Mortgage companies already know

[manros]

I believe mortg. companies are establishing ways to protect themselves.

I am behind in my payments. I received a letter from the mortgage company mentioning foreclosure.

3 details call my attention:

1. The letter is sent to my real name (not the all caps).

2. This statement is in the letter: "We XYZ, the servicer, are authorized by the Creditor of the above referenced home loan, to collect the money ..." (who is the Creditor if they are not?)

3. I received Certified Mail from them and the postal clerk required me to sign my name and also print it under my signature (????)

Please, I need your input.

Thanks to all.

[manros]

It seems this is a new thing. Or if not, .... Will you know how to address it?

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by manros

2. This statement is in the letter: "We XYZ, the servicer, are authorized by the Creditor of the above referenced home loan, to collect the money ..." (who is the Creditor if they are not?)

Loan servicers are debt collectors as defined by the FDCPA. The creditor is the entity that owns the mortgage note. Similar to the practices of CCC's.

However, secured debt as opposed to unsecured debt is financed differently. Unsecured debt is credit in the form of "money" out of thin air. Secured debt is actual "money" obtained from a third party prior to the funding of the loan. The "money" still appears out of thin air but does so between the original creditor and the third party. The third party extends credit in the form of "money" to the creditor who then loans you the actual funds.

You are on the hook, no two ways about it. Either bring your mortgage current or lose your house, its as simple as that.

gldskr

[phreeman2003]

You might want to double check the FDCPA. It might have made recent changes with that, declaring servicers exempt.

[manros]

Thank you for your insight and support.

I believed no one did lend me money. And of course, I want to keep my home. Let us assume they did lend the money to me...How was it? (I never did see that money).

If not for the home, for the principle. I want the matter very clear to me.

Should I ask for the note back then? I am ready to tell them, ..."Take the home, if you think it is yours; but give me the note I gave you at first; the note is mine"

My common sense-may be a little childish- tells me that if they gave me the home after I gave them the note...I should have the note back in my possession if they will take the house away for me.

By the way...Could I sell the equity of my home to some one? Why should they take the entire value of the home and not only what is owed to them? My childish logic tells me I should expect a check for the diffference, at least that.

As of now, just knowing how they got that ELUSIVE , INVISIBLE money they gave me...sounds good to me.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by manros

Thank you for your insight and support.

I believed no one did lend me money. And of course, I want to keep my home. Let us assume they did lend the money to me...How was it? (I never did see that money).
So you’re claiming, that what, leprechauns paid for your house? The seller obviously got something, or they wouldn’t have signed the deed, now would they? So whether or not you ever actually saw the money is irrelevant. The Seller got paid, it had to come from somewhere.

If not for the home, for the principle. I want the matter very clear to me.
Commendable.

Should I ask for the note back then? I am ready to tell them, ..."Take the home, if you think it is yours; but give me the note I gave you at first; the note is mine"
The note belongs to the lender once it is signed, it is no longer yours. It is their asset, your obligation. You get it back, cancelled marked paid, when the loan is satisfied.

My common sense-may be a little childish- tells me that if they gave me the home after I gave them the note...I should have the note back in my possession if they will take the house away for me.
A valid point, but the note is cancelled once the mortgage is paid, either by you or by the purchaser in foreclosure. You would need to contact the lender or final holder to get it.

By the way...Could I sell the equity of my home to some one? Why should they take the entire value of the home and not only what is owed to them? My childish logic tells me I should expect a check for the diffference, at least that.
If you have equity value above the value of the loan then why is it in foreclosure?

As of now, just knowing how they got that ELUSIVE , INVISIBLE money they gave me...sounds good to me.

You’ll have to ask that pesky leprechaun.

[macerico]

Frankly, you handled the whole situation wrong.

The fact is this is how banks operate when they do any loan.

1. They open an account IN YOUR NAME.

2. They claim a DEPOSIT, IN YOUR NAME, of the amount of the proposed loan.

3. They cut you a check (if needed) based on the deposit they just made to their asset ledger.

In plain English, THEY LEND YOU YOUR OWN MONEY.

This is how all loans are voidable. The bank commits fraud, and induces you do to likewise, by creating a deposit out of nothing then letting you buy stuff with "nothing." The amount of paper currency in circulation is a tiny fraction of all the "dollars" actually in "existence."

The trick, and I don't have the specifics handy, for getting this stuff voided out is to never argue the contract. The key is to demand proof of WHERE DID THE "MONEY" COME FROM. The banks/creditors lose every single time when it becomes an examination of where they got the "money" to lend you. That's why they want to argue "contract." If you admit you entered a contract, you're screwed.

When you examine where the money comes from, it is an act of fraud (by the bank) to create something that didn't exist then allow people to get real things by doing that.

The simple illustration is this. You must risk to be eligible to receive repayment.

If I can make $100 appear out of thin air, then I don't deserve to be repaid because I risked nothing in snapping my fingers and giving you $100.

If I took $100 of MY MONEY out of MY POCKET and gave it to you, that's a different matter because I put at risk my assets.

The bank NEVER lends ITS MONEY....they always lend you YOUR MONEY, created from NOTHING and then demand repayment of what was yours in the first place.

There is an involved, but effective process to call them on their act of fraud, and the fear of exposure will make them relinquish the debt. They know they will not win if the fraud is exposed in a court of law, and there is already too many situations where they have lost to risk even more case law against them.

[grolled]

Originally Posted by macerico

They know they will not win if the fraud is exposed in a court of law, and there is already too many situations where they have lost to risk even more case law against them.

Do you have cites to any cases that show this?

[mikah2k]

Originally Posted by grolled

Do you have cites to any cases that show this?

Township of Credit River Money Decision. Search google for "suijuris" and "Credit River Money Decision".

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by macerico

Frankly, you handled the whole situation wrong.

The fact is this is how banks operate when they do any loan.

1. They open an account IN YOUR NAME.
No, they open a loan balance account

2. They claim a DEPOSIT, IN YOUR NAME, of the amount of the proposed loan.
Sure they do.

3. They cut you a check (if needed) based on the deposit they just made to their asset ledger.
They cut you a check from the cash on hand account that they debit.

In plain English, THEY LEND YOU YOUR OWN MONEY.
In plain English they lend you the bank’s money. This oater was old and tired twenty years ago and has been long ago debunked.

This is how all loans are voidable. The bank commits fraud, and induces you do to likewise, by creating a deposit out of nothing then letting you buy stuff with "nothing." The amount of paper currency in circulation is a tiny fraction of all the "dollars" actually in "existence."
Yep, and the mood is made of green cheese. This is called nonsense. The only vapor here is between the ears of the proponents of this nonsense.

The trick, and I don't have the specifics handy, for getting this stuff voided out is to never argue the contract. The key is to demand proof of WHERE DID THE "MONEY" COME FROM. The banks/creditors lose every single time when it becomes an examination of where they got the "money" to lend you. That's why they want to argue "contract." If you admit you entered a contract, you're screwed.
The trick here, is that this is a trick, and when you get done, no matter what magic words you say or papers you manufacture nothing will have changed. The loan will still be valid and enforceable. This whole line is a crock, and since there is no case where this has ever happend, it must really work well. The trick is, that you don’t have to argue contract, it exists, and you can’t get out of it short of defaulting, and then you lose everyting.

When you examine where the money comes from, it is an act of fraud (by the bank) to create something that didn't exist then allow people to get real things by doing that.
It doesn’t matter where the money comes from, this scam has been tried and it loses every time, for the simple reason that it doesn’t matter and is irrelevant to the validity of the loan.

The simple illustration is this. You must risk to be eligible to receive repayment.
Pigs might also fly, but you will never live to see it.

If I can make $100 appear out of thin air, then I don't deserve to be repaid because I risked nothing in snapping my fingers and giving you $100.
Nonsense.

If I took $100 of MY MONEY out of MY POCKET and gave it to you, that's a different matter because I put at risk my assets.
Sure it is.

The bank NEVER lends ITS MONEY....they always lend you YOUR MONEY, created from NOTHING and then demand repayment of what was yours in the first place.
More nonsense, that has repeatedly been debunked in court and reality.

There is an involved, but effective process to call them on their act of fraud, and the fear of exposure will make them relinquish the debt. They know they will not win if the fraud is exposed in a court of law, and there is already too many situations where they have lost to risk even more case law against them.

And when you get done you too can be living in your very own refrigerator carton in some alley because you too took the word of some internet guru who didn’t have a clue. If any of the statements here were true, there would be case law supporting their statements, curiously, their is a compelete dearth of it, but there is lots of it concerning foreclosures by people trying this nonsense. If you doubt that, feel free to look up the exploits of the Dorean Group and the shattered live they left in their trail for having tried just this nonsense.

Originally Posted by mikah2k

Township of Credit River Money Decision. Search google for "suijuris" and "Credit River Money Decision".

By all means do, but make sure you realize you are looking under the fiction section, since that is exactly what it was. The drunken ramblings of a podunk JP does not make case law. He was outside his jurisdiction, and his rulings, all his rulings, which he had no authority to make in the first place, were not only overturned by the local dist court which was superior in jurisdiction, but also declared null and void by that state’s Supreme Court for having exceeded jurisdiction.