Rights under the Uniform Commercial Code

[yourcareerpros]

I am located in Arizona.

I have just been denied the opportunity to exercise my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code.

When refinancing our home the lender denied the paper on the sole ground that our signatures contained the term "without prejudice UCC1-207". They stated that it could open them up to potential problems in the future and besides that, gave us full disclosure. I suggested that they are operating under the UCC and we have a right to as well and if they did give us full disclosure then they would have no challenges. They denied the loan and would not put the reason for denial in writing. They did however, approve the loan when the UCC1-207 was removed from all signatures.

It is my understanding that, as individuals, we have these rights under the law and I am seeking remedy.

We, as individuals, need to understand our rights and how to exercise them and also take to task those who choose to deny us. My pockets are not as deep as these corporations but my love for this country and my rights are deeper. I'm just tired of folks taking advantage and conveniently changing the rules or making it up as they go along.

The most cases of discrimination are on rece, color, sex, etc. But, how many people know and understand their rights when it comes to commercial and contract law?

Navigating around our government has been a task to say the least. No one know what to do with this one. It is a right, but who and what jurisdiction should adjudicate it?

any help will be greatly appreciated.

Anyone?

 

[HomeGuru]

I am located in Arizona.

I have just been denied the opportunity to exercise my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code.

**A: how would your rights have been denied when you did not follow the lender's instructions?
**************

When refinancing our home the lender denied the paper on the sole ground that our signatures contained the term "without prejudice UCC1-207".

**A: did you not write that term on the mortage documents?
***********

They stated that it could open them up to potential problems in the future and besides that, gave us full disclosure. I suggested that they are operating under the UCC and we have a right to as well and if they did give us full disclosure then they would have no challenges. They denied the loan and would not put the reason for denial in writing. They did however, approve the loan when the UCC1-207 was removed from all signatures.

It is my understanding that, as individuals, we have these rights under the law and I am seeking remedy.

We, as individuals, need to understand our rights and how to exercise them and also take to task those who choose to deny us. My pockets are not as deep as these corporations but my love for this country and my rights are deeper. I'm just tired of folks taking advantage and conveniently changing the rules or making it up as they go along.

The most cases of discrimination are on rece, color, sex, etc. But, how many people know and understand their rights when it comes to commercial and contract law?

Navigating around our government has been a task to say the least. No one know what to do with this one. It is a right, but who and what jurisdiction should adjudicate it?

any help will be greatly appreciated.

Anyone?

**A: I know what you are trying to do and it hints on those so called "patriot issues".

 

[JETX]

The lender agreement is a multiple party contract and the lender is under no legal obligation to enter that agreement with you. Simply, you changed the terms of the agreement and they refused to sign (play your game). You certainly have the right to try to get them to change their mind, but they have no obligation to do so. If you wanted, you could have taken your money elsewhere and found other financing.

So, what makes you think that you have the right to force the other party (lender) to accept your alteration of the 'standard' terms that they offered??

 

[yourcareerpros]

Perhaps I am confusing terms of a contract and the law? Wouldn't that be two different issues? It is my understanding that whatever laws govern are not necessarily needed to be written into a contract. Fortunately for me, the UCC agrees, but does not offer legal advice, and the Federal Civil Rights Division is helping to check it it out as well. Seems there may be case law on a similar issue.

Sure, I could have taken my money elsewhere. The circumstances and the 11th hour decision to not accept the paper on the part of the lender created an awful situation for my husband and I at the time where it would have been rather costly (for us and the loan officer). It's still our decision to go elsewhere but I'd still like to be able to "play on the same field", as the other party if I am offered that protection under the law. That's really the only issue. Are we or are we not?

So, I really don't understand how this would change or alter in any way, the terms of the contract or why this would be an unfair thing to do?

Thanks for your reply.

 

[HomeGuru]

Perhaps I am confusing terms of a contract and the law? Wouldn't that be two different issues? It is my understanding that whatever laws govern are not necessarily needed to be written into a contract. Fortunately for me, the UCC agrees, but does not offer legal advice, and the Federal Civil Rights Division is helping to check it it out as well. Seems there may be case law on a similar issue.

Sure, I could have taken my money elsewhere.

**A: what are you talking about "taking your money elsewhere"? You are not loaning any money but rather the lender has agreed to loan YOU money by taking your property as collateral. You changed the terms of the mortgage and note whcih caused the lender to refuse to do the refi.
********

The circumstances and the 11th hour decision to not accept the paper on the part of the lender created an awful situation for my husband and I at the time where it would have been rather costly (for us and the loan officer). It's still our decision to go elsewhere but I'd still like to be able to "play on the same field", as the other party if I am offered that protection under the law. That's really the only issue. Are we or are we not?

So, I really don't understand how this would change or alter in any way, the terms of the contract or why this would be an unfair thing to do?

Thanks for your reply.

**A: plain and simple, sign the contract documents as provided by the lender WITHOUT adding your UCC disclaimer. There is no "playing on the same field" as the rules are the rules of the lender period. The lender owns the field. Follow their rules and you get your refinance. Instill your own rules and you get not a penny.

 

[yourcareerpros]

**A: what are you talking about "taking your money elsewhere"? You are not loaning any money but rather the lender has agreed to loan YOU money by taking your property as collateral. You changed the terms of the mortgage and note whcih caused the lender to refuse to do the refi.

Yes - wrong phrase. I could have taken my business elsewhere.


**A: plain and simple, sign the contract documents as provided by the lender WITHOUT adding your UCC disclaimer. There is no "playing on the same field" as the rules are the rules of the lender period. The lender owns the field. Follow their rules and you get your refinance. Instill your own rules and you get not a penny.

Are the rules not governed to keep it fair and protect all parties? I didn't change the rules nor make them up. I'm just trying to protect myself.

And, what are "patriot issues"?

Thanks for your reply.

 

[JETX]

My apology. I made the 'take your money elsewhere' statement. It was in error and really should have been (as corrected), to 'take your business elsewhere'.