Tyschkevich loses “Loan wasn’t Consummated” Argument

TYSHKEVICH v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, No. 2: 15-cv-2010 JAM AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015).

Garfield Clingon

Svetlana Tyschkevich sued for TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) to stop the foreclosure sale of her house on which she took out a $1.36 million dollar loan on which she had not made a payment for 7 years.

She claimed that she had rescinded under TILA (Truth in Lending Act) validly, though 6 years after the loan date, because she had never consummated the loan because the loan docs didn’t identify the real parties, a favorite failing legal theory of Neil Garfield’s “Clingon” minions.

She also claimed the foreclosure was a debt collection activity that violated the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) because of her rescission.

The magistrate pointed to the loan docs she had signed and the formal status of her lender, and to the TILA statute of repose that limited her right to rescind to 3 years, and to the fact that a foreclosure is not a debt collecting activity subject to the FDCPA.  TRO denied.

Another Garfield Clingon bites the dust.

To make matters worse, the foolish woman never bothered hiring a competent professional to examine her loan-related documents.  Had she done that, she probably would have learned of numerous legitimate causes of action against those who injured her, such as appraisal fraud and mortgage fraud, for which she might have won huge punitive damages.

If you find yourself in a situation like Svetlana’s, contact me for more info on a path to salvation. 727 669 5511.

Bob Hurt photo
Bob Hurt, Writer

Published by

Bob Hurt

See http://bobhurt.com Consumer advocate helping borrowers in foreclosure save their homes and obtain compensation for their injuries.

2 thoughts on “Tyschkevich loses “Loan wasn’t Consummated” Argument”

  1. Anyone that follows the advice of scammer Neil Garfield, and loses their property, as most do, should sue him.


  2. “… because she had never consummated the loan…”

    I’ve read that insane argument so many times! And I still don’t know, to this day, what it purports to mean in people’s mind and how they can even utter it in good conscience. People contract a loan to purchase a house. They obtain the money, purchase the house and MOVE INTO IT. They remain IN THE HOUSE long after they defaulted on the payment. Typical consumption loan, by any definition. http://www.letslearnfinance.com/consumption-loan-meaning.html

    To me, there is no clearer evidence of consumption than that. I’ve asked Garfield many, many times: “If that constitutes non-consumption, please pray tell, what would “consumption” really look like?

    Never got an answer. Never saw ONE case won on that completely nonsensical train of thought.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s