Now loading...
“Mortgage fraud is a felony in Washington state and is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The Washington statute that defines mortgage fraud is RCW 19.144.080. This law makes it illegal to:
* Defraud or mislead a borrower, lender, or other person during the mortgage lending process
* Use any scheme to defraud or mislead others during the mortgage lending process
* Engage in unfair or deceptive practices related to the mortgage lending process
* Obtain property through fraud or material misrepresentation during the mortgage lending process “
One has to make a recording before the illegal foreclose. All recordings posted after the auction will be removed. Before the auction request by certified letter for proof of ownership UCC 305 and UCC 306. Keep a copy of your certified letter to the Bank and replacement Trustee. You can use my recorded King County Records as examples on how to file before your illegal foreclosure. The recording fees are now $303 dollars to record documents. Once filed you will have a clouded title and no Bank will lend money on null mortgage. The buyer of my illegal foreclosure could not get a loan for two half years until their attorney illegally block my recordings. The filings can only removed by the courts once they rule on the legality of mortgage has been ruled upon. This information is use for educational purposes and not intended to be legal advice.
The Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW Ch. 19.86, governs virtually everyone doing business in the State of Washington. Given its breadth, as well as its unusual and relatively severe civil remedies, I previously posted why Homeowner owners need to understand the types of activities that potentially violate the CPA.
“In September 2020, the Washington Supreme Court revisited the requirements for a CPA claim, and confirmed that a prohibited unfair or deceptive act need not be material. In other words, even relatively minor misrepresentations can lead to CPA claims if they are unfair or have the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public.”
UCC 3-305
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following:
(1) a defense of the obligor based on (i) infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract, (ii) duress, lack of legal capacity, or illegality of the transaction which, under other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor, (iii) fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms, or (iv) discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings;
(2) a defense of the obligor stated in another section of this Article or a defense of the obligor that would be available if the person entitled to enforce the instrument were enforcing a right to payment under a simple contract; and
(3) a claim in recoupment of the obligor against the original payee of the instrument if the claim arose from the transaction that gave rise to the instrument; but the claim of the obligor may be asserted against a transferee of the instrument only to reduce the amount owing on the instrument at the time the action is brought.
(b) The right of a holder in due course to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument is subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(1), but is not subject to defenses of the obligor stated in subsection (a)(2) or claims in recoupment stated in subsection (a)(3) against a person other than the holder.
(c) Except as stated in subsection (d), in an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the obligor may not assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument a defense, claim in recoupment, or claim to the instrument (Section 3-306) of another person, but the other person’s claim to the instrument may be asserted by the obligor if the other person is joined in the action and personally asserts the claim against the person entitled to enforce the instrument. An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.
(d) In an action to enforce the obligation of an accommodation party to pay an instrument, the accommodation party may assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument any defense or claim in recoupment under subsection (a) that the accommodated party could assert against the person entitled to enforce the instrument, except the defenses of discharge in insolvency proceedings, infancy, and lack of legal capacity.
(e) In a consumer transaction, if law other than this article requires that an instrument include a statement to the effect that the rights of a holder or transferee are subject to a claim or defense that the issuer could assert against the original payee, and the instrument does not include such a statement: (1) the instrument has the same effect as if the instrument included such a statement; (2) the issuer may assert against the holder or transferee all claims and defenses that would have been available if the instrument included such a statement; and (3) the extent to which claims may be asserted against the holder or transferee is determined as if the instrument included such a statement.
(f) This section is subject to law other than this article that establishes a different rule fo
UCC 3-306
A person taking an instrument, other than a person having rights of a holder in due course, is subject to a claim of a property or possessory right in the instrument or its proceeds, including a claim to rescind a negotiation and to recover the instrument or its proceeds. A person having rights of a holder in due course takes free of the claim to the instrument
Our new website in the State of Washington is located here. https://aaf.company/aafwa/
Now loading...