Posted by PAW/FL on January 9, 2009, 6:18 am, in reply to "Re: RTC"
24.26.7.45
If they're looking for "too many" RTC's in the package, imo, they are grasping at straws. Title 12, which governs the Right of Rescission, makes it very clear what the legal obligations are. Nowhere in the statute is there a requirement that the borrower, homeowner, or any one else, needs to sign and return a copy of the notification. The statute simply states that anyone with an interest in the transaction, be it a borrower, NoB, or unspecified homeonwer, needs to be notified and provided two copies of the disclosure.
In my non-legal opinion, any law firm or attorney seeking to find fault in the RTC or rescission process, needs to look a lot deeper than whether or not the notice is signed.
--Previous Message--
: This could be a big issue because a
: whole new industry has sprung up.
: Attorneys are doing forensic
: examinations of the borrwer's
: packages. They are looking for errors
: that might invalidate the docs. If the
: docs are invalid, the whole loan can
: be invalid. In this way, borrowers can
: possibly get their loans modified if
: the lender has previuosly refused.
: I wonder if they might also look at
: the lender's copies. If there are too
: many RTC's in the package, there might
: be consequences.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread