general questions and re-conveyance question

[dafinch]

I was fortunate enough to have discovered this website last night, I have a few questions. First, in general, are the people who dispense advice in favor of securitized audits or some other method to expose the banks dishonesty, or are they ok with what the banks have been doing? When searching for some people that I am familiar with, I came across quite a bit of downgrading various methods, but saw no solutions being offered-possibly I just happened to search the wrong posts.

I did searches for Re-conveyances and for George Tran, and, to be fair, on the last youtube videos I could find with him, he stated frankly that he was "naive" earlier and also admitted he lost at least 1 of the houses that he thought was free and clear. However, I wondered what you guys thought of his basic contention, that a contract has 2 signatures, a meeting of the minds, full disclosure, and consideration given by both parties. It can be argued that none of those things are present during the purchase of a home.

Finally, he mentioned a reconveyance method that he learned from a lawyer(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1HPMePrUPc). The clause that he is alluding to is in all 3 Deeds of Trust on homes that my wife and I own. If there is a flaw in Tran's argument, it is not apparent to me. We contacted the lender on our own home, Guaranteed Rate, Inc. not long ago. One payment was made to them, starting in May 2012, then Wells Fargo(who, btw, just got fined about 30 million yesterday for a mortgage kick back scam, along with Chase Morgan)took over and all subsequent payments were made to WF. We sent a Conditional Acceptance about the reconveyance, and the lender was quite evasive in their 3 letters(one of which was notarize by their attorney), and mentioning that they used MERS. We countered with case law showing that MERS is more and more being deemed to having no standing(including 2 cases in our state, which is a DOT state) and invoked the Request regarding Authentic Statement of Account (UCC Article 9 § 210) which basically gives them 14 days to dispute our contention that the mortgage balance is zero with a sworn statement from a corporate officer or the company accountant. They eventually bailed, sending a letter of the events to Wells Fargo and cc'ing us that said they had no interest in either the property or the mortgage thereon. Accordingly, we've contacted the Trustee, Old Republic Title, and are asking that the property be re-conveyed. Naturally, Wells Fargo is now contacting us, and we sent them a QWR a week ago. Tran showed 3 or 4 court cases where WF was booted out of court for lack of standing and/or not having the note way back in 2010, I have no doubt that they have many more since then. This also looks like a case of 3rd party interference by them. Anyway, I'd appreciate constructive feedback, thanks in advance.

[obadiah]

I can give the simple answer if you will answer the questions below.

Q1: Did you borrow the money to buy the house? If yes:
Q2: Have you paid it back according to the terms of the contract (mortgage)? If no:

ANSWER: Pay it back.

[dafinch]

I am not particularly interested in moral issues, which, if I'm understanding you, is what you are raising. I am interested in following the law, and that goes for BOTH parties, not just me. The DOT says that if the note is paid off, it is MUST be re-conveyed, period-or, are you saying that only one side must follow the terms of the contract?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Dafinch - Tran was a looney.

The absurdity of the "conditional acceptance" ploy is that there is no legal requirement for a servicer or other financial entity to respond to such a thing, including a UCC "authentic statement of account." Their only legal obligation is to respond to QWR (RESPA) letters.

Lots of servicers have been slapped around by the courts over the years, but they don't just wander off into the sunset. They live and learn. If there is equity in the property they will keep coming after it and have even been known to create documentation that was somehow unfindable during their first try.

I would only say that with Wells Fargo as your servicer, playing games will only temporarily delay the inevitable.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I am not particularly interested in moral issues, which, if I'm understanding you, is what you are raising. I am interested in following the law, and that goes for BOTH parties, not just me. The DOT says that if the note is paid off, it is MUST be re-conveyed, period-or, are you saying that only one side must follow the terms of the contract?

Who paid off the note?

[Jeffrey]

The Department of Transportation?

[davids]

I was fortunate enough to have discovered this website last night, I have a few questions. First, in general, are the people who dispense advice in favor of securitized audits or some other method to expose the banks dishonesty, or are they ok with what the banks have been doing?

Does it matter? A lot of people "are not ok" with "what the banks have been doing." Sounds like a great sales pitch for a scam. Hey, I "dislike what the banks have been doing. Buy my snake oil!"

When searching for some people that I am familiar with, I came across quite a bit of downgrading various methods, but saw no solutions being offered-possibly I just happened to search the wrong posts.

No one has an obligation to counter your snake oil with better, or different snake oil. The law is what it is. If you don't like the law, you can try to change it through litigation (but that is a tough row to hoe), or by lobbying the legislature. I consider it a positive to "downgrade various methods" (who talks like this? Beldar is that you?) if those methods are not supported by law and will ultimately fail.

I did searches for Re-conveyances and for George Tran, and, to be fair, on the last youtube videos I could find with him, he stated frankly that he was "naive" earlier and also admitted he lost at least 1 of the houses that he thought was free and clear. However, I wondered what you guys thought of his basic contention, that a contract has 2 signatures, a meeting of the minds, full disclosure, and consideration given by both parties. It can be argued that none of those things are present during the purchase of a home.

Finally, he mentioned a reconveyance method that he learned from a lawyer(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1HPMePrUPc). The clause that he is alluding to is in all 3 Deeds of Trust on homes that my wife and I own. If there is a flaw in Tran's argument, it is not apparent to me. We contacted the lender on our own home, Guaranteed Rate, Inc. not long ago. One payment was made to them, starting in May 2012, then Wells Fargo(who, btw, just got fined about 30 million yesterday for a mortgage kick back scam, along with Chase Morgan)took over and all subsequent payments were made to WF. We sent a Conditional Acceptance about the reconveyance, and the lender was quite evasive in their 3 letters(one of which was notarize by their attorney), and mentioning that they used MERS. We countered with case law showing that MERS is more and more being deemed to having no standing(including 2 cases in our state, which is a DOT state) and invoked the Request regarding Authentic Statement of Account (UCC Article 9 § 210) which basically gives them 14 days to dispute our contention that the mortgage balance is zero with a sworn statement from a corporate officer or the company accountant. They eventually bailed, sending a letter of the events to Wells Fargo and cc'ing us that said they had no interest in either the property or the mortgage thereon. Accordingly, we've contacted the Trustee, Old Republic Title, and are asking that the property be re-conveyed. Naturally, Wells Fargo is now contacting us, and we sent them a QWR a week ago. Tran showed 3 or 4 court cases where WF was booted out of court for lack of standing and/or not having the note way back in 2010, I have no doubt that they have many more since then. This also looks like a case of 3rd party interference by them. Anyway, I'd appreciate constructive feedback, thanks in advance.

Constructively, hire a lawyer. One who knows foreclosure law. Not one who runs a loan modification shop, not a disbarred lawyer, not a paralegal, not a real estate broker fallen on hard times, not a repurposed loan salesman either. A real walking talking lawyer.

No one is going to give you advice on an internet forum. This particular lawyer isn't even going to bother watching your youtube video which is (likely) full of wishful thinking approaches to mortgage law that involve something other than actual mortgage law. But I can spot some red herrings already...such as being concerned about a bank having standing. If there are only 3 or 4 cases where that was an issue, what does that tell you? And, oh, Article 9 of the UCC concerns secured interests in personal property. So unless someone is foreclosing on fixtures, e.g., bannisters, built in fridges and the like, not a whole lot of traction to be had there.

Sorry if the response seems a little snooty, but come on now, if you were here in good faith you would not be considering any of that pseudo legal garbage to begin with, to put it blunt.

[davids]

The Department of Transportation?

Well, it is a "conveyance." Hey, I could have just started a whole new legal myth!

[dafinch]

Sometimes I read documents or laws and have a hard time understanding what is actually being said, however, the following phrase seems pretty clear:

"“Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall instruct Trustee to release this Security Instrument and surrender all notes evidencing debt secured by this Security Instrument to Trustee. Trustee shall release this security instrument.”

It doesn't say that the borrower has to pay all sums, it says when it's paid, it's re-conveyed, period. Doesn't matter if it's paid by My Cousin Vinny, the guy who runs "Who Wants To Be A Millionire, or...Wells Fargo, who is obviously who paid it off. I don't know if anybody bothered to watch the video, but in contract low, if the terms of a contract are ambiguous, you penalize the guy who wrote the contract, obviously to discourage ambiguous contracts-and we didn't write the contract, they did. And the following phrase by GRI's lawyer, IMO, screams "I'm not gonna perjure myself."

"“GRl lacks sufficient information to form a knowledge or belief as to the truth or falsity of this statement and. therefore, neither admits nor denies the same(regarding the contention that the property was not reconveyed in 2012 as it should have been)."

THEY don't have sufficient knowledge?!?! Doesn't it sound a little strange that the outfit that made the loan originally doesn't have knowledge???? If they don't know that, who does?

Btw, I DID contact a lawyer, one with an A rating in Martin Hubbendale, and they said, maybe GRI was only partially paid off(!). Yeah, that's why they(GRI) categorically said they have no interest in the property or the loan on it. Wells Fargo was been called one of the worst of "funny business lenders" by an Attorney General not long ago, and they didn't get fined over 35 million just yesterday because they do the right thing and/or are invulnerable. But, back on point, does anybody have a concrete reason why the above clause doesn't mean what I think it means?

[dafinch]

I was fortunate enough to have discovered this website last night, I have a few questions. First, in general, are the people who dispense advice in favor of securitized audits or some other method to expose the banks dishonesty, or are they ok with what the banks have been doing?

Does it matter? A lot of people "are not ok" with "what the banks have been doing." Sounds like a great sales pitch for a scam. Hey, I "dislike what the banks have been doing. Buy my snake oil!"

When searching for some people that I am familiar with, I came across quite a bit of downgrading various methods, but saw no solutions being offered-possibly I just happened to search the wrong posts.

No one has an obligation to counter your snake oil with better, or different snake oil. The law is what it is. If you don't like the law, you can try to change it through litigation (but that is a tough row to hoe), or by lobbying the legislature. I consider it a positive to "downgrade various methods" (who talks like this? Beldar is that you?) if those methods are not supported by law and will ultimately fail.

I did searches for Re-conveyances and for George Tran, and, to be fair, on the last youtube videos I could find with him, he stated frankly that he was "naive" earlier and also admitted he lost at least 1 of the houses that he thought was free and clear. However, I wondered what you guys thought of his basic contention, that a contract has 2 signatures, a meeting of the minds, full disclosure, and consideration given by both parties. It can be argued that none of those things are present during the purchase of a home.

Finally, he mentioned a reconveyance method that he learned from a lawyer(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1HPMePrUPc). The clause that he is alluding to is in all 3 Deeds of Trust on homes that my wife and I own. If there is a flaw in Tran's argument, it is not apparent to me. We contacted the lender on our own home, Guaranteed Rate, Inc. not long ago. One payment was made to them, starting in May 2012, then Wells Fargo(who, btw, just got fined about 30 million yesterday for a mortgage kick back scam, along with Chase Morgan)took over and all subsequent payments were made to WF. We sent a Conditional Acceptance about the reconveyance, and the lender was quite evasive in their 3 letters(one of which was notarize by their attorney), and mentioning that they used MERS. We countered with case law showing that MERS is more and more being deemed to having no standing(including 2 cases in our state, which is a DOT state) and invoked the Request regarding Authentic Statement of Account (UCC Article 9 § 210) which basically gives them 14 days to dispute our contention that the mortgage balance is zero with a sworn statement from a corporate officer or the company accountant. They eventually bailed, sending a letter of the events to Wells Fargo and cc'ing us that said they had no interest in either the property or the mortgage thereon. Accordingly, we've contacted the Trustee, Old Republic Title, and are asking that the property be re-conveyed. Naturally, Wells Fargo is now contacting us, and we sent them a QWR a week ago. Tran showed 3 or 4 court cases where WF was booted out of court for lack of standing and/or not having the note way back in 2010, I have no doubt that they have many more since then. This also looks like a case of 3rd party interference by them. Anyway, I'd appreciate constructive feedback, thanks in advance.

Constructively, hire a lawyer. One who knows foreclosure law. Not one who runs a loan modification shop, not a disbarred lawyer, not a paralegal, not a real estate broker fallen on hard times, not a repurposed loan salesman either. A real walking talking lawyer.

No one is going to give you advice on an internet forum. This particular lawyer isn't even going to bother watching your youtube video which is (likely) full of wishful thinking approaches to mortgage law that involve something other than actual mortgage law. But I can spot some red herrings already...such as being concerned about a bank having standing. If there are only 3 or 4 cases where that was an issue, what does that tell you? And, oh, Article 9 of the UCC concerns secured interests in personal property. So unless someone is foreclosing on fixtures, e.g., bannisters, built in fridges and the like, not a whole lot of traction to be had there.

Sorry if the response seems a little snooty, but come on now, if you were here in good faith you would not be considering any of that pseudo legal garbage to begin with, to put it blunt.

I don't understand if you're saying, I'm a lender, and you're not, so, just take it when I break a contract? Are you saying you're ok with the things that lenders have been doing(let alone them getting bailed out on our dime) and don't want them to have to follow the law? Or, is it just "pseudo legal garbage" when you don't agree with it? Btw, I said there were only 3 or 4 case brought up by Tran in 2010, and that I've no doubt that there are several more now, particularly with the MERS fiasco.

UCC 9 covers securities, which is what "notes" with a maturity date of 9 months or greater are, so I don't take your meaning on that.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The original note was not paid off.

WF probably purchased the pool of notes that your loan was among, but that does not pay off the notes. Those obligations are still alive and well and the new trustee/owner will continue to collect on them via whatever servicer they choose.

The trustee will also often register MERS as a substitute trustee (basically a proxy) to avoid having to pay county registration/transfer fees every time the note (or pool of notes) is transferred to a new owner.

None of that has any affect on the original borrower's obligation to make the payments.

And mortgages/real property are not governed by the UCC.

[davids]

I don't understand if you're saying, I'm a lender, and you're not, so, just take it when I break a contract? Are you saying you're ok with the things that lenders have been doing(let alone them getting bailed out on our dime) and don't want them to have to follow the law? Or, is it just "pseudo legal garbage" when you don't agree with it? Btw, I said there were only 3 or 4 case brought up by Tran in 2010, and that I've no doubt that there are several more now, particularly with the MERS fiasco.

UCC 9 covers securities, which is what "notes" with a maturity date of 9 months or greater are, so I don't take your meaning on that.

You need to hire a lawyer if you don't understand what we are telling you. You don't need to understand. You probably won't understand. But you still need to hire a lawyer.

It is entirely possible to 1) not buy into incorrect legal thinking, while 2) being critical of the banks. All at the same time. Very possible. When you put your accusation out there like this - either support your b.s. or be called "bank friendly" you give yourself away as someone affiliated with the world of pseudo legal remedies.

UCC article 9 covers secured transactions in personal property. If you have misread that to mean "securities" then that is a mistake on your part. This just illustrates that you need to hire a lawyer.

[Hyrion]

a contract has 2 signatures, a meeting of the minds, full disclosure, and consideration given by both parties. It can be argued that none of those things are present during the purchase of a home.

My humble opinion is that you can only "reasonably argue" that position if you're being dishonest.

2 signatures =

• 1) the representative for the bank (the lender of funds)

• 2) you the borrower of funds

A meeting of the minds:

• The bank agreed to lend you the money to buy the house on the condition that you agreed to pay back the loan with interest

• You agreed to pay back the loan at the interest rate and terms specified in order to receive the funds

Full Disclosure:

• The bank disclosed the interest amount and term said interest would apply to along with what your payments will be based on the selections you made

• You disclosed what kind of payments you'd be interested in making such as whether you want to pay monthly, bi-weekly, accelerated bi-weekly, increase the basic payment amount so as to pay off the principal faster, etc

Consideration given by both parties:

• The bank gave you consideration in the form of a loan to buy a house

• You gave consideration in the form of a promise of regular payments to pay out the loan at an agreed upon interest rate

In the Other deal you entered at the same time, all the elements were also present. For example:

• 1) The owner of the house gave you consideration in the form of the property in the form of the house and/or land the house sits on

• 2) You gave consideration in the form of fully payment for the property - funds you have available due to the Bank lending those funds to you

Here's a thought for you to consider: If the mortgage was fraudulent and the funds didn't really exist, the previous owner was not paid for the property so ownership of the property should properly, rightfully and legally revert to the previous owner.

[dafinch]

a contract has 2 signatures, a meeting of the minds, full disclosure, and consideration given by both parties. It can be argued that none of those things are present during the purchase of a home.

My humble opinion is that you can only "reasonably argue" that position if you're being dishonest.

2 signatures =

• 1) the representative for the bank (the lender of funds)

• 2) you the borrower of funds

A meeting of the minds:

• The bank agreed to lend you the money to buy the house on the condition that you agreed to pay back the loan with interest

• You agreed to pay back the loan at the interest rate and terms specified in order to receive the funds

Full Disclosure:

• The bank disclosed the interest amount and term said interest would apply to along with what your payments will be based on the selections you made

• You disclosed what kind of payments you'd be interested in making such as whether you want to pay monthly, bi-weekly, accelerated bi-weekly, increase the basic payment amount so as to pay off the principal faster, etc

Consideration given by both parties:

• The bank gave you consideration in the form of a loan to buy a house

• You gave consideration in the form of a promise of regular payments to pay out the loan at an agreed upon interest rate

In the Other deal you entered at the same time, all the elements were also present. For example:

• 1) The owner of the house gave you consideration in the form of the property in the form of the house and/or land the house sits on

• 2) You gave consideration in the form of fully payment for the property - funds you have available due to the Bank lending those funds to you

Here's a thought for you to consider: If the mortgage was fraudulent and the funds didn't really exist, the previous owner was not paid for the property so ownership of the property should properly, rightfully and legally revert to the previous owner.

The original note was not paid off.

WF probably purchased the pool of notes that your loan was among, but that does not pay off the notes. Those obligations are still alive and well and the new trustee/owner will continue to collect on them via whatever servicer they choose.

The trustee will also often register MERS as a substitute trustee (basically a proxy) to avoid having to pay county registration/transfer fees every time the note (or pool of notes) is transferred to a new owner.

None of that has any affect on the original borrower's obligation to make the payments.

And mortgages/real property are not governed by the UCC.

If they purchased the pool of notes, then GRI obviously was paid off, and if they're paid off, they MUST reconvey. It seems pretty clear that the attorney's carefully worded "non denial/denial" reflects that. The DOT doesn't make any distinction about "pools of notes" so, I guess we will agree to disagree on that.

I don't know why you would mention MERS as a way to buttress your argument, I'm sure you're aware of the growing number of cases where they have been ruled to have no standing, and thus foreclosures have been actually overturned-not to mention Glaski v. Bank of America, et al which showed that just by entering notes into a pool late can invalidate a note.

Finally, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78c

The term “security” means any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture, certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil, gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a “security”; or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker’s acceptance which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited(emphasis added).

So, if a note that doesn't exceed 9 months maturity is NOT a security, what is a note whose maturity DOES exceed 9 months? Seems to me it's a security/investment contract, not a note with a mortgage(and I've not even mentioned that the mortgage without the note is the tail without the dog, as has been increasingly ruled)/. Again, I'm open to having it proven wrong, but not with vague generalities, I've posted a specific clause in the DOT with pretty clear language. You said, "None of that has any affect on the original borrower's obligation to make the payments." That clause I quoted seems to say otherwise, otherwise, what does re-convey mean?

[dafinch]

a contract has 2 signatures, a meeting of the minds, full disclosure, and consideration given by both parties. It can be argued that none of those things are present during the purchase of a home.

My humble opinion is that you can only "reasonably argue" that position if you're being dishonest.

2 signatures =

• 1) the representative for the bank (the lender of funds)

• 2) you the borrower of funds

A meeting of the minds:

• The bank agreed to lend you the money to buy the house on the condition that you agreed to pay back the loan with interest

• You agreed to pay back the loan at the interest rate and terms specified in order to receive the funds

Full Disclosure:

• The bank disclosed the interest amount and term said interest would apply to along with what your payments will be based on the selections you made

• You disclosed what kind of payments you'd be interested in making such as whether you want to pay monthly, bi-weekly, accelerated bi-weekly, increase the basic payment amount so as to pay off the principal faster, etc

Consideration given by both parties:

• The bank gave you consideration in the form of a loan to buy a house

• You gave consideration in the form of a promise of regular payments to pay out the loan at an agreed upon interest rate

In the Other deal you entered at the same time, all the elements were also present. For example:

• 1) The owner of the house gave you consideration in the form of the property in the form of the house and/or land the house sits on

• 2) You gave consideration in the form of fully payment for the property - funds you have available due to the Bank lending those funds to you

Here's a thought for you to consider: If the mortgage was fraudulent and the funds didn't really exist, the previous owner was not paid for the property so ownership of the property should properly, rightfully and legally revert to the previous owner.

My main point of interest is the re-conveyance clause, not the "contract" in general, though I could take the time and effort to argue the points above. I'm curious: what do you think of the "honesty" of the lenders whose virtue you are defending so vigorously?

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/23042 ... ack-scheme

http://www.har.com/Houston-Real-Estate- ... d-Earnings

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... settlement

http://time.com/3153262/bank-of-america ... ime-loans/

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26966518

[Jeffrey]

I think we all understand the difficulty and stress that financial necessity can cause but nothing you've brought up will allow you to weasel out of the debt you incurred when you signed the mortgage or will allow you to keep the house without paying off the mortgage. You're not the first one to go down this road, the boards here are full of threads cataloging people who have tried and failed at what you are trying. A lot of them weren't bad people, a lot of them had families and kids.

It sucks to be the ones telling people that the magic remedies they believe in won't work but in the long run they are just going to do more harm than good.

[davids]

dafinch - You are giving yourself away more and more. You're not here to ask questions or inquire. You've done that, and each time, when you're told at any level what you don't want to hear, then you attack.

You have a pre-set belief system (or purport to have one) about this, and instead, like patriotdiscussions, you believe you're gonna show us all up and that your big genius has uncovered all the stuff that us simpletons haven't thought of.

Or alternatively, the minute someone says something you don't like, you say they are defending lenders and banks and bail outs.

It is a no win even talking with people like you. If you were a client, I would fire you, because even if you did have a meritorious case, you would be a monumental pain to deal with.

But more likely, you just want to try to characterize this board as being "pro banker" so when persons google a certain scheme, and come up with the quatloos site, they see your words telling them what they too want to hear.

I find that very sad as I have a couple of friends who have bought into the pseudo legal mortgage arguments. There is no reasoning with them.

Don't worry about us telling people the truth, as I have found that humanity always has a certain percentage that are just dying to be told what they want to hear, and they will always be willing to hire that non lawyer mortgage rescuer.

In a way I sympathize with them, as there often isn't a lot anyone can do when the real problem is that there is too large a bill for the existing finances.

[davids]

I think we all understand the difficulty and stress that financial necessity can cause but nothing you've brought up will allow you to weasel out of the debt you incurred when you signed the mortgage or will allow you to keep the house without paying off the mortgage. You're not the first one to go down this road, the boards here are full of threads cataloging people who have tried and failed at what you are trying. A lot of them weren't bad people, a lot of them had families and kids.

It sucks to be the ones telling people that the magic remedies they believe in won't work but in the long run they are just going to do more harm than good.

word.

[Pottapaug1938]

Dafinch is the latest in a long line of people who come here "just asking" and then move the goalposts every time a question is answered. He has the answers to his original question; so from here on, the way I see it, this thread serves no useful purpose.

[dafinch]

dafinch - You are giving yourself away more and more. You're not here to ask questions or inquire. You've done that, and each time, when you're told at any level what you don't want to hear, then you attack.

You have a pre-set belief system (or purport to have one) about this, and instead, like patriotdiscussions, you believe you're gonna show us all up and that your big genius has uncovered all the stuff that us simpletons haven't thought of.

Or alternatively, the minute someone says something you don't like, you say they are defending lenders and banks and bail outs.

It is a no win even talking with people like you. If you were a client, I would fire you, because even if you did have a meritorious case, you would be a monumental pain to deal with.

But more likely, you just want to try to characterize this board as being "pro banker" so when persons google a certain scheme, and come up with the quatloos site, they see your words telling them what they too want to hear.

I find that very sad as I have a couple of friends who have bought into the pseudo legal mortgage arguments. There is no reasoning with them.

Don't worry about us telling people the truth, as I have found that humanity always has a certain percentage that are just dying to be told what they want to hear, and they will always be willing to hire that non lawyer mortgage rescuer.

In a way I sympathize with them, as there often isn't a lot anyone can do when the real problem is that there is too large a bill for the existing finances.

What "truth" are you referring to? I asked a simple question about a 2 sentence clause, and not one, single person has given an explanation as to why must re-convey MEANS must re-convey(other than saying it doesn't pertain to the sale of pools of notes, which, as previously mentioned, doesn't wash). I'm also baffled at the number of people who talk about the "duty" to pay the loan, while blithely ignoring the massive corruption by the lenders and MERS. If you have an actual answer as why the clause doesn't mean what I think it does, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it sounds like, "I don't know WHY you're wrong, I just know that you're wrong."