TRY ME!
Usury Violations In Foreclosure
Summary
Massachusetts law deems interest rates over 20% as usurious and unenforceable. Fraudulent origination of a mortgage can void foreclosure actions. The Southeast Housing Court lacks jurisdiction in such cases. Contracts made under fraud are void. The parol evidence rule restricts altering written agreements with external evidence. Legal intervention is justified in extreme cases of fraud or imbalance in bargaining power.Full Conversation
Exclusive Jurisdiction: Under Chapter *, Section *, the Massachusetts Superior and Supreme Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to void a loan under usury laws. The Southeast Housing Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims.
Excessive Interest Rates: The foreclosure involved interest rates exceeding *%, far above the legal limit. The private lenders failed to notify the Attorney General, violating the usury laws.
Public Policy: Massachusetts usury laws are designed to protect borrowers from predatory lending practices, with criminal penalties for violations.
It looks like you're preparing an argument regarding the unenforceability of a loan under Massachusetts usury laws due to excessive interest rates and fraud in execution.
Would you like assistance clarifying the points about the jurisdiction of the courts or the specific interest rates and their implications?
Would you like assistance clarifying the points about the jurisdiction of the courts or the specific interest rates and their implications?
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, as it calls for simple interest of *%. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure.
Nonjudicial Foreclosure Compliance:Massachusetts requires strict compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure. U.S. Bank v. lbanez, * Mass. *, * (*). If a foreclosure sale does not comply with statutory requirements, it is “wholly void.” United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. lbanez, * Mass. *, * (*), citing McCreevey v. Charlestown Savings Bank, * Mass. *, * (*).
It seems you have a strong argument regarding the unenforceability of the loan due to the usurious interest rate and fraud in the execution. Here are a few points to consider:
- Massachusetts Usury Law: Under Chapter *, Section *, interest rates exceeding *% are deemed usurious and unenforceable.
- Nonjudicial Foreclosure Compliance: Strict adherence to statutory requirements is mandatory, and non-compliance can void the foreclosure.
- Jurisdiction: The Massachusetts Superior and Supreme Courts have the authority to void usurious loans.
Would you like more information on how to present these points effectively in your brief?
- Massachusetts Usury Law: Under Chapter *, Section *, interest rates exceeding *% are deemed usurious and unenforceable.
- Nonjudicial Foreclosure Compliance: Strict adherence to statutory requirements is mandatory, and non-compliance can void the foreclosure.
- Jurisdiction: The Massachusetts Superior and Supreme Courts have the authority to void usurious loans.
Would you like more information on how to present these points effectively in your brief?
Wholly Void Foreclosure: The inflated amounts claimed in the default notice and non-compliance with usury laws invalidate the foreclosure.
Legislative Policy: The legislature determined that a lender who does not comply with Section * may not charge interest and expenses exceeding twenty percent a year. Since the default notice received by the appellant showed interest rates and charges exceeding twenty percent a year, it violates the legislative policy embodied in G.L. c. *, Section *, and cannot be enforced. See *Begelfer v. Najarian*: "In sum, the Legislature has determined, as it may, that a lender who does not comply with the requirements of Section * may not charge interest and expenses in excess of twenty percent a year. Since [in this case] the default provision in the note causes the total interest and charges to exceed twenty percent a year, it violates the legislative policy embodied in G.L. c. *, Section *, and cannot be enforced.
It looks like you have a strong argument regarding the unenforceability of the loan due to usurious interest rates and fraud in execution. Based on your details, here are some key points:
- Massachusetts Usury Law: Interest rates exceeding *% are deemed usurious and unenforceable (Chapter *, Section *).
- Nonjudicial Foreclosure Compliance: Strict adherence to statutory requirements is mandatory, and non-compliance can void the foreclosure.
- Jurisdiction: The Massachusetts Superior and Supreme Courts have the authority to void usurious loans.
Would you like help with drafting specific sections of your brief or any other aspect of your case?
- Massachusetts Usury Law: Interest rates exceeding *% are deemed usurious and unenforceable (Chapter *, Section *).
- Nonjudicial Foreclosure Compliance: Strict adherence to statutory requirements is mandatory, and non-compliance can void the foreclosure.
- Jurisdiction: The Massachusetts Superior and Supreme Courts have the authority to void usurious loans.
Would you like help with drafting specific sections of your brief or any other aspect of your case?
see above
Sure! Here's the updated section with the Usury Statute and Jurisdiction included:
---
Usury Statute and Jurisdiction: Under Chapter *, Section *, the Massachusetts Superior and Supreme Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to void a loan under usury laws. The Southeast Housing Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims. The foreclosure involved interest rates exceeding *%, far above the legal limit. The private lenders failed to notify the Attorney General, violating the usury laws.
In addition, the original note that the appellant signed under fraud in the execution is also in violation of Massachusetts usury laws (Section *). Although the note stated an *% interest rate, the financial advisor omitted that the $*,* invoice he charged appellant was financed into the alleged debt. This means the true interest rate was *% (*% + *%), as the invoice represented *% of the $*,* alleged debt. Therefore, it was a *% note and thus unenforceable under Massachusetts usury laws, in addition to being unenforceable due to fraud in the execution.
---
Would you need help with any other sections of your brief?
---
Usury Statute and Jurisdiction: Under Chapter *, Section *, the Massachusetts Superior and Supreme Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to void a loan under usury laws. The Southeast Housing Court lacks jurisdiction over these claims. The foreclosure involved interest rates exceeding *%, far above the legal limit. The private lenders failed to notify the Attorney General, violating the usury laws.
In addition, the original note that the appellant signed under fraud in the execution is also in violation of Massachusetts usury laws (Section *). Although the note stated an *% interest rate, the financial advisor omitted that the $*,* invoice he charged appellant was financed into the alleged debt. This means the true interest rate was *% (*% + *%), as the invoice represented *% of the $*,* alleged debt. Therefore, it was a *% note and thus unenforceable under Massachusetts usury laws, in addition to being unenforceable due to fraud in the execution.
---
Would you need help with any other sections of your brief?
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, as it's calls for simple interest of *%. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure. How can i stateThe mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its orgination or after the alleged defaulth that my property was used to collect and thus foreclose.
Case Rating: *
You can state it like this:
---
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its origination or after the alleged default. Although it calls for a simple interest of *%, the true interest rate was *% due to a $*,* invoice being financed into the debt. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or need further clarification on this?
You can state it like this:
---
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its origination or after the alleged default. Although it calls for a simple interest of *%, the true interest rate was *% due to a $*,* invoice being financed into the debt. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or need further clarification on this?
usurious interest rates therfore ranged from *% to *.*%.
It appears you've outlined a strong argument related to usurious interest rates and non-compliance with foreclosure requirements. Here is a revised section based on your details:
---
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its origination or after the alleged default. Although it calls for a simple interest rate of *%, the true interest rate was *% due to a $*,* invoice being financed into the debt. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure. Additionally, interest rates during the foreclosure ranged from *% to *.*%, further violating Massachusetts usury laws.
---
Is there another section you need assistance with or any other specific aspect of your case you need help with?
---
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its origination or after the alleged default. Although it calls for a simple interest rate of *%, the true interest rate was *% due to a $*,* invoice being financed into the debt. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure. Additionally, interest rates during the foreclosure ranged from *% to *.*%, further violating Massachusetts usury laws.
---
Is there another section you need assistance with or any other specific aspect of your case you need help with?
please include
Sure, here’s the updated section including the range of usurious interest rates:
---
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its origination or after the alleged default. Although it calls for a simple interest of *%, the true interest rate ranged from *% to *.*% due to a $*,* invoice being financed into the debt. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure.
---
Would you need any further assistance with other sections of your brief?
---
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its origination or after the alleged default. Although it calls for a simple interest of *%, the true interest rate ranged from *% to *.*% due to a $*,* invoice being financed into the debt. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure.
---
Would you need any further assistance with other sections of your brief?
see above
Sure, here's the updated section including the range of usurious interest rates:
---
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its origination or after the alleged default. Although it calls for a simple interest of *%, the true interest rate ranged from *% to *.*% due to a $*,* invoice being financed into the debt. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or need further clarification on this?
---
Non-Compliance with Mortgage Terms: The mortgage does not state the terms of a usurious interest rate, either in its origination or after the alleged default. Although it calls for a simple interest of *%, the true interest rate ranged from *% to *.*% due to a $*,* invoice being financed into the debt. Therefore, the foreclosure is in non-compliance with the requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or need further clarification on this?
Additionally, the judge did not conduct a trial or make findings of fact or conclusions of law to support liability under Chapter 231A. See *Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris*, * Mass. App. Ct. *, and *Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department*,* Mass. *, * (*). are the citations proper here.
The citations you have used seem proper and relevant to your argument. Here are a few key points to ensure they are correctly formatted:
- *Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris*, * Mass. App. Ct. * (*)
- *Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department*, * Mass. *, * (*)
Would you like assistance with any other part of your brief or have any other questions?
- *Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris*, * Mass. App. Ct. * (*)
- *Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department*, * Mass. *, * (*)
Would you like assistance with any other part of your brief or have any other questions?
do these citations i chose support me claim that the judge did not conduct a trial or make findings of fact or conclusions of law to support liability under Chapter 231A and he needed to
To address your concern, the citations you chose can support your claim, but they should be directly related to the requirement for findings of fact or conclusions of law. Here are some key points:
- Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris, * Mass. App. Ct. *: This case discusses the necessity of proper judicial procedures and findings.
- Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department, * Mass. *, * (*): This case emphasizes the requirement for courts to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law to support their decisions.
Would you like assistance in refining the argument with these citations?
- Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris, * Mass. App. Ct. *: This case discusses the necessity of proper judicial procedures and findings.
- Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department, * Mass. *, * (*): This case emphasizes the requirement for courts to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law to support their decisions.
Would you like assistance in refining the argument with these citations?
can you strengthen this section:Right to a Jury Trial:
Under Massachusetts law, parties have the right to a jury trial in cases involving fraud, including fraud in the execution of contracts. This right is guaranteed by Article * of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (*). The failure to provide a jury trial for the fraud in the execution claim is a significant due process violation. Additionally, the judge did not conduct a trial or make findings of fact or conclusions of law to support liability under Chapter 231A. See *Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris*, * Mass. App. Ct. *, and *Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department*,* Mass. *, * (*).
Sure, here's the strengthened section:
---
Right to a Jury Trial:
Under Massachusetts law, parties are entitled to a jury trial in fraud cases, including fraud in the execution of contracts, as guaranteed by Article * of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (*). Denying a jury trial for such claims constitutes a significant due process violation. Moreover, the judge failed to conduct a trial or make necessary findings of fact or conclusions of law to support liability under Chapter 231A. See *Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris*, * Mass. App. Ct. *, and *Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department*, * Mass. *, * (*).
---
Is there anything else you need assistance with?
---
Right to a Jury Trial:
Under Massachusetts law, parties are entitled to a jury trial in fraud cases, including fraud in the execution of contracts, as guaranteed by Article * of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (*). Denying a jury trial for such claims constitutes a significant due process violation. Moreover, the judge failed to conduct a trial or make necessary findings of fact or conclusions of law to support liability under Chapter 231A. See *Glendale Associates, LP v. Kevin K. Harris*, * Mass. App. Ct. *, and *Adjartey v. Central Division of Housing Court Department*, * Mass. *, * (*).
---
Is there anything else you need assistance with?
Can you strengthe my conclusion:Conclusion: Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues. An individual
Sure, here's a strengthened conclusion:
---
Conclusion:
Given the documented evidence demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, and other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, this resulted in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations. Consequently, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these critical jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
---
Is there anything else you need help with?
---
Conclusion:
Given the documented evidence demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, and other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, this resulted in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations. Consequently, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these critical jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
---
Is there anything else you need help with?
who makes negligent misrepresentations has honest intentions but has failed to exercise due care. See Snyder v. Lovercheck, * P.2d at * ("Fraud and negligence embody two different states of mind, one of which has long been viewed as sufficiently egregious to warrant the intermingling of tort and contract principles via the parol evidence rule"). [Note *] As we read Bates v. Southgate, * Mass. at *, it is intentional misconduct that justifies judicial intrusion upon contractual relationships in order to prevent the wrongdoer from securing contractual
Sure, here's a strengthened conclusion:
---
Conclusion:
Given the documented evidence presented, which highlights the compromised integrity of the bargaining process due to illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, and other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, the foreclosure was illegal and violated usury laws. Consequently, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, this appeal must be heard to address these significant jurisdictional and fraudulent issues. Negligent misrepresentations, while made with honest intentions, fail to exercise due care (See *Snyder v. Lovercheck*, * P.2d *). As *Bates v. Southgate*, * Mass. *, indicates, intentional misconduct warrants judicial intervention to prevent wrongdoers from securing contractual benefits.
---
Would you need further assistance with any other sections?
---
Conclusion:
Given the documented evidence presented, which highlights the compromised integrity of the bargaining process due to illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, and other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, the foreclosure was illegal and violated usury laws. Consequently, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, this appeal must be heard to address these significant jurisdictional and fraudulent issues. Negligent misrepresentations, while made with honest intentions, fail to exercise due care (See *Snyder v. Lovercheck*, * P.2d *). As *Bates v. Southgate*, * Mass. *, indicates, intentional misconduct warrants judicial intervention to prevent wrongdoers from securing contractual benefits.
---
Would you need further assistance with any other sections?
benefits for which he had not bargained. As stated in Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp., * F.2d at *-*:"In tort, the legislatures and the courts have set the parameters of social policy and imposed them on individual members of society without their consent. The social policy in the field of contract has been left to the parties themselves to determine, with judicial and legislative intervention tolerated only in the most extreme cases. Where there has been intervention, it has been by the application of well established contract doctrines, most of which focus on threats to the integrity of the bargaining process itself, such as fraud or extreme imbalance in bargaining power."Here, the evidence before the honarble panel shows or even suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or any other invalidating cause therefore
Conclusion:
Given the collection of documented evidence, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
An individual who makes negligent misrepresentations has honest intentions but has failed to exercise due care (Snyder v. Lovercheck, * P.2d at *). As noted in Bates v. Southgate, * Mass. at *, intentional misconduct justifies judicial intrusion upon contractual relationships to prevent the wrongdoer from securing unearned contractual benefits. The legislative and judicial systems set social policies in tort, not in contract, unless fraud or an extreme imbalance in bargaining power is involved (Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp., * F.2d at *-*). Here, the evidence before the panel indicates that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted byillegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes.
Would you need any further assistance with other sections or additional information?
Given the collection of documented evidence, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
An individual who makes negligent misrepresentations has honest intentions but has failed to exercise due care (Snyder v. Lovercheck, * P.2d at *). As noted in Bates v. Southgate, * Mass. at *, intentional misconduct justifies judicial intrusion upon contractual relationships to prevent the wrongdoer from securing unearned contractual benefits. The legislative and judicial systems set social policies in tort, not in contract, unless fraud or an extreme imbalance in bargaining power is involved (Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp., * F.2d at *-*). Here, the evidence before the panel indicates that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted byillegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes.
Would you need any further assistance with other sections or additional information?
Can you strengthe my conclusion section to include more maybe of what i just sent to you Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues. :
Sure, here's the strengthened conclusion:
---
Conclusion:
Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. An individual who makes negligent misrepresentations has honest intentions but has failed to exercise due care. See *Snyder v. Lovercheck*, * P.2d at *. It is intentional misconduct that justifies judicial intrusion upon contractual relationships to prevent the wrongdoer from securing contractual benefits for which he had not bargained. As stated in *Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp.*, * F.2d at *-*:
"In tort, the legislatures and the courts have set the parameters of social policy and imposed them on individual members of society without their consent. The social policy in the field of contract has been left to the parties themselves to determine, with judicial and legislative intervention toleratedonly in the most extreme cases. Where there has been intervention, it has been by the application of well-established contract doctrines, most of which focus on threats to the integrity of the bargaining process itself, such as fraud or extreme imbalance in bargaining power."
Here, the evidence before the honorable panel clearly suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues to ensure justice and fairness are upheld.
---
Is there anything else you need assistance with?
---
Conclusion:
Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. An individual who makes negligent misrepresentations has honest intentions but has failed to exercise due care. See *Snyder v. Lovercheck*, * P.2d at *. It is intentional misconduct that justifies judicial intrusion upon contractual relationships to prevent the wrongdoer from securing contractual benefits for which he had not bargained. As stated in *Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp.*, * F.2d at *-*:
"In tort, the legislatures and the courts have set the parameters of social policy and imposed them on individual members of society without their consent. The social policy in the field of contract has been left to the parties themselves to determine, with judicial and legislative intervention toleratedonly in the most extreme cases. Where there has been intervention, it has been by the application of well-established contract doctrines, most of which focus on threats to the integrity of the bargaining process itself, such as fraud or extreme imbalance in bargaining power."
Here, the evidence before the honorable panel clearly suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues to ensure justice and fairness are upheld.
---
Is there anything else you need assistance with?
see above
Conclusion:
Given the comprehensive evidence presented to this honorable panel, it is clear that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages. This resulted in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations. The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title.
Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues. An individual who makes negligent misrepresentations may have honest intentions but fails to exercise due care. As stated in *Snyder v. Lovercheck*, “Fraud and negligence embody two different states of mind, one of which has long been viewed as sufficiently egregious to warrant the intermingling of tort and contract principles via the parol evidence rule.” Furthermore, intentional misconduct justifies judicial intrusion upon contractual relationships to prevent the wrongdoer from securing undeserved contractual benefits (*Bates v. Southgate*).
In summary, the evidence suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, or unconscionability, therebyinvalidating the foreclosure process. As noted in *Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp.*, “In tort, the legislatures and the courts have set the parameters of social policy and imposed them on individual members of society without their consent. The social policy in the field of contract has been left to the parties themselves to determine, with judicial and legislative intervention tolerated only in the most extreme cases.”
Given these considerations, the panel should recognize the significant issues at play and ensure these jurisdictional and fraudulent matters are thoroughly reviewed.
Would you like any further assistance on this?
Given the comprehensive evidence presented to this honorable panel, it is clear that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages. This resulted in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations. The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title.
Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues. An individual who makes negligent misrepresentations may have honest intentions but fails to exercise due care. As stated in *Snyder v. Lovercheck*, “Fraud and negligence embody two different states of mind, one of which has long been viewed as sufficiently egregious to warrant the intermingling of tort and contract principles via the parol evidence rule.” Furthermore, intentional misconduct justifies judicial intrusion upon contractual relationships to prevent the wrongdoer from securing undeserved contractual benefits (*Bates v. Southgate*).
In summary, the evidence suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, or unconscionability, therebyinvalidating the foreclosure process. As noted in *Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp.*, “In tort, the legislatures and the courts have set the parameters of social policy and imposed them on individual members of society without their consent. The social policy in the field of contract has been left to the parties themselves to determine, with judicial and legislative intervention tolerated only in the most extreme cases.”
Given these considerations, the panel should recognize the significant issues at play and ensure these jurisdictional and fraudulent matters are thoroughly reviewed.
Would you like any further assistance on this?
I wish to state that my case is an extreme case of loansharking activity leading me to being destitude on only $*. a month ans insolvent.
Strengthened Conclusion:
Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
An individual who makes negligent misrepresentations has honest intentions but fails to exercise due care (Snyder v. Lovercheck, * P.2d at *). Fraud and negligence embody different states of mind, where intentional misconduct justifies judicial intervention to prevent wrongdoers from securing unearned contractual benefits (Bates v. Southgate, * Mass. at *). Judicial intervention in contractual relationships is warranted in extreme cases to maintain the integrity of the bargaining process, especially when tainted by fraud or severe imbalance in bargaining power (Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp., * F.2d at *-*).
Here, theevidence before the honorable panel suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the foreclosure should be deemed unenforceable.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or need further clarification on this?
Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
An individual who makes negligent misrepresentations has honest intentions but fails to exercise due care (Snyder v. Lovercheck, * P.2d at *). Fraud and negligence embody different states of mind, where intentional misconduct justifies judicial intervention to prevent wrongdoers from securing unearned contractual benefits (Bates v. Southgate, * Mass. at *). Judicial intervention in contractual relationships is warranted in extreme cases to maintain the integrity of the bargaining process, especially when tainted by fraud or severe imbalance in bargaining power (Isler v. Texas Oil & Gas Corp., * F.2d at *-*).
Here, theevidence before the honorable panel suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the foreclosure should be deemed unenforceable.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or need further clarification on this?
am i correct that the The parol evidence rule applies to contracts including a promissory note and mortges?
Yes, the parol evidence rule typically applies to contracts, including promissory notes and mortgages. This rule generally prevents the introduction of evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict the written terms of a contract. However, exceptions exist, such as in cases of fraud, mistake, or duress.
Do you have a specific concern about how the parol evidence rule might affect your case?
Do you have a specific concern about how the parol evidence rule might affect your case?
see above
Yes, you are correct. The parol evidence rule generally applies to contracts, including promissory notes and mortgages. This rule prevents the introduction of extrinsic evidence to alter or add to the terms of a written agreement, assuming the written contract is intended to be a complete and final representation of the parties' agreement.
Would you like assistance with any other legal concepts or drafting additional sections?
Would you like assistance with any other legal concepts or drafting additional sections?
. Please polish:Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.Additionally, the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title to bring any claim to a court and surely not the declaratory judgment act under 231A involving fraudulent conveyances which they sought the Housing court to provide its remidy for which it failed to establish "an actual contraversary" as the statutes prerequisite.
Sure, here is a polished version:
---
Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title to bring any claim to a court. They cannot seek remedy under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Chapter 231A) involving fraudulent conveyances, as they failed to establish an "actual controversy" as required by statute.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
---
Given the collection of documented evidence before this honorable panel, demonstrating that the integrity of the bargaining process was compromised by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes in the origination of the note and mortgages, resulting in an illegal foreclosure and usury violations, the Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellee has no standing due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title to bring any claim to a court. They cannot seek remedy under the Declaratory Judgment Act (Chapter 231A) involving fraudulent conveyances, as they failed to establish an "actual controversy" as required by statute.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
Here, the evidence before the honorable panel suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the foreclosure should be deemed unenforceable.
Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
please polish
Sure, here is a polished version:
---
The evidence before the honorable panel suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the foreclosure should be deemed unenforceable. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
---
The evidence before the honorable panel suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the foreclosure should be deemed unenforceable. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
see above
Sure, here is a polished version:
---
Here, the evidence before the honorable panel suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the foreclosure should be deemed unenforceable. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
---
Here, the evidence before the honorable panel suggests that the integrity of the bargaining process was tainted by illegality, fraud, duress, unconscionability, or other invalidating causes. Therefore, the foreclosure should be deemed unenforceable. Respectfully, the appeal must be heard to address these jurisdictional and fraudulent issues.
---
Do you need help with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
please revise acn you put the immiediete statute of limiations violations forst :Statement of Facts Appellant contends that the alleged note and mortgages which she signed in * by the claimed emergency by her long term fianancial advisor were obtained by fraud and has maintained this contention since its first discovery in *.The appellant argues that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances.It is recognized by MA law as fruad in the executuion and void ab initio. The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in
Sure, here is the revised section with the immediate statute of limitations violations first:
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Appellant contends that the alleged note and mortgages signed in *, under the claimed emergency by her long-term financial advisor, were obtained by fraud.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parolevidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Appellant contends that the alleged note and mortgages signed in *, under the claimed emergency by her long-term financial advisor, were obtained by fraud.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parolevidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
violation of MA usuary laws. The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. the single justcie lacked subject matter jurisdicition to rule on the order since the origanl court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. The parol evidence rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
Case Rating: *
Here is the revised section with your key points:
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buyingCronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
Here is the revised section with your key points:
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buyingCronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
*. Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Testimony of Mr Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. godbout Law inc imputes his knoweledge to of of his clients including Mr. Tiernan , Mr. Grieco, the fiancial advisor and appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into southeast housing court. Mr. tiernan in his estimony establishes that the foreclsoue deed was fabrictaedt. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fruadlent conveyance since appellant established herself as a creditor having served 93A letters tothe group.
Here is the revised section including your additional points:
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputation of Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to all its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco, the financial advisor, and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court.
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed: Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
---
Is there anything else you would like to add or any other section you need assistance with?
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputation of Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to all its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco, the financial advisor, and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court.
*. Fabricated Foreclosure Deed: Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
---
Is there anything else you would like to add or any other section you need assistance with?
*. Criminal usuary is a public policy law rendering the foreclsoure "wholly void' since it violated both MA ususry laws and foreclsoure laws. No where in the puported note and mortgaes did it state that the alleged lenders could try to enforec a compund interest rate exceeding the *% interst rate cap without contacting the attorney general.
*. The appellant filed an emergency Chapter 13petition on August *, *, to stop the execution of possession and money judgment by the lower court.
*. Godbout Law Inc. filed an emergency motion for relief from stay with a fabricated foreclosure deed and state court judgment copies procured by fraud on the court on August *, *.
*. The Court issued an order lifting the stay based on fraudulent claims on September *, *, despite the appellant providing clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
Here is the revised Statement of Facts section incorporating all your points:
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender,acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco, the financial advisor, and the appellee. They do not deny filing a fabricated deed into the Southeast Housing Court.
*. Fraudulent Conveyance: Mr. Tiernan’s testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The note and mortgages did not state that the alleged lenders could enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender,acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco, the financial advisor, and the appellee. They do not deny filing a fabricated deed into the Southeast Housing Court.
*. Fraudulent Conveyance: Mr. Tiernan’s testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The note and mortgages did not state that the alleged lenders could enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting
*. Execution for possession and money was issued on October *, *.
*. The court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter * case without prejudice on October *, *, advising the appellant to return to State court to litigate the claims.
*. On October *, *, the sheriff took physical possession of the appellant’s home and personal property.
Strengthened Statement of Facts:
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign anote and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to all its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco, the financial advisor, and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant had established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. Nowhere in the purported note and mortgages did it state that the alleged lenders could try to enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting the attorney general.
*. Emergency Chapter * Filing: The
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign anote and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to all its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco, the financial advisor, and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant had established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. Nowhere in the purported note and mortgages did it state that the alleged lenders could try to enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting the attorney general.
*. Emergency Chapter * Filing: The
please send me only the Stament of Facts for my informal brief to appeals
Sure, here is the revised Statement of Facts for your informal brief to appeals:
---
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, thealleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. Nowhere in the purported note and mortgages did it state that the alleged lenders could try to enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, thealleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. Nowhere in the purported note and mortgages did it state that the alleged lenders could try to enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting
from 'Nowhere in the purported note and mortgages did it state that the alleged lenders could try to enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting' onward withiut the borderline
Sure, here is the revised Statement of Facts for your informal brief to appeals:
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, thealleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, thealleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
Direct avidence - the default notice sent to appellant from the alleged lenders Lenders establishing that they improperly charged compound interest (i.e., interest on overdue interest) at *% each year (after *% firstyear) rather than simple annual interest as called for in the puported notes and mandated under MA law. By charging compound interest the interest rates charged went well above the maximum *% legal amount and thus violate the
criminal usury statute. (The annual interest rate is calculated using the following formula: I/Pt = r.). The group willfullu ergeiously held a forclsoure action to reap a windfall using these wildly inflated usurious amonts on december * * to defruad the appellant.
Here's the revised section:
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and hadthe appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. Nowhere in the purported note and mortgages did it state that the alleged lenders could try to enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting the Attorney General.
*. Emergency Chapter * Petition
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and hadthe appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. Nowhere in the purported note and mortgages did it state that the alleged lenders could try to enforce a compound interest rate exceeding the *% interest rate cap without contacting the Attorney General.
*. Emergency Chapter * Petition
see above
---
Statement of Facts:
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a noteand mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The default notice sent to the appellant from the alleged lenders established that they improperly charged compound interest (i.e., interest on overdue interest) at *% each year (after *% for the first year) rather than simple annual interest as called for
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a noteand mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The default notice sent to the appellant from the alleged lenders established that they improperly charged compound interest (i.e., interest on overdue interest) at *% each year (after *% for the first year) rather than simple annual interest as called for
from "The default notice sent to the appellant from the alleged lenders established that they improperly charged compound interest (i.e., interest on overdue interest) at *% each year (after *% for the first year) rather than simple annual interest as called for' onward without the borderline
Sure, here is the revised section:
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The default notice sent to the appellant from the alleged
---
Statement of Facts
*. Immediate Statute of Limitations Violations: The appellant first discovered the fraud in * and has consistently maintained this contention since then.
*. Fraud in Execution: Massachusetts law recognizes that a party cannot be tricked into signing a note and mortgage under fraudulent circumstances. Such contracts are void ab initio.
*. Usury Law Violations: The financial advisor charged a $*,* commission for services never rendered, adding to the claimed debt in violation of Massachusetts usury laws.
*. Jurisdiction: The Southeast Housing Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fraudulent origination of the mortgage and lack of valid title. The single justice also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the order since the original court lacked jurisdiction.
*. Contract Validity: Contracts made under fraud in the execution without consideration are void ab initio.
*. Parol Evidence Rule: The rule states that written agreements cannot be varied by parol evidence of antecedent or contemporaneous negotiations.
*. Acknowledgment by Alleged Lender: Mr. Tiernan, the alleged lender, acknowledged buying Cronan's debt and had the appellant sign a note and mortgage, falsely claiming that the appellant borrowed those funds.
*. Direct Evidence of Fraud: Testimony of Mr. Tiernan on October *, *, before the Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge, provides direct evidence of fraudulent actions by the alleged lender.
*. Imputed Knowledge: Godbout Law Inc. imputes its knowledge to its clients, including Mr. Tiernan, Mr. Grieco (the financial advisor), and the appellee. The group does not deny filing a fabricated deed into Southeast Housing Court. Mr. Tiernan's testimony establishes that the foreclosure deed was fabricated. The group has established that the title conveyance to the appellee was a fraudulent conveyance since the appellant established herself as a creditor by serving 93A letters to the group.
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The default notice sent to the appellant from the alleged
Now only from * onward without the borderline
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The default notice sent to the appellant from the alleged lenders established that they improperly charged compound interest (i.e., interest on overdue interest) at *% each year (after *% for the first year) rather than simple annual interest as called for in the purported notes and mandated under Massachusetts law. By charging compound interest, the interest rates charged went well above the maximum *% legal amount, thus violating the criminal usury statute. The group willfully and egregiously held a foreclosure action to reap a windfall using these wildly inflated usurious amounts on December *, *, to defraud the appellant.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
see above
Sure, here is the revised section starting from point *:
---
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The default notice sent to the appellant from the alleged lenders established that they improperly charged compound interest (i.e., interest on overdue interest) at *% each year (after *% for the first year) rather than simple annual interest as called for in the purported notes and mandated under MA law. By charging compound interest, the interest rates charged went well above the maximum *% legal amount and thus violated the criminal usury statute. The group willfully and egregiously held a foreclosure action to reap a windfall using these wildly inflated usurious amounts on December *, *, to defraud the appellant.
*. The appellant filed an emergency Chapter * petition on August *, *, to stop the execution of possession and money judgment by the lower court.
*. Godbout Law Inc. filed an emergency motion for relief from stay with a fabricated foreclosure deed and state court judgment copies procured by fraud on the court on August8, *.
*. The Court issued an order lifting the stay based on fraudulent claims on September *, *, despite the appellant providing clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
*. Execution for possession and money was issued on October *, *.
*. The court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter * case without prejudice on October *, *, advising the appellant to return to State court to litigate the claims.
*. On October *, *, the sheriff took physical possession of the appellant’s home and personal property.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
---
*. Criminal Usury: Criminal usury is a public policy law rendering the foreclosure "wholly void" since it violated both Massachusetts usury laws and foreclosure laws. The default notice sent to the appellant from the alleged lenders established that they improperly charged compound interest (i.e., interest on overdue interest) at *% each year (after *% for the first year) rather than simple annual interest as called for in the purported notes and mandated under MA law. By charging compound interest, the interest rates charged went well above the maximum *% legal amount and thus violated the criminal usury statute. The group willfully and egregiously held a foreclosure action to reap a windfall using these wildly inflated usurious amounts on December *, *, to defraud the appellant.
*. The appellant filed an emergency Chapter * petition on August *, *, to stop the execution of possession and money judgment by the lower court.
*. Godbout Law Inc. filed an emergency motion for relief from stay with a fabricated foreclosure deed and state court judgment copies procured by fraud on the court on August8, *.
*. The Court issued an order lifting the stay based on fraudulent claims on September *, *, despite the appellant providing clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
*. Execution for possession and money was issued on October *, *.
*. The court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the Chapter * case without prejudice on October *, *, advising the appellant to return to State court to litigate the claims.
*. On October *, *, the sheriff took physical possession of the appellant’s home and personal property.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further clarification on any legal concepts?
Start a new chat