The lender is not the party named as you think
The arguments brought into court by your attorney must be within the confines of a well pleaded complaint. Hence the US homeowner needs to know what happened after they received a mortgage.
There is a very fine line between a sham business transaction and a legitimate one. It’s not the attorneys or the courts that need to get up to speed in this fourth year of the foreclosure crisis. It is the CPA’s who are filing tax payer returns and who are not talking to the IRS for clarification.
Our take on the matter is the only analysis that is soundly based upon a volume of substantive evidence.
Who is the note holder?
This question cannot be answered posed as a precedent to subsequent transfers. It must be addressed under the scrutiny of a subsequent events analysis. This is imperative as the party named in the note as the borrower is not one in the same with the obligor.
Why is this important?
Because the obligor cannot benefit from the proceeds of the financing he receives with the household’s authorization and or implied understanding that is documented accordingly and is discoverable.
What does that mean?
The loan you received harkens back to the great depression and time when this type of financing arrangement was cause for unscrupulous lenders to take advantage of title. Herein we attest to an abundance of evidence that highly disguised loopholes in the mortgage banking system both (a) do exist and (b) were in fact exploited..
No lender would ever get into a scheme that clearly demonstrates the transaction causes his claims in a defaukt fail under the rights of a surety claim. In a surety claim, the borrower is obligated to a debtor and the debtor is the affirmed obligor to a succession of obligors.
People, your effort to enjoin the transaction merits the arguments for a gratuitous surety. The surety argument will not survive in light of the evidence for something else believed to have occurred in the alternative.
A well pleaded complaint will go beyond the obvious, presumed and even the appearance of a verifiable fraud. Why? Misunderstanding for one set of deal terms alleging a fraud may not be the correct portrayal of the matter whereby the alternative explains how the parties were compliant.
Irreparable harm is impossible to prove if you’re the party held to breach the agreement. Irreparable harm is somewhat a better chance to prove if your claims prove “they” are the party held to breach the agreement. Of course, right?
Wrong! Irreparable harm is more likely to succeed if it can be shown the parties willfully breach the agreement, as is or in the alternative for claims, whereby you’re seeking enforcement to avoid loss
Our conclusions are, the lender is not the party named to the promissory note as you think. If this can be shown than concern yourself next with the purpose for filing claims. Are you filing claims for repudiation or enforcement.
Arguments state the note holder is a borrower only to the time the title holder is released from title. The devices and instrumentality use to corrupt the transaction are being applied again as the only means available to resurrect title. If so, and this is the case, enjoin the parties and enforce the transaction as it reads. This is the job for the attorneys. Hence, get the court to enforce the provisions of the transaction with no requirement to consider at what cost to either party.
Herein you will find the prayer for enforcement a far greater cost to the opposition. Consider where they now must stumble for a whole new itinerary of affirmative defenses under a common law courts ability to decide the equitable elements as applied by letter of law.
If you cannot use Mers and a stubborn court to repudiate for claims of a materially altered contract for example, then perhaps merit rests in counter claims the opposition is relying upon. My take on this is to use the simple mortgage electronic method of recording as an asset in claims and to seek judgment to enforce an agreement and not to denounce a materially altered contract.