The banks do not lend real money legal argument

The banks do not lend real money legal argument is the topic of this blog post. This legal argument is referred to by the Courts as the "vapor money theory".  This theory essentially states that “the bank never loaned me any money so I do not owe them anything and the loan agreement is void”. The vapor money theory rests on the totally invalid and mistaken assumption that any agreements entered into with a bank or other financial institution are void because the person receiving the loan did not receive any legal tender and because nothing of value was loaned to them because the transaction was based merely on a bookkeeping entry.

The vapor money theory has NO legal basis whatsoever as I will show in this blog post.

This legal argument is still being used by certain people despite the fact that it has been consistently rejected by the Courts in many jurisdictions.   In fact federal courts across the country have repeatedly labeled this legal argument frivolous.  I have cited many cases below which discuss this legal argument.

In Demmler v. Bank One, NA (S.D.Ohio Mar. 9, 2006), No. 2:05-CV-322, unreported, the defendants made a similar argument and the Court discussed this theory as follows:

“[T]he Court concludes that the complaint is utterly frivolous and lacks any legal foundation whatsoever. * * * Suffice it to say that all of Plaintiff's claims * * * stem from the same basic premise. Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note he executed is the equivalent of "money" that he gave to the bank. He contends that Bank One took his "money," i.e., the promissory note, deposited it into its own account without his permission, listed it as an "asset" on its ledger entries, and then essentially lent his own money back to him. He contends that Bank One did not actually have the funds available to lend to him, but instead "created" the money through its bookkeeping procedures. He further argues that because Bank One was never at risk, and provided no consideration, the promissory note is void ab initio, and Defendants' attempts to foreclose on the mortgage are therefore unlawful.  Plaintiff offers no authority for this patently ludicrous argument. Similar arguments have been rejected by federal courts across the country. See Frances Kenny Family Trust v. World Savings Bank, No. C04-03724 WHA, 2005 WL
106792 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 19, 2005) (sanctioning plaintiffs and rejecting their "vapor money" theory); Carrington v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n, No. 05-cv-73429-DT, 2005 WL 3216226, at 3 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 29, 2005) (finding "fundamentally absurd and obviously frivolous" plaintiff's claim that the lender unlawfully "created money" through its ledger entries).

Several published cases from United States District Courts have dealt with this issue such as United States v. Schiefen, 926 F.Supp. 877, 880-81 (D.S.D.1995) (rejecting arguments that there was insufficient consideration to secure the promissory note, and that lender had "created money" by means of a bookkeeping entry. Rene v. Citibank, 32 F.Supp.2d 539, 544-45 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (rejecting claims that because lender did not have sufficient funds in its vault to make the loan, and merely "transferred some book entries," the lender had created illegal tender).

I feel sorry for anyone who still believes in validity of this legal argument because by using that theory they are not only risking losing their case they also face the real risk of being sanctioned by the Court. Note that in the Frances Kenny Family Trust case cited above the attorney for the plaintiffs was sanctioned in the amount of $10,000.00 by the Court. 

While I have no love for the big banks whatsoever I also detest the use of kooky legal theories that have been completely rejected by the Courts.   I wrote this blog post in the hopes that it will convince the uninformed that using the vapor money theory will not work and instead will backfire on them.

Attorneys or parties who wish to view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation created by the author of this blog post can use the link shown below.

Over 300 sample legal documents for sale

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.