Bank’s burden of proof in foreclosure is pretty fundamental. They’re asking for a sum of money to settle an alleged debt. So far, they’ve not shown any evidence to support such a claim.

If the bank’s threatening you with morgage foreclosure, don’t stress. Yeah, right, easier said then done, huh!

Grab a beverage, turn off any distractions, and take a few deep breaths. And give yourself permission to calm down, clear your head, and relax.

Just because numbers are written on a piece of paper, and the bank issues “bank statements” – where’s the evidence to certify the authenticity of the figures?

In civil matters, the concept of burden of proof plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of a case. The term “burden of proof” refers to the obligation placed upon a party involved in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence in support of their claims or accusations.

Standard of proof is typically based on a “preponderance of evidence.” This means the party making the claim must provide enough evidence to convince the court or judge their claim’s more likely true than not.

By the way, none of this is legal advice, so don’t take it as gospel.

We’re not discussing the validity of the mortgage document, or whether the bank actually loaned any monies.

This matter is about one thing only, the bank’s burden of proof. The specific amount of the alleged outstanding loan account balance.

So the bank actors’ failing to provide evidence to support their claim has significant consequences on the case. The absence of evidence weakens the bank’s argument, making it challenging for them to prove their case.

Consequently, the court or judge may not have enough information to make an informed decision. This could lead to a potential dismissal of the case or a ruling in favour of the customer.

Bank’s Burden of Proof

Because the bank’s seeking a specific amount of money, the bank’s burden of proof extends beyond simply presenting evidence to support the claim. It also requires the bank to demonstrate how they arrive at the requested amount.

On their customer account statements, the bank clearly states all entries are “authorised and verified” without offering any proof or identifying the authorising party. This again raises questions about the credibility and reliability of the evidence.

So it’s crucial for the bank to substantiate their claims with clear and verifiable evidence. Doesn’t the court expect parties to provide a transparent breakdown of how they arrived at the requested amount? And supported by relevant documents and statements from reliable sources, ie fully audited accounts?

The bank’s created this problem, they’ve dug this hole. They’ve created the bank’s burden of proof.

Lawyer’s Threats And Intimidation

Now the bank refuses to discuss the matter and instead relies on external lawyers. The lawyers blindly engage in threats and intimidation tactics without providing proof of claim.

Furthermore, the lawyers’ actions demonstrate a lack of transparency and a disregard for the principles of due process. It looks like an attempt to circumvent the legal process and coerce the customer into paying an unsubstantiated amount of money.

These actions raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of their case.

It’s essential for lawyers to act ethically and uphold the principles of justice.

They should be willing to engage in open and honest discussions, provide evidence to support the bank’s claims, and address any counterclaims made by the customer.

But they are not.

Because so far, all they’ve done is deny everything. They deny any/all counterclaims made by the customer.

Their failure undermines the credibility of the bank’s case and damages the integrity of the legal system as a whole.

The use of threats and intimidation is unacceptable and may even be considered unethical or unlawful. Failure to meet the burden of proof can result in the court viewing the case unfavorably.

So, as a customer, you may not even need to present a defense, if the bank hasn’t met their burden of proof.

The lawyers are committing mail fraud – sending out demands to pay unsubstantiated amounts of money using threats and intimidation.

They’re suggesting the bank can take legal action, foreclose, and sell the house if you don’t pay up. Yet they have no evidence to support to authenticate and verify the alleged outstanding loan account balance.

Why not do as the lawyers do, deny everything? Until they can offer solid, authorised and verified evidence of facts, together with a sworn affidavit of truth, or statutory declaration stating their claims?

Which lawyer’s brave enough to sign such a document, and risk everything?

Here’s the key. Do not make assumptions or presumptions about any thing. Don’t stress. Ask questions. Admit nothing. And watch the bank actors, and their third party lawyers, run for cover.

Because it’s the bank’s burden of proof in foreclosure, not yours. And if the bank’s 100%  sure that the figure they’re demanding is correct…

Why is it so hard for an authorised bank officer to sign a statutory declaration validating the authenticity of the amount being claimed?

Just ask right the questions.