From: Deadly Clear
Forbes
has taken notice. There is a shift toward borrowers in mortgage
litigation. The decision points back to the origination of the loan.
This decision follows a similar decision in the 4th circuit. It all
comes down to what actually happened at closing? And we don't actually
know if the decision to allow rescission indefinitely on second
mortgages will extend to the first mortgage if it is all part of the
same transaction.
This is a point that needs to be driven home to each and every judge
until he yells "Uncle!": "The answer is that Wall Street Banks wanted
to use those loans as “assets” they could trade, insure, hedge and even
sell contrary to the prospectus and PSA shown to pension Funds and other
investors who advanced funds to investment banks as “payment” for
mortgage bonds underwritten by those banks."
No comments:
Post a Comment