Garfield Rescission Theory Leads Borrowers into Trouble


Neil Garfield:

I write to disagree with your explanation of TILA rescission in your blog entry “Rescission is not a claim – No Lawsuit Necessary” (appended below) because it leads borrowers into trouble.

You wrote:

“Rescission is an event. Either it happened or it didn’t. If the notice was sent, it happened. If the notice wasn’t sent then it didn’t happen.”

Rescission is a process, not an event.  The process consists of several events including mutual tender and release of lien.  If the parties don’t agree, one or the other must act to press the issue.  Typically the creditor will foreclose or the borrower will sue to enforce the rescission or raise the rescission defensively in foreclosure or bankruptcy.

TILA rescission requires notice of intent to rescind, tender and release of lien by the creditor, tender by the borrower, and finally a handover of respective properties to finish unwinding the transaction and return the parties to their condition prior to the loan, as though the loan had not occurred.

TILA and Regulation Z impose a condition upon initiation of the rescission process:  failure of the creditor to deliver required disclosures or notice.  If this condition does not exist, the borrower has no right to rescind under TILA.

Regulation Z – 12 C.F.R. 1026.23(3)(i).

“If the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered, the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer‘s interest in the property, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurs first.”

The above three year repose window never opens if the creditor timely delivered the required documents to the borrower. If the borrower sends the creditor a notice of intent to rescind, and the the creditor knows he did not violate TILA, then the creditor will typically acknowledge the notice of intent to rescind, deny the rescission, and then take no further action until the time comes to foreclose.

The process can continue or abort in a number of ways.

The process will abort if the loan does not qualify for TILA rescission, OR if no TILA violation occurred, OR if the creditor fails to tender and release the lien and the borrower and creditor fail to raise the issue in court, OR if the borrower fails to tender and the creditor sues, OR if the court orders a dismissal of the borrower’s TILA rescission complaint for cause.

In many cases, the creditor receives the notice of intent to rescind, acknowledges it, and rejects it. Often the borrower, after having signed an acknowledgement of receipt of the disclosures, will claim he did not receive them. The court always rules in favor of the creditor in such cases unless the borrower can demonstrate that he left closing without the disclosures and the creditor never mailed them.

The court may modify the rescission.  In some cases, the court will help the borrower and creditor work out the borrower’s inability to tender, such as through a periodic payment program.  In that case the TILA rescission process can take a long time to finish.

You wrote:

” The moment that a rescission notice is dropped in US Mail the note and mortgage are void ‘by operation of law.'”

As I stated above, and as corroborated by 12 C.F.R. 1026.23(3)(i), the mortgage does not become void upon mailing of notice of rescission UNLESS the creditor violated TILA by not timely delivering the required notices/disclosures to the borrower.

I imagine if the creditor knew he did not violate TILA and the borrower recorded the rescission notice with the county clerk to cloud the creditor’s mortgage, the creditor would most likely initiate foreclosure or sue to remove the cloud.

Yes, the elements of TILA rescission can become draconian against the creditor who does not timely tender and release the lien.  But ONLY if he violated TILA as above.

You wrote:

“it remains a question of fact as to the exact moment of consummation — assuming there was any ‘consummation’ with anyone in the chain upon which the present forecloser relies.”

No court that I know of has embraced your pet theory that consummation never occurred because the lender was unknown.  If you have a supporting citation, please pass it over to me.

The name of the lender appears on the note, and the borrower, in signing it, states “For a loan I have received, I hereby promise to pay…”  Now, the funds might be withheld for 3 days to allow the unconditional right to cancel to expire, so as to ensure that the borrower doesn’t abscond with funds and then cancel.  But once the borrower has signed the note and security instrument and the closer has released the funds to the proper parties, that loan has become consummated.

I consider reckless your preachment that borrowers should send notice of intent to rescind more than 3 years after consummation.  A borrower who does that will stop making mortgage payments and that will put him in jeopardy of foreclosure, all in the hope that some court will idiotically embrace your theory that consummation did not occur at or within 3 days of closing.

A borrower who wants to prove some tardy date of consummation should bring the question before a judge in a declaratory judgment action before sending out a notice of intent to rescind.

In summary, Neil, you are

  1. wrong about TILA rescission being merely an event,
  2. wrong about the 3-year right to rescind being unconditional, and
  3. wrong about consummation occurring a long time after closing.I have no trouble pulling up hundreds of post-Jesinoski court opinons to prove my assertions above.  I have shown a bunch of them at my web site.  I have yet to see any court opinion supporting your theory on the issues above.

I find it appalling that you, a seasoned attorney, so blithely lead borrowers astray with a frivolous and failing legal theory that can get them into a lot of trouble with a mortgage.

Bob Hurt
727 669 5511

On 02/01/2018 08:35 AM, Livinglies’s Weblog  (Neil Garfield) wrote:

Rescission is not a Claim — No Lawsuit Necessary

To those who think that this a gotcha moment consider this: Your lack of understanding of civil court procedure is what is preventing you from seeing the obvious — claims are not granted relief unless they are litigated — no matter how “obvious” the outcome. Rescission is an event not a claim. It’s the contest of the rescission that is the claim. It is therefore the contest of rescission that must be litigated.

Rescission is not a claim. Rescission is an event. Either it happened or it didn’t. If the notice was sent, it happened. If the notice wasn’t sent then it didn’t happen.

If the rescission is contested it is still effective and the note and mortgage are still void. If anyone thinks the rescission was not sent under the right circumstances they must establish standing and sue to vacate the rescission — not just ignore it. SCOTUS specifically stated that there is no difference between a contested rescission or an uncontested one. They are both effective on mailing.

Those who take a contrary view are ignoring basic procedural law. Under their “theory” the fact that someone contests it is enough to require the borrower to prove a “claim.” That is exactly the opposite of what is stated in the statute and what was confirmed by a unanimous SCOTUS opinion in Jesinoski. There is no “claim” of rescission under the TILA rescission statute. There is only an event that either happened or didn’t happen.

Since this is a jurisdictional matter it can be raised at any time. Assuming nobody has stepped in to plead and prove ownership of the debt, there is nobody with standing that can attack the rescission. Once the 20 days expires, and no court has extended the period during which the actual creditor could bring a claim, the “lender” duties require compliance no matter how wrongful they think the rescission notice was sent.

If the lender remains in noncompliance for more than a year, their right to claim tender of the amount due expires by the express terms of the TILA statute. So at that point the note is void, the mortgage is void, the loan contract is canceled and the right to receive the principal back is time barred.

The standing issue is the key. The moment that a rescission notice is dropped in US Mail the note and mortgage are void “by operation of law.” Any “holder” of the note or mortgage is no longer the holder of anything that is legally relevant. The note and mortgage don’t exist. Hence while some named party might have had standing to foreclose they no longer have standing to foreclose or contest the rescission unless they can plead and prove standing by establishing themselves as the owner of the debt.

Some people consider it a slam dunk against the borrower if the rescission notice is sent more than 3 years from presumed consummation — i.e., the date on the documents. But we all know that funding usually doesn’t occur until hours, days, weeks and sometimes months after the loan documents are signed. So consummation is a question of fact UNLESS the homeowner admits that consummation of a loan contract occurred on specific date more than three years before the notice of rescission.

Many people, including those who see rescission as I do (as SCOTUS does) believe that SCOTUS will ultimately carve out an exception to accommodate the three year limitation on rescission under TILA. I admit that is possible but here is why I think they won’t.

In order to establish a doctrine that a rescission is to be conclusively presumed to be beyond the three year limitation you need a statute, not common law, stating exactly that. The Courts lack the authority to invent a new law of evidence. While it may be “obvious” to some people that the rescission notice was sent more than 3 years after consummation, it remains a question of fact as to the exact moment of consummation — assuming there was any “consummation” with anyone in the chain upon which the present forecloser relies.

Proving the loan and the status of the “lender” would therefore be a requirement to establish that the rescission was sent beyond three years from consummation. Proving that requires showing the holy grail of foreclosure litigation that the banks have successfully hidden since the 1990’s — who paid who for what and when?

Could SCOTUS go the other way? Of course! There is no appeal from their decision. I’m more optimistic that eventually SCOTUS will rule consistently with the Jesinoski decision. That means that if anyone has a gripe about a rescission they must file a lawsuit, establish standing and then plead and prove their case to vacate the rescission.


Gary Dubin Another Feckless Hack Misinforming Homeowners

We were sent two recordings of this hack’s radio show. In one of them he states he’s won over 200 TILA lawsuits, that’s a lie. In the other recording he claims that the creditor has to “OWN” the note in order to foreclose. “[U]nder the Uniform Commercial Code, a plaintiff is not required to be both the owner and holder of the note in order to have standing to foreclose.” Tilus v. AS Michai, LLC, 161 So. 3d 1284, 1285-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Morcom, 125 So. 3d 320, 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)).

These two recording are so full of factually and legally incorrect misinformation that any homeowner who followed his advice would be in jeopardy of losing their home.

Understanding Jesinoski and TILA Rescission

Dear ReadTheCases:

I understand your authoring comments from a pseudonym because the outcome of your messages embarrasses you so. Here’s a case in point.  You have misconstrued the SCOTUS Jesinoski opinion as allowing a TILA rescission without a preceding TILA violation. I have pointed out that the Jesinoski trial court ruled against Jesinoskis and denied Jesinoskis their requested TILA resscission and damages because no TILA violation occurred to trigger the right to rescind. But you have repeatedly stuck to your wrongful thinking by claiming that the trial court was wrong.  You think Jesinoskis had the right to rescind without any TILA violation.

Your interpretation of TILA rescission would allow a borrower to put a creditor to an enormous amount of trouble and expense and then force rescission for no reason whatsoever.

Government would not create or enforce a law allowing a borrower to impair the obligations of a contract through unjust rescission because such a law would violate the US and state constitutions.

Florida Constitution Article I, Declaration of Rights, typical of state Constitutions:

SECTION 10. Prohibited laws.—No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Article I of the US Constitution contains a similar provision:

Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

You might want to read the Wikipedia article about rescission.

A borrower has two rights to rescind under TILA:

  1. 3-day absolute;
  2. 3-year conditional.

We’re talking about the conditional version.

A failure to give disclosures in a purchase money loan does not justify TILA rescission because TILA rescission does not apply to those loans. Purchase Money Loan = no conditional TILA rescission.

So that proves that circumstances must be right (HELOC or Refi) to “open the gate”to TILA rescission. That means a borrower cannot invoke conditional TILA rescission if the gate is closed (purchase money loan). No HELOC/Refi = no conditional TILA rescission.

Well, there’s another gate to conditional rescission: the loan must have been consummated (TILA rescission is, after all, a CONTRACT REMEDY, so a contract must exist before a party can rescind it). No consummation = no conditional TILA rescission.

Here’s yet another gate to conditional rescission: the borrower must not have sold or transferred the property. Property sold or transferred = no conditional TILA rescission.

And, there’s yet another gate (condition) to conditional TILA rescission: a TILA VIOLATION must have occurred. EVEN IF all those other gates are open, the borrower cannot force conditional TILA rescission if NO TILA VIOLATION occurred. So, NO TILA VIOLATION = NO conditional TILA RESCISSION

I explained this to you and showed you the regulation a couple of days ago:

12 C.F.R. §1026.23 “… If the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered, the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer’s interest in the property, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurs first. ”

As you can see from the explanation of Regulation Z above, the right to rescind extends beyond 3 days ONLY IF the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered.

Fail to deliver required disclosures is a TILA VIOLATION, and that triggers the right to rescind beyond 3 days after consummation. Thus, after 3 days, NO TILA VIOLATION = NO RESCISSION.

Moreover, NUMEROUS courts across the land before and since Jesinoski have endorsed the above principal: no TILA violation = no conditional TILA rescission.

Yes, a borrower can in the absence of a TILA violation wrongfully send a notice of rescission (as Jesinoskis did), or SUE to enforce the rescission (as Jesinoskis did). But, such a suitor will get no rescission and no damages (as happened to Jesinoskis).

Read through those opinions I listed below for you. You’ll see that the courts support my explanation of how TILA rescission operates, and that people lose who buck against the law and common sense.

Try to remember that, other than for an unconditional TILA 3-day right to cancel, Rescission is ALWAYS a REMEDY for a violation of an actual contract or related law. If no contract exists, or if the creditor does not breach the contract or related law, then no contract remedy applies.

Bob Hurt

On 2018-01-25 17:34, Readthecases wrote:

And that list of cases you posted (thank you for that) are dwarfed by the amount of cases that, over the period of decades, explicitly or implicitly held or presumed that a borrower cannot unilaterally rescind under TILA by simply mailing a letter.

They were wrong.

The Jesinoski SCOTUS opinion laid them in the trash bin.  For DECADES most of the federal judiciary was wrong on the fact that a homeowner can rescind his loan pursuant to TILA – and that’s despite the plain wording of the statute unequivocally stating so.

I haven’t read all those cases you listed here.  Some may have ended well for the lender because the borrower litigated the case poorly, like Jesinoski did – if there’s a way a court can use such mistakes to make a homeowner lose – it will.  Perhaps others were litigated well and should have been won by the borrowers, but the courts wanted the borrowers to lose anyway, so they lost.

In any event, as I said, the number of those cases you posted is absolutely dwarfed by the the decades of bad decisions by courts who couldn’t read the plain wording of a simple statute and had to be corrected by SCOTUS.

If that is true, such cases do not invalidate what I’ve been saying:  you sue for a declaration of rights that the forecloser has no standing to foreclose because the deed of trust it relies upon no longer has legal effect as a matter of law due to the borrower’s TILA rescission.

At that point, the lender can only properly defend by saying the borrower did not mail a rescission notice or it didn’t give the lender proper notice.  Whether the borrower actually had grounds for the rescission is at that point not relevant to the proceeding.  All that is relevant is whether or not the notice was sufficient on its face and whether or not it was mailed to the originator on the note.

Not that the lender doesn’t have a remedy.  It can attack the declaratory judgment collaterally by pleading extrinsic fraud.

Sent from Outlook

From: Maven <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 12:17 PM
Subject: Regarding your comments at my mortgage attack blog

Dear ReadThe Cases:

You made this comment on my blog:

So SCOTUS states Jesinoski's rescission was effective upon mailing and you think the lower court's opinion (who already had to corrected once by SCOTUS) invalidates the SCOTUS opinion.

You do know that SCOTUS is the highest court in the land, don't you Bob?

My answer:

The Trial court heeded the SCOTUS opinion.  Read the Post-Jesinoski opinions below to see how the courts disagree with Garfield (and you, apparently).

Remember the nature of the dispute.  Jesinoskis had mailed his notice of rescission exactly 3 years after loan consummation, but the district and circuit denied the rescission because Jesinoskis sued AFTER mailing the notice.  So the only issue before the SCOTUS was the question of whether Jesinoskis had to sue within the three year period of repose. SCOTUS said no because TILA does not require that.

The sole principle that Jesinoski clarified was that the three year limitation on notice did not extend to the filing of a lawsuit. 135 S.Ct. at 793

Brown v. Gorman, Dist. Court, ED Virginia 2016

Post-Jesinoski Opinions

Courts across the land rendered these opinions AFTER the US Supreme Court rendered the Jesinoski opinion about TILA rescission in January 2015. Most of these opinions debunk the utter nonsense that attorney Neil Garfield propounds on his LivingLies blog about TILA rescission. Sadly, most of these borrowers seem to have heeded Garfield’s false legal theories instead of pursuing the mortgage attack method.  That explains why those borrowers lost.

Randy Kelton says Bob Hurt is a “Mean Son-of-a-bitch?”

Dear Randy Kelton:

Rumor has it that you referred to me as a “Mean Son-of-a-bitch” on Talkshoe.  I write this in response.  Feel free to promulgate it to others.

First of all, I have never met you in person, but when I mused over the spanking a Texas judge gave in a foreclosure defense effort, and you said you lost the case intentionally, I concluded that you are a better enemy than friend to foreclosure victims, and I wrote something similar on the blog.  Maybe that’s why you think I’m mean. As I see it, anyone who would lose a foreclosure case on purpose is mean.

I used to put on seminars to teach foreclosure defense. I quit after I concluded that NEARLY ALL foreclosure defenses fail utterly because borrowers agreed to allow foreclosure for failure to make timely loan payments.  At best, most typical foreclosure defenses have standing as their basis, and ultimately the right party with standing will come forth, foreclose, and force a sale of the property, OR the borrower might convince the creditor to take a keys-for-cash or other deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure deal.  And sometimes the borrower can arrange for the creditor to approve of a short sale.

In any case, foreclosure defense efforts result in the borrower LOSING the house, LOSING all the cost of the defense, LOSING at least part of opponent’s attorney fees and costs, and LOSING in terms of the emotional wear and tear on the family.  A temporary dismissal of a foreclosure action is NOT a win.  It’s a dilatory ploy that violates bar rules, and actually just prolongs eventually losing the foreclosure defense effort.

I concluded after some investigation that fraud and other tortious conduct, legal errors, contract breaches and regulatory violations underlie MOST home loans of the past 15+ years, and that gives salient causes of action to borrowers who choose to go on the attack and seek damages in court or in negotiated settlement.  So I created the Mortgage Attack web site to teach people to ATTACK the perpetrators of those causes of action.  As you will see from  a careful examination of the web site, I explain why foreclosure pretender defender attorneys (and similar practitioners) are nothing more or less than SCAMMERS trying to bilk their feckless clients out of money while leading those clients inexorably into the jaws of foreclosure.  And I do not charge any money for giving people that education.

I do, however, recommend to all mortgagors that they enlist the services of a competent mortgage examiner who will find all the causes of action underlying the loan transaction and related events throughout the life of the loan, including litigation.  I know only one firm competent enough to do that job, and I refer interested parties to that firm at NO CHARGE.  Sure, the company charges a fee for that service, but it is about 1/3 of what a lawyer would charge IF the mortgage victim could find a lawyer competent to do the work, which he cannot.

It takes a monumental amount of knowledge and skill to find all the causes of action underlying the loan transaction.  An investigatory team must know cold and have a profound WORKING KNOWLDGE of all the regulatory state and federal laws including FDCPA, FCRA, HOEPA, TILA, RESPA, ECOA, HAMP, HARP, etc., all the typical means of cheating borrowers, the intricacies of appraisal and lending practice and scams, mortgage lending processes nationwide, meticulous details of uniform lending instruments, contract law, tort law, statutes of limitations, unique laws, rules, and binding court opinions of various jurisdictions related to mortgage/deed-of-trust lending, the intricacies of mortgage loan servicing, loan modifications, forebearances, bankruptcies, foreclosure actions, non-judicial foreclosure process, note assignments, Federal and State rules of evidence, civil procedure, and LITIGATION PRACTICE.  The team must examine the appraisal, loan application, note and allonges, security instrument, closing documents, escrow statements, servicer/creditor correspondence, legal notices, AND court filings, pleadings, petitions, motions, notices, transcripts, rulings, opinions, judgments, and orders.

WHO, Randy Kelton, DO YOU KNOW with that kind of knowledge and skill?  Certainly none of the pompous pretenders pontificating about mortgage litigation on TalkShoe beyond the point of embarrassment.

Let me tell you what I consider constitutes “HELPING” a mortgagor facing foreclosure:

  1. Tell him the truth that he deserves to lose the house for failing to make proper, timely monthly payments and/or maintain the property in accordance with the loan security instrument.
  2. Tell him the truth that his best way of negotiating a loan mod favorable to him OR of winning MONEY DAMAGES is to get a competent loan examination team to examine all the documents and circumstances having anything to do with that loan from day zero to present time, including litigation documents, to FIND the proof of his injuries, present the statement of injuries with evidence to the creditor and other injurious parties, then demand settlement or sue.
  3. Tell him the truth that hiring a team to do that can easily cost $5,000, and if he cannot afford that, then …
  4. Tell him the truth that the honorable thing to do is to sell what he doesn’t need, rent another dwelling, call 800-689-8684 (Allied Van Lines) to schedule the family’s move, pack the household belongings, hand the keys to the creditor/servicer, shut off the utilities, and MOVE.
  5. Tell him the truth that attacking standing through responsive pleading or declaratory judgment / quiet title action will at best prolong the agony of loss of the property.
  6. Tell him the truth that short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure are the best options if he cannot go on the attack, because those will minimize the damage to his credit rating.
  7. Tell him the truth that foreclosure defense through the courts will cost him money that he needs to save for moving his family, that he will ultimately lose, and that he will end up having to pay not only his own legal fees and costs, but also his adversary’s legal fees and costs.
  8. Tell him the truth that a loan modification is ONLY for people who can actually pay their mortgage payments fully and timely, and it is not for mortgagors who must struggle to pay because the balloon that comes due will put them right back into foreclosure if they are typical.
  9. Tell him the truth that a foreclosure battle can damage him and his family emotionally, and even cause the family to break up.

If you sell your mortgage rescue services to people WITHOUT telling them all the above, then how does my warning people to beware of your service make ME a “MEAN SON-OF-A-BITCH?”

Oh, you want to know WHO does that mortgage examination service that you cannot do because of your paucity of technical knowledge and meager experience?

Mortgage Fraud Examiners

I have yet to find ANY comparable service anywhere.

“Mortgage Fraud Examiners doesn’t save homes, the evidence in their mortgage transaction does” says Storm Bradford

Storm Bradford founded a litigation support company decades ago (see to help attorneys win cases.  As an adjunct to that activity, he founded Mortgage Fraud Examiners to aid attorneys for borrowers with mortgage problems. Bradford’s team examines every aspect of a loan transaction from inception to present time in order to discover who injured the borrower and how. THIS, according to Storm Bradford, is the ONLY way to end foreclosure because it enables the borrower to attack the injurious parties in court and win legal fees plus compensatory and punitive damages.

Around the same time, attorney Neil Garfield came out of retirement with a new and different business plan.  He started delivering seminars across the land encouraging attorneys to take on broke mortgage foreclosure victims as clients, and charge them $500 to $1500 per month to drag out the foreclosure proceedings as long as possible, sometimes as much as 5 or 6 years.  In that way, the attorneys could earn $20,000 to $50,000 per client and use only cookie-cutter / copy-machine pleadings without doing any real work other than leading the client by the hand into the inexorable jaws of foreclosure.

Those who learned first hand the value of MFE’s comprehensive mortgage examination discovered that they could negotiate settlements with the injurious parties and never have to go through foreclosure.  They look at MFE as their “SAVIOR” because the examination report provides information that enables them to end the foreclosure and settle with the creditor.

MFE is NOT a home savior,” declared Bradford in an interview. “We just give the loan transaction the equivalent of an MRI [magnetic resonance imaging, Ed.], showing evidence of the injuries to the borrower, just as an MRI shows evidence of a medical problem. A patient may need a competent surgeon to remove a brain tumor. A borrower might need a competent attorney to sue the servicer, creditor, lender, appraiser, mortgage broker, title company, or other party.  But usually the borrower can negotiate a settlement because the injurious party wants to avoid the expense of losing in court.

“So, while borrowers might see MFE as a savior, actually, we just show them how they got injured in the loan transaction,” Bradford said,  “and if presented in court, that evidence is worth its weight in GOLD because it can win a judgment in favor of the borrower!”

These days, Neil Garfield still schemes to get clients for mortgage-related services that some consider worthless.

Meanwhile, Storm Bradford’s MFE still performs comprehensive mortgage examinations that give borrowers evidence of injuries, and their only possibility of prevailing in a dispute involving the foreclosure and related counter claims and cross claims.

To many, Storm Bradford and MFE are both Heros and SAVIORS!

Share your comments below.

Mortgage Fraud Examiners And CFPB Go After Common Foes

Reston, VA – 26 November 2017 – The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) slammed online mortgage lender Amerisave with a $19.3 million disciplinary penalty for bait-and-switch mortgage lending tactics.  While the CFPB started its work of policing lenders in 2010, Virginia’s Mortgage Fraud Examiners has worked assiduously years before helping borrowers hold accountable banks and related entities involved in the mortgage transactions for their scurrilous tactics. MFE services complement those of the CFPB, providing a rounded solution for consumers.

Mortgage Fraud Examiners specializes in examining borrower’s mortgage transaction documents, to expose evidence of contract breaches, legal errors, tortious conduct, regulatory violations, etc.  This evidence provides borrowers with proof that the bank and others may have injured them.

This process differs dramatically from CFPB’s process.  The CFPB requires the borrower to submit a written complaint providing evidence of wrongdoing. If the CFPB accepts the dispute, a specialist will review it for violations of consumer protection laws, and take action against the lender if a violation warrants it.

Storm Bradford, the Founder of Mortgage Fraud Examiners provided insight into the borrower dilemma. “Banks, appraisers, mortgage brokers, title companies, realtors and sellers have dozens of ways they can injure borrowers,” Bradford said. “The CFPB is unaware of these damages because the borrower doesn’t know about them and therefore cannot report them.  That’s where MFE comes in to save the day,” he continued.

Borrowers provide their mortgage transaction documents to MFE. The examination team evaluates every piece of paper, to find the actual evidence of injuries and violations. The borrower or an attorney uses them to negotiate a settlement with, or to formulate complaints against, the injurious party.

“The homeowners and attorneys that have utilized the methodologies of MFE have received financial settlements, set-offs, free and clear property to millions dollar awards,” Bradford added.  “MFE and the CFPB give the borrower the only practical ways to hold lenders and their associates accountable for injuring the borrower.”

MFE serves the CFPB as well as the borrower by operating like a Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), according to Bradford.  “We have our clients file complaints with the CFPB detailing the injuries they suffered and the parties responsible.”  “The CFPB can start their own investigation.  That saves them an enormous amount of time.  In that way they get to use our expertise free, ” he concluded.

Mortgage Fraud Examiners service provides top value to borrowers with mortgage trouble, according to California-based loss-mitigation negotiator Suzanne Reed.  “Consumers desperately need the service of Mortgage Fraud Examiners to help them save their homes from foreclosure,” she said.  “Without MFE’s mortgage examination analysis, borrowers have no hope of avoiding loss of the house.  That MFE examination is a bargain because attorneys generally cannot or will not do it, and the exam report gives me enormous leverage in my negotiation efforts.”

Reed went on to acknowledge the CFBP’s value. “I applaud the CFPB,” she said, “for what they have accomplished in spanking the lending industry for its abuses against borrowers.  We need more organizations like it for oversight of the real estate and appraisal industry.”

For more information, contact Storm Bradford:

Mortgage Fraud Examiners

Telephone: (800) 540-EXAM (3926),

Web site: