• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Retaining Possession of Your Home Through Lawful Money Redemption

David Merrill

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
245
Likes
71
#1
I think we have a new word to add to our vocabulary... decisioner. I keep a brain trust of about 120 competent courts (record-forming). I just want to share something...

"Hi David:

"Latest update. While researching our options I came across law stating, basically, a servicer cannot foreclose "If a borrower submits a complete loss mitigation application [..] more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale ..." See paragraph (g) here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/1024.41

"So we hustled to submit a complete "loss mitigation application." These are also called "loan mods." Lo and behold we were just approved for HAMP Tier 1 at 2% (whatever that means). See attached.

"Considering the mortgage hasn't been paid in over 4 years (saving about $70k), a Ch 13 bankruptcy filing by attorney to stave off foreclosure would cost about $5k and restructure debt into a similar monthly payment, this doesn't appear too bad of an option to continue living in the family home (worth $390k according to the servicer) and ride out the financial collapse. Factor in the wife & kids too.

"Interesting thing came up while getting everything together for the application. They wanted tax returns, if I was "self-employed",etc. Told them I was making lawful money but not "self-employed" as defined by statute. They thought the Joint tax return was incomplete, no Schedule C (for business) & wanted it. Told them there was no Sched C; not required, and return was complete. Put together profit/loss statements at their request. The rep responded with something like "if it's not on the tax return the loan company cannot count it." Told them that was their decision, not mine."

Then a few days later, he shared.

"one more thing. If you take the new, modified monthly payment and divide by the HAMP Tier 1 figure of 31%, you get exactly my wife's income. So the "decisioner" did NOT take my lawful money income into the equation. It's not federal reserve income!

"Your file is now with the decisioner awaiting review."

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-the-difference-between-hamp-tier-1-hamp-tier-2.html

The logical next step would be to conclude if both husband and wife were redeeming lawful money, the new payments would be extraordinarily low.


Regards,
David Merrill.

www.lawfulmoneytrust.com