“You Promised”: Debunking the Most Abused Argument in Foreclosure Law

Disclaimer: This article is not legal advice. Please consult licensed legal counsel for guidance specific to your situation.

Introduction: The Weaponization of a Signature

In countless foreclosure proceedings, when a borrower raises legitimate challenges to chain of title, derecognition, or fraudulent inducement, the courtroom echoes with the same rebuttal:

“But you promised. You signed. That’s all that matters.”

This argument is not only intellectually dishonest, it is legally insufficient. Here is how to deconstruct and defeat this rhetorical trap — and reclaim the narrative with facts, law, and accounting.

1. Yes, a Promise Was Made — But Under What Pretense?

A signature does not validate a fraudulent inducement. Borrowers were led to believe:

• The lender had capital at risk.
• The lender was loaning its own funds.
• There was no secondary securitization agenda.

In reality:

• The borrower’s note was used as the source of funding.
• The note was converted into a security and monetized.
• The note — the very evidence of the debt — was intentionally eliminated and destroyed in the securitization process.
• Its destruction is a material act of derecognition, erasing the ability to prove the debt’s existence.

Conclusion: The so-called loan contract fails for lack of consideration and full disclosure. That’s basic contract law.

2. Promises Are Not Self-Executing: Enforcement Requires Standing

Even if a promise exists, only a party with proof of ownership and booked accounting interest can enforce it.

• Foreclosure plaintiffs routinely lack:
  • A ledger entry of the debt as an asset
  • Tax ID or registration of the trust
  • A valid chain of assignment

Conclusion: The right to enforce a promise rests with the party who owns it — not just anyone holding a copy.

3. Promise ≠ License to Commit Fraud

Saying “you promised” cannot excuse or override:

• Failure to disclose the real transaction (monetization)
• The sale of the loan into a derecognition pipeline
• Attempts to collect on a derecognized asset

This is not enforcement — it’s unjust enrichment and conversion.

Conclusion: Enforcement of a contract procured and manipulated through fraud violates both common law and equity.

4. You Didn’t Get a Loan — You Issued a Security

The promissory note is not just a promise — it is a security instrument under UCC Article 8.

• You are the issuer.
• The system monetized that instrument and created credit.
• That credit, sourced from your financial identity, was used to wire funds to escrow.

Conclusion: This was not a loan in the classical sense. It was a credit-creation and securitization scheme.

5. Enforcement Requires Clean Hands

Equity courts require that a party seeking enforcement must:

• Show proof of value given
• Demonstrate lawful ownership
• Operate within accounting and tax frameworks

Yet the typical foreclosure plaintiff:

• Cannot prove consideration
• Has no record of booking the asset
• Proceeds through MERS, shell trusts, or servicer proxies

Conclusion: The borrower’s “promise” cannot be used to launder a fraudulent enforcement action.

6. A Judicial System That Elevates Form Over Substance Is Broken

When judges cling to the “you promised” line, they ignore:

• The foundational principles of contract law
• The economic reality of derecognition
• The modern mechanics of securitization and credit creation

This is not justice — it’s blind adherence to form over substance.

Conclusion: The legitimacy of the judiciary depends on its ability to distinguish appearance from ownership, and form from fact.

Final Thoughts: From Defense to Offense

If you are facing a judicial steamroll based on your signature:

• Reframe the issue.
• Don’t argue about whether you promised — argue about what was delivered in return.
• Elevate the conversation to consideration, tax treatment, and ledger accounting.

Need Help Building the Record?

I specialize in:

• Developing the evidentiary foundation to prove derecognition
• Framing administrative notices that demand admissions
• Constructing tax-based defenses and entitlement-holder strategies

William Paatalo – Private Investigator OR PSID# 49411

bill.bpia@gmail.com

William J. Paatalo is a licensed private investigator and expert witness with over 15 years of experience investigating securitization fraud, derecognition, and mortgage enforcement abuses. He has authored more than 450 affidavits and declarations submitted in courts nationwide.