Help required from members please

urchinatheart wrote:Very helpful. I think the Van Lynn case transcript makes it clear that the debtor must have sight of any agreement/deed/contract and if so why are the assignees so unwilling to provide this if they are trying to enforce it ? And what have they been assigned or contracted to collect if they cannot show the original 'note' ?

waylander62 wrote:they cannot show the original note, nor can the original creditor as neither of them have it, it is really very very complicated as to what happens and a whole new realm of research and understanding.

the difficulty with seeing the note is that Judges will not order that to be produced and their is case law supporting this, however it is worth asking for it and see what their response is, certainly ask if they have the original in their possession, these debt buyers often shoot themselves in the foot.

I agree with Dave in respect of the assignment document i always ask for a copy of the sale agreement / deed of assignment, but NOT before they have answered the question of whether they are claiming equitable or legal title.

AND also provided a copy of the notice of assignment AND confirm how said notice was served upon the 'debtor'

waylander62 wrote:they cannot show the original note, nor can the original creditor as neither of them have it, it is really very very complicated as to what happens and a whole new realm of research and understanding.

daveiron wrote:

waylander62 wrote:they cannot show the original note, nor can the original creditor as neither of them have it, it is really very very complicated as to what happens and a whole new realm of research and understanding.

My thoughts are we are having success with the NoCA mainly due to the 'note'
which they do not have. My comprehension is the only claimant can be the one
who lawfully holds the note (Holder in Due Course) .Without the note there is
no evidence that they hold title to it, and nothing to stop anyone claiming .
Its a Prom note,security, Financial instrument ,Its widely traded and could be
anywhere & held by anyone,that being the only one who could have a valid claim.

Its an IOU ,therefor is redeemable on demand when full payment is made.

Its widely known & verifiable that the 'borrower' creates the money when they
sign and deposit the note, (creditor/debtor relationship).

daveiron wrote:All the research i have done, points to the note being a negotiable instrument.
Usually after about 3 months they are tranched with many others and sold.
In fact its in the def of tranche;A portion of a total, especially of a block of
assets such as cash or securities.
This applies to credit card agreements / loans & mortgages. This is why i am
led to believe they do not have possesion of them.I would be interested to hear
from anyone who has sight of one they have signed after a few months, afterall
in the notices we state we will settle in full upon production of said note.
What could be easier for them,produce and get paid in full or sell details (only)
for pence in the pound to the lowlifes.
Its also interesting that they never address the contents of the notices, in fact
they never even go so far as to to rebut (and we all know the maxim about non
rebuttal)

I hope you get the time for some research ,i'm interested to see if i'm on the right
track.

waylander62 wrote:Because, more often than not, they don't have it.

waylander62 wrote:no they always have the deed of assignment, the deed does not specify any particular account but must be correctly executed  and contains a number of terms and conditions which many debt buyers are in breach of

i have seen several D of A's and they contain a lot of information they dont want you to see, they can often be a 80 to 100 page document.  

the deed has to be signed by both OC and buyer and witnessed much the same as a mortgage deed.

the deed alone does not prove that your account was part of the assignment, but they will have a copy, they have to have one.

there is more to winning than just the proof of a legal assignment

waylander62 wrote: First thing i want to do is give a BIG thank you to Dave for his never ending work which goes into finding information and offering help to many people. Each 'case' , each 'claim' each problem is a learning curve for everybody but it requires ALL MEMBERS to put in their own work and NOT to just rely on others to do all of the work for them, this is most important as if you dont 'understand' what you are doing to some extent you will fail despite all of the help you may have received.

Pete012 wrote:

waylander62 wrote:no they always have the deed of assignment, the deed does not specify any particular account but must be correctly executed  and contains a number of terms and conditions which many debt buyers are in breach of

i have seen several D of A's and they contain a lot of information they dont want you to see, they can often be a 80 to 100 page document.  

the deed has to be signed by both OC and buyer and witnessed much the same as a mortgage deed.

the deed alone does not prove that your account was part of the assignment, but they will have a copy, they have to have one.

there is more to winning than just the proof of a legal assignment

I assume a DoA can be "signed" online?. Except for very few contracts, which I signed in a wet signature--most are done on a PC/online.
That is a legal "signature"?.

Also, as mentioned elsewhere, why, if they say that they can't send the DoA because it contains "sensitive" information, can't they redact the sensitive bits and send it then?.
That way, they can show that they have it.

daveiron wrote:Its explained very clearly in this link.

https://sites.google.com/view/deed-of-assignment-access/home

Pete012 wrote:Can you explain what it means by EQUITABLE and LEGAL title?

flyingfish wrote:

Pete012 wrote:Can you explain what it means by EQUITABLE and LEGAL title?

In rough terms equitable gives the other party some or all of the benefits of the assignment, but don't take ownership. An example is mortgage securitization where the bank assigns the benefits of the loans. But the bank retains ownership and would be the only party entitled to sue.

Legal assignment transfers everything, benefits, obligations and rights.

Pete012 wrote:I saw a comment elsewhere re Rights of Third Parties....

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—

daveiron wrote:This has been quoted several times recently ,just my opinion but start
at sec 1 of the act ,i believe it comes down to the terms in the original
agreement and what it contains. Its my guess (without having an agreement
in my possession) that it will contain the right for them to engage a third party,
whether named or not.  

Pete012 wrote:
This is all quite confusing, Dave.

I have seen many who say that the third party must be named.... and conversely, that they don't have to be named.
One of them is right and one is wrong.... I assume.

Pete

(3)The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into

flyingfish wrote:

Pete012 wrote:
This is all quite confusing, Dave.

I have seen many who say that the third party must be named.... and conversely, that they don't have to be named.
One of them is right and one is wrong.... I assume.

Pete

It should become clear if you look at the actual legislation ..

(3)The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into

So the third party could be identified by name, or alternatively as a member of a class, or by description. Three ways of identifying, of which being named is just one.

Pete012 wrote:So could you definitively define what is meant by "member of a class" and "or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into"?

Some of those giving their views in videos etc, are taking the first bit "The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name" only, and not connecting it with the full sentence.