Financial Literacy PDF

This includes: Template Examples

DEBT VALIDATION LETTER (for loans and mortgages)

MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT(for loans and mortgages)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

CREDITOR/DEBT COLLECTOR DECLARATION

NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE UPON FAILURE TO VALIDATE THE DEBT (for loans and mortgages)

“Mortgage cannot constitute color of title for purposes of acquiring title by adverse possession, as a mortgage does not purport to convey title to property.” Slemmons v. Massie, 1984-NMSC-108, 102 N.M. 33, 690 P.2d 1027.

“…in New York, a mortgage is considered only a lien, and, therefore, not a transfer of title…” Smith v Bank of Am., N.A. 2012 NY Slip Op 08718 Decided on December 19, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Chambers, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

“By more modern law, and under the statutes of many states, a mortgage is a mere lien upon land. Its dominant attribute is security, but nevertheless it must be regarded as "both a lien in equity and a conveyance at law." United States v. Commonwealth &c. Trust Co., 193 U.S. 651 (1904)

The Bank / Lender knowingly and intentionally neglected or refused to deposit the sum agreed to be lent and had no intentions on ever loaning any amount of money into the alleged debtor’s account. This refusal to actually loan any money to the alleged debtor ipso facto and ipso jure makes Lender not a lender at all. Not being a lender, they are not a creditor and have no right to recoupment, remedy, or recourse and has failed to make a claim upon which relief may be granted as there is no proof of actual indebtness.

A promissory note where one party is obligated to give a loan before the other party is required to pay the loan is void the moment the initial party does not send money. Therefore, the allege lender is in breach of their duty to lend. And with no intent to lend, has committed promissory fraud.

Remington Investments, Inc. v. Hamedani (1997)

 Normally, a promissory note is given to a lender contemporaneously with the borrower's receipt of the face amount of the note. When a promissory note is paid, the note is normally cancelled…

The burden then shifts to the borrower to rebut the presumption either by proving payment, or by proving that the face amount of the note was never advanced. (Cf. Light v. Stevens (1911) 159 Cal. 288 [113 P. 659]; Van Fleet-Durkee, Inc. v. Oyster (1952) 112 Cal. App. 2d 739 [247 P.2d 403] [both cases common law precursors of Evidence Code section 635].)…

The agreement to repay reflected on the document headed "Promissory Note" is not an unconditional agreement to repay a sum certain. Instead, it is only a conditional agreement to repay whatever sums might periodically be advanced. The mere existence of this line of credit agreement does not support a presumption that the full amount of the line was ever advanced…

The Promissory Note document itself is not a business record as that term is used in the law of hearsay, but rather is an operative contractual document admissible merely upon adequate evidence of authenticity…

The Promissory Note in isolation did not show what amounts were advanced pursuant to the line of credit, what amounts were repaid, when, what interest had accrued, etc… Remington Investments, Inc. v. Hamedani (1997) Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC126128, Aviva K. Bobb, Judge.