- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
The answer is Intent.
Impression testimony, that is, testimony of victims as to how they had been misled by defendants, is admissible to show an intent to defraud.
Fraudulent intent is shown if a representation is made with reckless indifference to its truth or falsity.” Intent can be reasoned from statements, conduct, victim testimony, and complaint letters, all of which can help demonstrate that the perpetrator knew that victims were being misled.
So argue that case on those merits. It hasn't been working for you so far, but maybe if you repeat it 100x in front of a judge you'll wear them down.
You got the loan you applied for. What nobody ever gave you was a warranty about your property attributes. Or any sort of assurance that they were obliged to protect you from the outcomes of your own purchase decisions.
Last edited: