayment that can be corroborated by admissible evidence. And just to put a finer point on it, I strongly recommend that it should be brought against the named Bank and not "as trustee" for anything. This is because the basic premise of your defense is that there is no trust that owns any underlying obligation owed by you to the trust. Your secondary defense is that there is no underlying obligation owed to the Bank. And your third line of defense is that any agency authority claimed by a company that has been designated as a "servicer" is irrelevant and immaterial and therefore not admissible into evidence unless the principal (US Bank) owns an underlying unpaid obligation due from the homeowner to U.S. Bank. See 9-203 UCC. You do NOT advance some theory of securitization except as context. DO not attempt to try to prove the way the current iteration of securitization operates. You will fail. But if you attack the simple most basic elements of the claim against you at the earliest possible time you will usually win the case --- simply because there is no claim and no viable claimant.
  continue reading

300集单集

모든 에피소드

×
 
Loading …

欢迎使用Player FM

Player FM正在网上搜索高质量的播客,以便您现在享受。它是最好的播客应用程序,适用于安卓、iPhone和网络。注册以跨设备同步订阅。

 

快速参考指南