HomeMy WebLinkAbout949014Rec- - -uested by and when recorded, mail to:
BRANDON T. BENTLEY
1716 EAST BURNING OAK DRIVE
DRAPER, UTAH 8402.0
Original Record:
Entry #941445
Book/Page #702/670
Date Recorded: 8/20/08
RECEIVED $11912009 at 3:32 PM
RECEIVING # 949014
BOOK: 730 PAGE: 225
JEANNE WAGNER
LINCOLN COUNTY CLERK, KEMMERER, WY
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL & RESCIND
As of July 7, 2009, and via this instrument, FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER is hereby given due NOTICE OF
RIGHT TO CANCEL & RESCIND by BRANDON T. BENTLEY .
A consumer has the right to cancel and/or rescind any/ all contracts and any/ all security interests appertaining
thereto as a result of fraud, fraudulent inducement, concealment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
There is no statute of limitations on rescinding a contract for fraud as fraud vitiates all contracts. To date, FIRST
HORIZON HOME LENDER has never disclosed all the material facts' related to the transaction in question, nor
provided BRANDON T. BENTLEY with true, complete, accurate, and timely documentation of the same. The
record thus far evidences significant disclosure violations which, alone, sufficiently qualifies BRANDON T.
BENTLEY to cancel the CONTRACT/NOTE and TRUST DEED referenced herein and to rescind, revoke, and
renounce all signatures on said instruments making them null and void ab initio, nunc pro tune.
Additionally, the purported CONTRACT/ NOTE and TRUST DEED referenced herein was obtained and acquired
from BRANDON T. BENTLEY by wrongful acts of fraud, fraudulent inducement, concealment, and fraudulent
misrepresentation, giving BRANDON T. BENTLEY absolute recourse, right, and cause of action under numerous
state and federal laws.' Therefore, based on the aforementioned discovery of facts proving that a fraud was
intentionally perpetrated upon BRANDON T. BENTLEY by FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER, it is BRANDON T.
BENTLEY's duty to promptly, unconditionally, and invasively rescind said contract?
Due to the fraudulent nature of the instant transaction, BRANDON T. BENTLEY has/ have no obligation under
CONTRACT/ NOTE and TRUST DEED referenced herein. Consequently, FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER and
any/ all successors, assigns, beneficiaries, trustees, and/or substitutes, known or unknown, are NOT entitled to
remuneration or recourse from BRANDON T. BENTLEY with regards to the instant matter due to the fact that,
collectively and/or severally, said parties have realized compensatory consideration from said fraudulent
transaction through selling, trading, hypothecating, and/or collateralizing said CONTRACT /NOTE and TRUST
DEED. Consequently, the CONTRACT/ NOTE and TRUST DEED in question is thereby satisfied in full and any/ all
security interest or lien is automatically void and FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER et al., agrees and acknowledges
this fact forthwith.
1 where a relationship of trust and confidence bound in good faith exists between two parties, there is a duty to disclose all material facts. Damages
and actionable fraud exist when one conveys a false impression by disclosure of some facts and the misrepresentation and concealment of others. State
v. Coddington, 662 P.2d 155,135 Ariz. 480. (Ariz App. 1983); Leigh v. Loyd, 244 P.2d 356,74 Ariz. 84- (1952); Morrison v. Acton, 198 P.2d 590,68 Ariz.
27 (Ariz. 1948); Van Buren v. Pima Community College Dist Bd., 546 P.2d 821, 113 Ariz. 85 (Ariz. 1976); Regan v. First National Bank, 101 P.2d 214, 55
Ariz. 320 (Ariz 1940); Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 64 P.2d 101, 49 Ariz. 34- (Ariz. 1937); Universal Inv. Co. Sahara Motor Inn, Inc., 619 P-2d 485, 127
Ariz. 213- (Ariz. App. 1980).
2 Acts of fraud taint/ void everything they touch as the US Supreme Court has declared: "There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud
vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." (United States v. Thirockmorton, 98 U.S. 61). "Where a party desires to rescind
upon the grounds of mistake or fraud he must upon the discovery of the facts, at once announce his purpose, and adhere to it." Grymes v. Saunders,
93 US 55, 62.
3 If they proposed to rescind, their duty was to assert that right promptly, unconditionally, and invasively." Richardson v. Lowe, 149 Fed Rep 625,
627-28.
ICC # BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 06/16/2009 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL & RESCIND, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 2 OF 6
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS
"Indeed, no more than (such affidavits are) necessary to make the prima face case."
United States v Kis, 658 F.2nd 526,536 (7th Cir.1981) Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S. Ct March 22nd 1982.
The unchanging principles of Commercial Law are:
NN)227
1. All have equal protection tinder the law.
2. In Commerce, truth is sovereign.
3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.
4. An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth in Commerce.
5. An un-rebutted affidavit becomes a Judgment in Commerce.
6. All matters must be expressed to be resolved.
7. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through an affidavit by a point-for-point rebuttal, resolution by jury, or
payment tendered.
The requirements for a conscionable, valid, and binding contract are:
1. Offer by a Private Individual qualified to make the contract.
2. Acceptance by a Private Individual qualified to make and accept the contract.
3. Agreement, full disclosure, and complete understanding by both parties.
4. Valuable consideration given by both parties.
5. Agreed upon duration of term.
6. Both parties must be sui juris; that is, of lawful age, usually 21 years old.
LET IT BE KNOWN that BRANDON T. BENTLEY, (hereafter "AFFIANT"), affirms the following facts
appertaining to the instant matter regarding FIRST HORIZON HOME LENDER (hereafter "BANK").
1. THAT, AFFIANT was induced to believe by BANK's advertising, and further by certain officers/ employees of
BANK, that BANK had money of its own to "loan" to AFFIANT and to others.
2. THAT, AFFIANT accepted BANK's offer to "loan" AFFIANT the BANK's money, and AFFIANT signed what
appeared to be a CONTRACT/ NOTE dated August 15, 2008 based on the aforementioned inducement.
3. THAT, BANK did also induce AFFIANT to sign a TRUST DEED dated August 15, 2008, granting BANK a
security interest in and a lien on certain personal property of AFFIANT currently held, owned, or otherwise
acquired. BANK caused AFFIANT to believe this TRUST DEED was necessary for BANK to protect and insure
its valuable and lawful "consideration," ie., the "loaning" of BANK's money to AFFIANT as advertised and
promised.
4. THAT, BANK did further induce AFFIANT into signing said TRUST DEED wherein BANK did cause other
undeserving third parties to obtain alien against, a security interest in, and complete control over the
AFFIANT's personal property. Again, BANK led AFFIANT to believe this TRUST DEED and assignment was
necessary to further secure BANK's valuable, lawful consideration against any potential "risk of loss" regarding
"loaning" the AFFIANT the BANK's money.
5. THAT, at no time prior to AFFIANT signing of any the required "loan" and/or financial documents, and to this
date, did BANK, nor any of its officers/ employees, assigns, et al.; ever fully described and categorized all of the
underlying, undisclosed particulars, details, and principals of law regarding BANK's entire purported "loan"
process, including, but not limited to, where the money came from to fund the CONTRACT/ NOTE, how it was
obtained/ created, and by whom the purported "loan" was made.
ICC # BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 0611812009 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL & RESCIND, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 4 OF 6
41 qj228
6. THAT, at no time prior to AFFIANT signing any of the "loan" documents, and to tl-ds date, did BANK, nor any
of its officers/ employees, assigns, et al. ever disclose to AFFIANT the fact that the funding of the CONTRACT/
NOTE was being created/ obtained by and through AFFIANT's signature on AFFIANT's CONTRACT/ NOTE;
the same CONTRACT/ NOTE which BANK, later arbitrarily and deceitfully claimed as its own, and then either
sold, bargained, traded, hypothecated, and/or collateralized for BANK's own benefit and use.
7. THAT, by and through AFFIANT signing the fraudulent CONTRACT/ NOTE, and TRUST DEED, BANK
caused AFFIANT to believe that a binding, lawful contract was created between BANK, its officers/ employees,
assigns, and beneficiaries et al., and AFFIANT.
8. THAT prior to, and at the time of AFFIANT signing all BANK's required financial instruments as instructed,
AFFIANT was very unlearned and unsophisticated in such lending and financial practices, including a total lack
of knowledge of all the various underlying, undisclosed details, particulars, and legal consequences pertaining
to the same. To the contrary, AFFIANT relied wholly and entirely upon BANK, and its officers/ employees, to
have "clean hands," and operate in good faith, and to thus provide AFFIANT with full, complete, and truthful
disclosure of the entire financial transaction in question.
9. THAT BANK charged an undisclosed and usurious "interest rate" base on a "loan" amount that BANK didn't
actually risk nor was based on real and valuable consideration and that ALL "principle" and "interest" paid to
BANK were pure profit.
10. THAT, following the aforesaid financial transaction concerning BANK, AFFIANT studied and researched the
above particulars regarding BANK's "loan" process from legitimate sources, including numerous publications
from the various Federal Reserve Banks,. and concluded that BANK did not, in fact, operate with clean hands
nor in good faith, nor did BANK, nor any of its officers/ employees, provide full, complete and truthful
disclosure of its underlying, undisclosed, and secret intentions. To the contrary, BANK's continued refusal to
provide internal accounting records provided sufficient evidence to support the following conclusions:
a) THAT BANK used acts of, but not limited to, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and
fraudulent intent in its advertising and claim to have "loaned" its money to AFFIANT.
b) THAT BANK did not fulfill its fraudulent promise/ agreement to lend AFFIANT its own money; BANK did
not contribute anything of intrinsic value nor incur any risk/loss in the formation or outcome of the
transaction and BANK, therefore, did not sacrifice nor contribute any valuable lawful consideration; and,
thereby, could not, and did not, suffer any loss, damage, or injury.
c) THAT BANK arbitrarily and discretely stole AFFIANT's CONTRACT/ NOTE, claimed it as its own, and
converted it to a negotiable instrument for BANK's sole benefit, use, and gain.
d) THAT BANK further compounded its predatory, wrongful, and fraudulent actions by inducing AFFIANT
to sign an unconscionable TRUST DEED, thereby, granting additional third parties undeserving control,
benefit, and interest in AFFIANT's personal and real property all under the guise of "necessity."
e) THAT without being fully and truthfully informed and disclosed as to ALL the details of the purported
"loan," and the underlying disingenuous intentions of BANK, there could not be, and was not, a "meeting
of the minds."
f) THAT the fraudulent CONTRACT/ NOTE, and TRUST DEED created by BANK and any of its
officers/ employees, assigns, et al. and signed only by AFFIANT does not constitute a lawful binding
contract due to BANK's acts of nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance as more particularly outlined
above; and that any such purported "contract" would be unconscionable and is void ab initio.
11. THAT, as confirmed above and throughout, BANK defaulted on its fiduciary responsibility to AFFIANT by
refusing to provide full, complete, truthful, and accurate disclosures, regarding all financial instruments
AFFIANT was compelled to sign, while blatantly obsfucating the true nature and exact particulars of BANK's
entire "loan" process.
ICC # MFIRST HORIZON 4219 06/18/2009 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL & RESCIND, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 5 OF 6
C-00229
12. THAT AFFIANT did spend additional time researching several particulars regarding BANK's entire "loan"
process as outlined above, and became further perplexed. If BANK had indeed given full, complete, accurate,
and truthful disclosure regarding all elements of its "loan" process, as set forth above and throughout; and did,
in fact, provide. valuable, bona fide consideration, and did, in fact, believe BANK created a lawful, binding
contract with AFFIANT, then why didn'tBANK's officers/ representatives /beneficiaries sign their name on the
CONTRACT/ NOTE? The same applies to, the TRUST DEED. If BANK knew it was not involved in any manner
of fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation, concealment,. or unjust enrichment, and did, in fact, have a bona
fide legal contract with the AFFIANT, sufficient to prevail in a foreclosure action if need be; then why did BANK
feel it necessary to have a .DEED OF TRUST created, wherein, BANK did cause complete control of the
purported "loan/ note" to be turned over to an undeserving third party, who, in turn, never put their signature
to the instruments in question? Inconsideration of all the above statements and findings, it is only reasonable to
conclude that BANK knew full well that it had defrauded. AFFIANT from the outset as to the true nature and
undisclosed rudiments of the entire "loan, process, and was not receptive to further implicating and/or
incriminating itself by signing its name to the documents that BANK knew were fraudulent, full of lies,
unfulfilled promises, secret intentions; inducement, entrapment; and unjust enrichment.
13. THAT it is unlawful for BANK to fraudulently obtain or steal anther's property,. claim it as their own, and then
further bargain, assign, or sell the same to obtain an unjust enrichment, benefit, and gain for themselves, all at a
doss and detriment to the lawful, bona fide owner. THAT, in this case, the original NOTE in question is, and
always wasi the property of AFFIANT, and that AFFIANT. did not knowingly or otherwise assign, transfer,
allow the sale of, or give the NOTE away for another's benefit and gain,` especially to the loss and detriment of
AFFIANT.
LET it be known that BANK, and any of its-officers, agents, assigns, or beneficiaries, et al. have failed to provide any
evidence in contradiction to the matters set forth above and throughout. Accordingly, .the-record hereby establishes
that all aforementioned facts, statements, determinations; ..andrelated Attachments/Exhibits (which are incorporated
herein in. their entirety) are entirely true and remain un-rebuttedand uncontroverted.
IN CONCLUSION, due to additional research, further understanding, and for all of the reasons set forth above; and
throughout this Affidavit, all of which the AFFIANT incorporates herein in its entirety and by reference, AFFIANT
has cause to believe that the fraudulent CONTRACT /NOTE referenced herein and other such instruments entered
into between AFFIANT and BANK and any and all of its agents, assigns, and beneficiaries have no legal force or
binding effect, and.the same -are in fact - Null and Void - ab;initio and nunc pro tune. Therefore; FIRST HORIZON:
HOME LENDER and any/ all successors, assigns, beneficiaries, trustees,.:and/or.substitutes, known or unknown, are
not entitled1b further remuneration or recourse from BRANDON, T. BENTLEY. with regards to this instant.matter
due to the fact that, collectively and/or severally, said parties have realized sufficient consideration from said
fraudulent transaction through selling, trading, hypothecating,,and/or collateralizing the. CONTRACT/NOTE.
Consequently, the CONTRACT/ NOTE ,in question is thereby satisfied in full and FIRST ORIZON HOME
L:ENDERet`al., agrees and acknowledge this fact forthwith.
Respectfully submitted Without Prejudice and with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
MAIL
By:
BRANDON., BENTLEY
JURAT
State of UTAH )
} ss
County of SALT LAKE } R'-
VC.
Subscribed, sworn to, and. affirmed:before me on, by BRANDON T. BENTLEY who proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the natural person(s) who appeared before me,
Notnry Public '
ICC # BB/FIRST HORIZON 4219 06/1812009 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CANCEL & RESCIND, AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS PAGE 6 OF 6