• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reg Z is full disclosure, A.K.A. truth in lending, disproving the FOTL theory you mentioned earlier, 'lack of full disclosure'.
 
I somehow don't think a lifestyle of dumpster diving will scale well. Who's going to fill the dumpsters?
 
Reg Z is full disclosure, A.K.A. truth in lending, disproving the FOTL theory you mentioned earlier, 'lack of full disclosure'.
FOTL theory has it that if a bank sells a borrower's promissory note without "disclosing" that intention to the borrower at the time of the loan then the borrower doesn't have to pay back the loan.

It is pure nonsense of course.
 
FOTL theory has it that if a bank sells a borrower's promissory note without "disclosing" that intention to the borrower at the time of the loan then the borrower doesn't have to pay back the loan.

Wrong theory...the lender always details to the borrower that they have the right to assign and/or sell the loan for servicing, etc.
 
Last edited:
That a great many that are takin in by Scams are pretty stupid does not mean that the person doing the scamming should be off the hook and not have his butt tossed in jail for fraud.
 
FOTL theory has it that if a bank sells a borrower's promissory note without "disclosing" that intention to the borrower at the time of the loan then the borrower doesn't have to pay back the loan.

It is pure nonsense of course.

FDIC PART 3500—REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT
PROCEDURES ACT
§ 3500.21 Mortgage servicing transfers.

Wrong theory by Freeman.
 
Are you agreeing that this particular FOTL is nonsense or are you arguing about it?
I am stating a fact that not only is the FOTL theory nonsense, it also has no basis in reality, and is easily disproven by the FDIC subsection referenced above.

For some reason I thought you were saying it was nonsense, but based in reality.
 
It's not even relevant. The contract is that the borrower promises to make a series of payments to the bank in exchange for credits to his bank account.
Yup. It is not relevant. We agree.

My point is that it is also not true, the lender has to comply with the FDIC regulation mentioned and make the borrower aware they can sell the loan.
 
Nope, pretty much just that. He thought he was being clever, turned out he wasn't.

I *do* have a question, tho -- does anyone know if that username / pw combo actually worked or if anyone used it? If the answers to each aren't "yes", then technically bobbyboy didn't violate the MA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom