The RESCISSION Issue and the NON-CONSUMMATION Issue Cannot be in the Same Argument

by: harold-ellis Anti Foreclosure Network

"I am very familiar with the RESCISSION issue, been using it since 2015, with very little success. I don’t use it anymore unless the “Loan Transaction” is within the 3 years based the Ocwen case (supreme court) due to the Weintraub case below, WHICH HAS BEEN USED AGAINST THE RESCISSION ISSUE BASED ON NON-CONSUMMATION (which is the issue I use almost exclusively - knotting up courts around the country; not one attorney can respond, and lower courts don't know what to do. As you well know, these so-called loans never consummated in the first instance, and I prove it with the "loan" documents, and no case law needed."

*******

"The RESCISSION issue and the NON-CONSUMMATION issue cannot be in the same argument since rescission is based on the cancellation of a valid, consummated contract/agreement whereas “non-consummation” deals with an incompletion of a contract/agreement, and here, the CANCELLATION of documents from that incomplete loan contract/agreement that are in the stream of commerce, i.e., the NOTE and MORTGAGE."

The court in Weintraub v. Quicken Loans, Inc, 594 F.3d 270, 275-276 (4th Cir., 2010) stated the following that makes it clear that the RESCISSION issue and the NON-CONSUMMATION issue cannot be in the same argument, and why this NOTICE & DECLARATION was created:

"Thus, we conclude, no “consumer credit transaction” exists for which the right to rescind can be exercised until that transaction has been consummated, “or put another way, ‘until credit is in fact extended.’”  ...the language and operation of § 1635(a) supports our conclusion that the right to rescind under § 1635(a) can only arise when a transaction has been consummated. Section 1635(a) creates a right “to rescind the transaction.” … The term “transaction,” while not separately defined, is included as part of two other defined terms, each of which presupposes that the “transaction” must be consummated.  ...Similarly, a commonsense reading of the text of § 1635(a) also suggests that “transaction” refers to a consummated, binding agreement, rather than to the whole course of the parties’ interactions. The right to rescind a transaction defined as the whole course of interactions between the parties would essentially be meaningless—there would often be nothing to rescind.  ...But until a loan is consummated, the consumer has incurred no obligation from which he would need a statutorily created right to back out. ...Finally, our conclusion is consistent with the interpretation of TILA advanced by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Pt. 226, which is entitled to deference. ...Likewise, the discussion in the Official Staff Interpretations of the relevant section of Regulation Z also presumes a completed transaction when stating that “[i]n order for the right of rescission to apply, the security interest must be retained as part of the credit transaction.” ...This language further suggests that the right to rescind a transaction creating a security interest can only arise from a consummated transaction, because only upon consummation of the transaction is the security interest retained. … While the Deposit Agreement in this case, pursuant to which the Weintraubs paid Quicken Loans the $500 deposit, was undoubtedly a “transaction” entered into before consummation of the credit transaction, TILA would certainly not apply to that transaction because it did not involve an extension of credit. Moreover, because the Weintraubs withdrew their application before the loan was consummated, the right to rescind given by § 1635(a) never arose, and Quicken Loans was therefore not obligated by § 1635(b) to return the full value of the deposit when the Weintraubs attempted to exercise the right (emphasis added; citations omitted)."