Banks are using “settlement” as a means to fill title gaps. Don’t fall for it.

Posted on December 18, 2019 by Neil Garfield

So what the bank lawyers are trying to do is put us to sleep with the legalese wording and essentially appear to be saying one thing when in fact they are saying something completely different. “In relation to” is an admission that “we don’t own the loan and we don’t know who does, but from now on you agree to treat us as though we owned the loan and that we paid value for it.”

When this is done in pleadings it is at best a misstatement and at worst pure fraud.

If there is any doubt in your mind as to whether the original note and mortgage (or deed of trust) were instruments resulting from a loan by the party named as Payee on the note or Mortgagee on the mortgage, you need look no further than any settlement agreement they propose for you to sign.

I just read another one where their obvious goal is not just settlement. It is to provide cover for illegal activities that occured while the bank was pretending to be authorized to collect, process or foreclose.

The current wording of such agreements that I have personally received and read state these words: “Whereas the note and security instrument were executed in relation to a mortgage loan.” (e.s.) No banker would accept such wording if they had given a loan or bought one. They would want to say that the original loan was paid for by the named lender, not that they had some undefined “relation” to the loan.

The attorney for the banks know full well that the original note was subject to the defense of failure of consideration because it named a payee who had nothing to do with paying for the loan. They know full well that under all existing law, the receipt of money that is not a gift gives rise to a liability. So receipt of money gives rise to the debt — not signing the note.

So they know full well that the borrower’s receipt of money from a third party without notice or disclosure (required under TILA) creates a real liability for the debt and then a potential liability under the terms of the note even though the Payee on the note gave no consideration for the execution of the note. That is two liabilities.

And THAT means that the note is not evidence of the debt, which is owed to some undisclosed third party. And THAT means that no presumption of ownership of the debt arises from transfer of the note. Transfer of the note merely transfers the potential liability on the note (separate from the debt) to a new owner who is subject to the same defenses of failure of consideration and violations of TILA in the “loan closing” which was no real closing.

So the mortgage or deed of trust may say that it is to secure the performance of payments due under the note, but if the payments due under the note are not payments for the debt then the mortgage is unenforceable because mortgages can only be enforced to collect on debts — not notes that are not evidence of the debt. Mortgages or beneficial interests can be transferred only if the debt is also transferred and debts can only be transferred by paying value for the debt.

All of that means that if the originator did not actually make the loan, the enforcement of the note can be challenged — and there is no enforceable mortgage or deed of trust because unless the debt is what is being secured. The note is not the debt and vica versa. Contracts 101. If the mortgage refers to a note that is not payable to the owner of the debt, the mortgage does not secure the note — even if the mortgage says otherwise.

This is all counterintuitive. I know. But it is the reason that the banks are practically willing to give credit away in exchange for allowing them to engage in selling securities based upon the only theoretical existence of the “secured” debts that are not really secured. I see signs in the marketplace where they are indirectly offering “incentives” (Payments) to borrowers to sign on the bottom line.

And that is why the usual wording from the banking industry is not used in settlement agreements where the subject is a residential loan that has been subject to purported transfers without sales of the debt.

The usual wording would be “Whereas, the borrower received a loan of money from XYZ Corp. and executed a promissory note and mortgage memorializing the loan agreement, ” followed by “whereas ABC, Trustee acquired the aforesaid debt, note and mortgage on the __ day of ____, 200X for value paid”.

So what the bank lawyers are trying to do is put us to sleep with the legalese wording and essentially appear to be saying one thing when in fact they are saying something completely different. “In relation to” is an admission that “we don’t own the loan and we don’t know who does, but from now on you agree to treat us as though we owned the loan and that we paid value for it.”



For information on foreclosure defense call us at 800-459-1215. We offer litigation support, admissible evidence, expert witness testimony, education, training, and support in all 50 states to attorneys and pro se homeowners.





Get the FACTS & Evidence to win the legal remedy that you deserve today.





FRAUD STOPPERS Can Help You Stop Foreclosure and Mortgage Fraud

If you or anyone you know is facing foreclosure, or has already lost a property to foreclosure, and want to sue for mortgage fraudforeclosure fraud, wrongful foreclosure, or quiet title to your home FRAUD STOPPERS PMA can help you save time and money and increase your odds of success getting the legal remedy that you deserve. If you have received a Notice of Default (NOD) or a Foreclosure Notice (Foreclosure Complaint) and you want to know how to respond to the Notice of Default (NOD) or a Foreclosure Notice (Foreclosure Complaint) join FRAUD STOPPERS PMA today because FRAUD STOPPERS has a proven system to help you fight to save your home from foreclosure and sue for mortgage fraud. FRAUD STOPPERS turnkey Quiet Title Lawsuit package or Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuit package includes a court ready complaint (petition for damages), Bloomberg Securitization Audit, Expert Witness Affidavit, Application for Temporary Restraining Order (to stop a foreclosure sale or stop an eviction), Lis Pendens (to cloud the marketability of the title to the real property), and Pro Se legal education material that can show you how to win a Quiet Title Lawsuit or win a Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuit. This entire court ready Quiet Title Lawsuit Package or Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuit Package can help you save money in legal fees and help you increase your odds of success. Join FRAUD STOPPERS PMA today and get mortgage fraud analysis and the facts and evidence you need to get the legal remedy you deserve at




Feel free to connect with us . . .

Address: Birch Tree MO 65438
Phone: 800-459-1215




Fraud Stoppers Logo

DISCLOSURE: NOTICE OF Copyright © 2019  FRAUD STOPPERS, FRAUD STOPPERS PMA. Disclaimer: Any information or answers are provided for informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and does not create PMA-Member relationship. THIS SITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. Legal Information is NOT Legal Advice: This site provides “information” that is only designed to help users safely cope with their own general legal needs. Legal information is NOT the same as legal advice — the application of law to an individual’s specific circumstances. FRAUD STOPPERS is a National Private Members Association (PMA). PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING MARS Disclosure[s] 12 C.F.R. 1015.: (1) FRAUD STOPPERS PMA is NOT Affiliated with any Government Agency or Any Bank Lender; (2) Even if YOU Accept any of  FRAUD STOPPERS PMA Products or Services Your Lender May Choose to NOT Change Your Loan.  FRAUD STOPPERS products and services are only available to Active Members of the FRAUD STOPPERS PRIVATE MEMBERS ASSOCIATION. To join FRAUD STOPPERS PMA click here:



Spread the love