Case in point, The Helping Families Save Their Home Act of 2009 states that if there is no assignment filed, the lack of assignment makes the lien unenforceable and it loses its priority. Making our claims for prescriptive title just and valid. Our claim on our home is the only one without defects. This state 's statute was not addressed by the federal court, and because our state claims were pending before the dismissal of Bennett I, we can still have our state claims heard in state court, rendering the Defendant 's claims of res judicita null.
Wrongful Removal We the Plaintiffs did, not file any amended pleadings or causes of actions claiming TILA. The Defendants did not file our motion with their removal. They claimed the motion …show more content…
The Defendants stated that they determined our reply to their motion for summary judgment as an amended complaint.
4. Defendants have not issued any proof of purchase or loss of the debt they claim we owe them. The loan in question was a table funded loan so it was made on a promise, not a payment. They have not lost or risked anything, yet the Plaintiffs have lost much. The Defendants have a long history of giving incentives to illegally foreclose on properties belonging to their customers. iSee Sealy Davis v Ocwen 2005.1 More recently, the CFPB had Ocwen pay out 2 billion for the same type of business practices noted in Davis v Ocwen. Ocwen, not only takes advantage of their customers they apparently are ok with doing it with their business associates as well.2 With that said, we were not trying to get a free home. Ocwen has built their business from free homes & their comment about our motives are a projection of what they have done & continue to do. The Supreme Court 's Ruling was based strictly on the wording of TILA Section 1635 and stated that there is nothing indicating that a TILA Rescission should be treated like a common law rescission and 1635 b supports and confirms this …show more content…
Which is why Ocwen never gave us a straight answer as to who holds this responsibility or who holds our note.
FCRA
Our claim arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s was not added to the amended complaint because as Pro Se litigants, we learn as we go. We learned of the violations after we amended our complaint. Our ignorance should not give Ocwen 's illegal business practices a pass. The fact of the matter is the FCRA violation is something else the Defendants are abusing and using it in a way it is not intended. They are purposely causing damage to our credit. By doing so, they are attempting to keep us from being able to secure credit to tender our loan. This is the very definition of unconscionable! As homeowners with children the stress this has placed on our whole family on a daily basis is unimaginable, and they should be held accountable. Pursuant to FCRA Section 623 we are due $1,000 per occurrence and Ocwen has been violating this law since August of 2013. That is 30 violations which mean they owe us $30,000 alone for just the violations of FCRA, without including the defamation or slander causes of
Wrongful Removal We the Plaintiffs did, not file any amended pleadings or causes of actions claiming TILA. The Defendants did not file our motion with their removal. They claimed the motion …show more content…
The Defendants stated that they determined our reply to their motion for summary judgment as an amended complaint.
4. Defendants have not issued any proof of purchase or loss of the debt they claim we owe them. The loan in question was a table funded loan so it was made on a promise, not a payment. They have not lost or risked anything, yet the Plaintiffs have lost much. The Defendants have a long history of giving incentives to illegally foreclose on properties belonging to their customers. iSee Sealy Davis v Ocwen 2005.1 More recently, the CFPB had Ocwen pay out 2 billion for the same type of business practices noted in Davis v Ocwen. Ocwen, not only takes advantage of their customers they apparently are ok with doing it with their business associates as well.2 With that said, we were not trying to get a free home. Ocwen has built their business from free homes & their comment about our motives are a projection of what they have done & continue to do. The Supreme Court 's Ruling was based strictly on the wording of TILA Section 1635 and stated that there is nothing indicating that a TILA Rescission should be treated like a common law rescission and 1635 b supports and confirms this …show more content…
Which is why Ocwen never gave us a straight answer as to who holds this responsibility or who holds our note.
FCRA
Our claim arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s was not added to the amended complaint because as Pro Se litigants, we learn as we go. We learned of the violations after we amended our complaint. Our ignorance should not give Ocwen 's illegal business practices a pass. The fact of the matter is the FCRA violation is something else the Defendants are abusing and using it in a way it is not intended. They are purposely causing damage to our credit. By doing so, they are attempting to keep us from being able to secure credit to tender our loan. This is the very definition of unconscionable! As homeowners with children the stress this has placed on our whole family on a daily basis is unimaginable, and they should be held accountable. Pursuant to FCRA Section 623 we are due $1,000 per occurrence and Ocwen has been violating this law since August of 2013. That is 30 violations which mean they owe us $30,000 alone for just the violations of FCRA, without including the defamation or slander causes of