Page 1 of 1

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:19 pm
by Jeffrey
I figure you guys might know about this. I ran across a case of a woman who was led to believe that the Jesinoski decision says that you can "rescind" your mortgage and basically not have to pay back the money as long as it's done within three years. What's fascinating about it to me is that the SCOTUS decision came out in 2015 and immediately afterwards someone started using it as a mortgage elimination scheme. Wondering if you guys know what Guru is out there teaching this.

The case:

Meinhart's remaining claims all depend on his allegations that the wet ink note is "unaccounted for," that it was ""forged, or "securitized," and that he obtained only "vapor money."

Courts of this district routinely reject "show-me-the-note" claims.

Re: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:16 pm
by Judge Roy Bean
The old "no money lent" scheme died a long time ago - looks like someone is trying to revive it, again.

Mortgage rescision is/was a reality some time ago but it depended on finding TILA flaws (i.e., fraud) in the loan origination, of which "the bank didn't really loan money" isn't one of them.

FYI - Countrywide was infamous for creating replacement documents, and they weren't alone.

Re: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:45 pm
by Jeffrey
Okay so by my count there's over 40 OPCA mortgage cases citing Jesinoski to argue that you can rescind a mortgage at anytime and not have to repay it. What's interesting is how uniform the cases are, many of the are pro se, they use the same verbiage, there is the usual OPCA arguments. And bizarrely, a moorish couple actually tried it, namely LEATRICE JOHNSON EL. AND KING MORPHEUS EL:

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs submit as grounds for objection that in 2008 they rescinded their mortgage loan. The thrust of this argument is that, if Plaintiffs had legally rescinded the loan, then the subsequent foreclosure procedure would have been invalid. For reasons that will be discussed in detail below, this argument ultimately fails because, after attempting to rescind their original loan, Plaintiffs entered into a loan modification which superseded the original, purportedly rescinded loan, and it was the new loan which included the mortgage that was ultimately foreclosed upon. Nevertheless, because Plaintiffs emphasize the rescission argument, and it was not discussed in detail in the Report and Recommendation, the Court will explain its reasoning here as to why the rescission argument does not succeed.

Plaintiffs cite two cases for support: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015) and Paatalo v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 146 F. Supp. 3d 1239 (D. Or. 2015).

Plaintiffs argue that they rescinded the loan in 2008 by sending a letter notifying Defendants that Plaintiffs were rescinding, that upon sending the rescission letter the burden then shifted to Defendants to provide the appropriate paperwork and to begin the winding-up process, that Defendants did not comply with their responsibilities, and that therefore under Jesinoski and Paatalo "the rescission was effective on the date of the notice." ... k-natlassn

So there's clearly a cluster of cases which indicates there must be some central figure or group that spread this Jesinoski argument.

Compare to this one:

On August 7, 2015, Brown served a "notice to rescind" on US Bank, and she attached a copy of that notice to her amended complaint. In that notice, Brown states, in pertinent part:

Please be advised that I intend to rescind the purported obligation under the trust deed and note, a partial copy of which is attached for your reference.
Please be advised that if you fail to sue me and re-establish the debt within twenty (20) days from the date of this notice, you will lose any security interests you might claim to have in my property, by this instrument.
Furthermore, if you fail to return the property or money deposited by the promissory note and related costs, you may be subject to damages.
Please also be advised that the three-day and three-year limitations do not apply as these time periods have been extended because the presumption of "equitable tolling" applies under the circumstances. Please review the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, Jesinoski v. Countrywide, 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015).
I intend to sue you for the damages.

Re: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:01 pm
by fortinbras
The vapor money argument is distinct from the wet ink argument; they can be made separately and while the vapor money argument was never valid there was a time when the wet ink argument had some merit.

The vapor money argument is that, in lending the money, the bank or mortgage company did not put actual currency into the borrower's hands but instead credited his account with the equivalent amount of money, which he could withdraw as currency or (more likely) use to write a check for the house/car purchase he wished to make. The borrower now claims that the lender did not actually part with currency but that creating a deposit in his account by computer entry the borrower gave no consideration (despite the fact that, when the borrower made his intended purchase, the lender had to convey that money). Clearly this argument is bogus and has never worked.

The wet ink argument grew out of the bundling and reselling of debt instruments among various financial and credit institutions, especially in the last 20 years. There were several instances of the same debts being dunned by two or more companies as a result of sloppy record keeping, in which, somehow, the documents were inappropriately copied and then sold in different bundles. Borrowers felt justified in demanding to go only with the creditor-plaintiff who could produce the original debt instrument that they had actually signed. In practice, however, the original document was unidentifiable or known to have been destroyed and the courts were content to trace the provenance of the debt back through several generations of bundling and reselling to verify the legitimate creditor. Nowadays it appears that this duplication has been eliminated or minimized, and it is sufficient to pay the first creditor who brings an action.

Re: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:49 pm
by Jeffrey
I apologize, the quote from Meinhart I used was misleading. I meant that it shows the plaintiff in that case was an OPCA litigant.

The Jesinoski argument which I believe is new is:

Meinhart sued in 2016, asserting a variety of claims: a TILA rescission claim... Meinhart claims he "executed a Right of Rescission Notice June 25, 2016, under 15 U.S.C. ยง1635," and that Nationstar failed to respond within the required 20 days... He seeks a declaratory judgment that the deed of trust was rescinded, a refund of fees paid, interest, fees and monetary relief (damages) between $100,000 and 1,000,000... Meinhart's TILA rescission claim is fatally flawed and it cannot be amended to make it plausible or viable.

In other words, the claim that the Jesinoski decision means that mortgages can be "rescinded" at any time allowing you to get a free house is what seems to be new and something that a ton of people attempted simultaneously.

Re: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:03 pm
by Judge Roy Bean
TILA rescision is a reality, but what so many people who jumped on it failed to realize that even if the loan were validly rescinded for TILA violations, the borrower didn't get to keep the house. Everything reset back to a condition as if the loan never existed, i.e., they had to find another loan or another place to live. That was one of the little details the promoters avoided telling their marks.

Re: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:19 am
by Jeffrey
Okay I think I found our typhoid mary, Neil Garfield and the livinglies blog: ... escission/ ... -it-wrong/ ... read-this/

He promoted Jesinoski-TILA rescission claims shortly after the SCOTUS decision came out, and one woman who tried TILA Rescission claims cited livinglies as where she got that information.

Re: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:45 am
by Amicusman
There have been well over 100 post Jesinoski cases and everyone is a loser, and everyone has Neil Garfield's finger prints all over it.