WHY LIVINGLIES AND ITS ATTORNEYS MAY BE LIABLE TO CONSUMERS . . .

Its unconscionable for a popular web site to offer to assist with its army of attorneys when they were not on the correct page.

The popular blog site gave various undocumented and far fetched legal antidotes and unproven methods of aiding persons in foreclosure. None of these remedies ever dealt with the  problematic issues of a borrower not paying  its mortage and C.F.R. 1.751 Constructive Liquidation.

The common law courts have long held the Innocent thrid party purchaser doctrine. That is a third party investor  who is brought into a scheme is always entitled to its money returned. This is exactly what banks were banking on sort to speak. Having the courts enforce the innocent thrid party purchaser rule when in fact there was no thrid party the court could identify

MERS Corp is that phantom party the represents the divestiture of the asset.  In divestment there is no innocent third party as the borrowers equity is transferred to corpus and amortized down to zero over the next ten years from funding.  The I.R.C. Section 1033 ; 180 (i) ; 61 (a) (1) and C.F.R. 1.751 are certain to this fact – that all foreclosures must be part of a constructive liquidation at zero .

Accordingly you cannot foreclose on a zero balance and this is the contention the popular web site never grasped nor provided to its readers.

For more information write registerclaims@live.com

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s