Parol Evidence Rule

Has anyone had to deal in court with Creditors who asserted the "Parol Evidence Rule" on the Note and Mortgage? What the rule basically states is that the question is not really whether evidence can be admitted which might vary the written document, but whether if the evidence is admitted, it will have the legal effect of varying the document." So basically the lawyers are asserting the defense that any alterations to Mortgage that arises from evidence by bringing in the original which has alterations, it does not affect the contract as submitted. Any ideas on this.

[Ice]

Any change to any agreement that IS NOT agreed to by both parties is a breach or voids the contract.



In "loan" situations the fraud is demonstrated by the evidence of who was the one to fund the loan. You go to a bank to secure a "loan" and that isn't what you get. ( That's fraudulent advertising as well. )



What you are speaking of does not address the breach of contract, no full disclosure or the fraud.

I understand. But what I am saying is the lawyers are putting into their paperwork a clause where if they do bring in the original with stamps on it, I can not use the alteration of the document as evidence of anything. Thats what I'm getting from their Answer to my Complaint. I'm wondering if they are trying to limit what can be used as evidence and for what. Everything I submit they have been able to say that I am not following FRCP and FRE and I am wondering if that is why the Judge is not looking at my stuff.

[Ice]

The rule they are using does not assist them.



Read that rule over and over again.



They are trying to confuse you. That rule doesn't assist or apply. If they submit the original document and it is altered in any way from when you signed it -- then the agreement was altered.



That rule does not say that an altered agreement cannot be evidence of an altered agreement if presented in court.



Could that rule be of more assistance to you than to them ?