2
Zero Sum Verbiage taken from a Deed of Trust filed of record in Tarrant County, Texas as instrument #0207209495: (H) "Loan" means the debt evidenced by the Note, plus interest, any prepayment charges and late charges due under the Note, and all sums due under this Security Instrument, plus interest. (F) "Note" means the promissory note signed by Borrower and dated JUNE 7, 2007. The Note states that Borrower owes Lender "SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FOUR AND NO/100 ************** Dollars (U.S. $770,904.00) plus interest". Borrower has promised to pay this debt in regular Periodic Payments and to pay the debt in full not later than July 1, 2037. (E) "MERS" is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc, MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI,48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS. This writer will not entertain item (E) if MERS is a beneficiary or the Lender with rights is the beneficiary, this matter is best left to the courts. Verbiage from a Fannie Mae #3210 Uniform Note: 10. UNIFORM SECURED NOTE This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions. In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed (the “Security Instrument”), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amounts I owe under this Note. Some of those conditions are described as follows:… Attention is directed to verbiage:

Zero Sum

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

If the debt was discharged in bankruptcy, how can a security instrument be used as an avenue to collect a debt?

Citation preview

Page 1: Zero Sum

Zero Sum Verbiage taken from a Deed of Trust filed of record in Tarrant County, Texas as instrument #0207209495:

(H) "Loan" means the debt evidenced by the Note, plus interest, any prepayment charges and late charges due under the Note, and all sums due under this Security Instrument, plus interest. (F) "Note" means the promissory note signed by Borrower and dated JUNE 7, 2007. The Note states that Borrower owes Lender "SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FOUR AND NO/100 ************** Dollars (U.S. $770,904.00) plus interest". Borrower has promised to pay this debt in regular Periodic Payments and to pay the debt in full not later than July 1, 2037. (E) "MERS" is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc, MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. MERS is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and has an address and telephone number of P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI,48501-2026, tel. (888) 679-MERS.

This writer will not entertain item (E) if MERS is a beneficiary or the Lender with rights is the beneficiary, this matter is best left to the courts. Verbiage from a Fannie Mae #3210 Uniform Note:

10. UNIFORM SECURED NOTE This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions. In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed (the “Security Instrument”), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amounts I owe under this Note. Some of those conditions are described as follows:… Attention is directed to verbiage:

Page 2: Zero Sum

“That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amounts I owe under this Note.”[Bold Emphasis added by writer] Questions arise. 1. Were a party to apply §11 USC 524 to a discharged obligation evidenced

by the Note, would a violation of a court injunction exist for a party to try to collect the alternate means (a once valid security instrument0 of value secured to a note that evidences a Zero Sum owing?

2. If monetary value (evidenced by a note) was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding resulting in a Zero Sum being owed would it be true that a Zero Sum owing is all that is legally available for collection?

3. Whereas if value of a Note is evidenced by a non Zero Sum being owed, then is it possible to sale the debt obligation for value? Hence in reverse, if value of a Note is evidenced to be Zero Sum owing (by discharge) is it possible to possible to sale the debt obligation for Zero Sum?

4. Whereas if the obligation evidenced by a Note is of Zero Sum value, does a legal right exist for a party to claim an interest in the alternate means to collect value by using a Security Instrument that secures a Note for Zero Sum?

Where it maybe and probably is true, placing a “Notice of Discharge” upon a party’s credit report does not constitute an action to collect a discharge debt in bankruptcy; however a purchaser of a bankruptcy discharged debt more than likely in attempting to take action utilizing the security instrument is in violation of the discharge injunction. Simple mathematical way to examine the scenario:

1. Note evidences a debt. 2. Security Instrument evidences an alternate right to collect the debt evidenced

by the Note. 3. Obligation evidenced by bankruptcy discharge by proxy also discharges any

alternate right to collect value once evidenced by the Note. 4. Attempt to collect value by the alternate instrument (Security Instrument)

could be construed as violating the bankruptcy discharge injunction. 5. Whereas there is no value obligation to collect upon would it also be a party

would be subject to “Unclean Hands Doctrine” for misleading a court to believe rights exist?