searching

Members
  • Content Count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About searching

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
    South Carolina
  1. debtfighter and BT, somewhere in the thread you guys mentioned the Fed and state laws that she had to be conformed to in a mortgage transaaction . I thought I read last year the TILA act would not apply to private lenders (not sure though) I searched for and could not find if she is governed by the same laws as a bank. I finally called the Federal Trade Commission and they said she had to conform to the state laws. The reason I am asking is any time I had a mortgage I had to sign and or initial a lot of paper work. I have to wonder if this is a real mortgage (LOL) why at closing I did not get
  2. LOL! bizarre indeed debtfighter. But if you knew Mary you would know that bizarre is right up her ally LOL. I am certain she knows the only way this will pass is if everyone stays confused! This is a game to her. Before the agreements on the mortgage it says "Uniform Covenants Borrower and Lender covenant and agree" I will definitely keep you updated.
  3. I had the president of my bank (my cousin) look at the mortgage she said "there is nothing special about this mortgage all mortgages are under seal in SC and she thinks they are in all states. As far as I know all formal contracts are under seal. As far as the mortgage not being set aside for lack of consideration it's because a mortgage imports consideration from the note and does not need consideration. But the note sure does and she can not "say" it was for the 50K. If no consideration was given for the note the mortgage is invalid. Simple Trisha. They (debtfighter and BT0429) are correct
  4. Well well I have been planning on going to the law library in the court house for weeks and just found out it is not opened to the public. What a disappointment. I wanted to look at the Jackson v Waltes case (the one that refers to the mortgage as a covenant) along with other case law and anything else I could find regarding this under seal issue.
  5. debtfighter I just realised this may not have been clear but this is referring to the promissory note. "Iseman v. Hobbs (7) in support of his argument that parol evidence was properly admitted in this case. In Iseman, this court held parol evidence was admissible when the language of consideration was not contractual. The Iseman court explained: f the consideration recited is an act or forbearance, as distinguished from a promise or covenant, it may be shown that it did not take place and that therefore the writing is gratuitous and unenforceable. On the other hand, if a promise or covenant
  6. If you're interested in the foreclosure mess sweeping America James McGuire has more knowledge then anyone I have found. What's going on is way bigger then most people realise. My little issue ain't nothin. This website is better the the scrib I posted before. Trillion Dollar FUBAR - Articles This is halirious LOL http://www.ourlemon.com/docs/Humor.pdf
  7. I can not find anything state specific on mortgages under seal. I called James McGuire The Trillion Dollar FUBAR Uncovered (a very knowledgeable fellow) and he said "so what a mortgage is under seal. That only affects the SOL. Don't worry about the mortgage it is the promissory note that fails and if the promissory note fails there is no valid mortgage.
  8. Thank you! Hopefully we will learn something. From what I understand a mortgage is a lien or conveyance not a contract but had not seen it called a "covenant" until I found the Jackson v. Walters case looking for the under seal issue. It confused me when I learned a mortgage was not a contract.We always say "mortgage contract" or "mortgage payment" but actually it is not the contract. It does not have to be given for a consideration but it has to have an debt or obligation. It was Neil Garfield Livinglies's Weblog (a big foreclosure activist who enlightend me)and of course I researched
  9. It's ok debtfight I am glad you said that I want to see it if I am wrong. If it is the law I can deal with it. But it says "absent of fraud" When I asked the attorney if this is fraud and I know fraud is hard to prove he said "yes I think so" So the question is was this contract produced by fraud? I sure don't know how to figure out if the elements of fraud in the inducement can be proven in in this case or even if it would apply in equity. I don't really understand the whole equity thing to be honest. I am so ready to through in the towel But if I am legaly right I sure hate to quit. I see m
  10. Ok this should be all I need...... A mortgage is security for a debt or obligation. Perpetual Bldg. & Loan a$$’n v. Braun, 270 S.C. 338, 340, 242 S.E.2d 407, 408 (1978); Patterson v. Rabb, 38 S.C. 138, 147, 17 S.E. 463, 465 (1893). Unlike other instruments, in order for a mortgage to be valid, there must be a debt or obligation of the mortgagor for which the mortgage is given as security. Blackwell v. Blackwell, 289 S.C. 470, 472, 346 S.E.2d 731, 732 (Ct. App. 1986). If there is no debt, then there is no valid mortgage. Duckworth v. McKinney, 58 S.C. 418, 426, 36 S.E. 730
  11. LMAO me too and I paid 2K to hear it!!!!!! I sent him an email asking for that opinion in writting LOL
  12. OMG I know I know.!!!!.....those issues are so much more complicated then mine.
  13. (Trish is mom) Excatly! I had no part of the money given to the minor.