SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE - Posted by JPiper
Posted by JPiper on April 10, 1999 at 13:02:15:
I’ve read each of your posts. Here are some of the words and phrases you have used: “I question the intelligence”, “beyond shameful”, “stupid”, “dishonest business tactics”, “extremely shameful”, “sleazey”, “disingenuous tactics”, “dishonest”, “lying”, “dishonestly sneak around”, “practice unethical tactics”.
Whew! You’ve been a busy boy, haven’t you?
One thing I think we can all agree on is that ALL of your words and phrases are emotional. No where in any of your posts do I see mention of a single fact. Here’s how my dictionary defines a fact as it pertains to law: “The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence as distinguished from interpretation of law.” Here’s another definition of fact from my dictionary: “Something that has been objectively verified”.
Notice that these definitions of “fact” contain words like “evidence” and “objectively verified”.
Your words and phrases are conclusions. They are your interpretation. Presumably you didn’t draw these conclusions lightly. Presumably underlying your conclusions and interpretations you have “facts”. Presumably you have found “evidence” that reveals that transferring a property without paying the loan off in full is “dishonest”. What is your evidence? What facts do you have that support your conclusions?
Here is a “due on sale clause”?..“17. Transfer of the Property or a Beneficial Interest in Borrower. If all or any part of the Property or any interest in it is sold or transferred (or if a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transferred and Borrower is not a natural person) without Lender’s prior written consent, Lender may, at its option, require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if exercise is prohibited by federal law as of the date of this Security Instrument.”
Here’s what I get from this clause. First, the clause does not prohibit me from selling or transferring my property. As a matter of fact, I don’t need the lender’s prior written consent to do so. However, in the absence of this written consent, the lender MAY, AT ITS OPTION, accelerate the loan. So far so good?.it’s quite clear. This clause tells me what I can do, and what the lender can do if it chooses. The last sentence then describes what the lender CAN’T do. The lender cannot exercise it’s rights under this clause if this exercise is prohibited by federal law.
So here’s an example. I transfer a property without the lender’s written consent. So far so good. Nothing in this clause prohibits that. Now the lender notices that this transfer has taken place and decides to do nothing. What about this is “dishonest”? What about this is a “dishonest business tactic”? What about this is “shameful”?
Here’s another example. I transfer a property without the lender’s written consent. Same as above, nothing prohibits that. Now the lender notices that this transfer has taken place, and this time decides to call their loan due and payable?.after all, it’s their option under this clause. Now I pay them the money. Perhaps I have the cash, or perhaps I refinance the property. What about this is “dishonest”?
Notice that nothing in the above clause requires me to have “permission” from the lender to transfer a property. Nothing in the above clause requires me to “notify” the lender about a transfer. Nothing in the above clause prohibits a transfer.
So help me out here. On what factual evidence did you base your conclusions that transferring a property encumbered by a loan is “dishonest”, “shameful”, “stupid”, “sleazey”, or “lying”?
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.