Posted on 11/15/2007 7:10:13 PM PST by givemELL
Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed 14 foreclosure cases brought on behalf of mortgage investors, ruling that they had failed to prove that they owned the properties they were trying to seize.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Interesting situation : )
” In point of fact, DB could have been just another victim of fraud is this case . . . I mean fraud by Wall Street . . . not the home buyers !”
Good point!
“There have been rumors on WS for months about packages of securitized mortgages selling the same bad paper over and over and over again. Perhaps this is the single most important judicial decision to come down the pike in years. If it exposes bogus paper being marketed on Wall Street hidden in piles and piles of junk paper!”
I think they are more than rumors. Personally, I find the whole thing hilarious!
Christopher A. Boyko is a Bush guy. Huh. I would have guessed he was a corrupt Clinton scumbag.
Anyway, I’m sure this is a loop-hole thing where the attorneys for the banks failed to properly prepare for trial. This isn’t over. Nobody gets a house “for free”.
It’s not a ‘loop hole’ when you can’t produce the documents that say you own the mortgage. That’s more like a fundamental part of the law.
all the people partially holding the note would have to certify their portion of the debt has been paid... I would assume.
You’re right. “Loop-hole” wasn’t the right word. Should have been “snafu”.
Regards,
LH
Or 10 separate packages. . . .or . . . . .?
yitbos
Why stand in the way of a free market correction?
It would be very easy to get title insurance with this. There is no defect at all. The mortgage would be listed as an exception to title no matter who owns it.
“These seem like serious defects.”
I predict it will be reversed. Now that I see the actual language used by the court, it seems even more inexplicable.
Apparently, the mortgagee DID submit the original note and mortgage, so I don’t see how there could possibly be a subsequent assignee. An assignment of mortgage might be subject to the recording statutes, but the recording statutes do not protect the mortgagor. They protect a potential subsequent assignee of the mortgage. And with the 2001 change to the UCC, they don’t even do that since the mortgage automatically follows the note, and the note can be transferred by mere delivery.
Like I said before, the judge was just playing a game of gotchya. He was looking for reasons to throw out the case. That’s not justice.
3 good housing bust websites-—thanks
A mortgage is certainly a contract, and you are attempting to foreclose you are tryng to enforce a contract for land. Also you are trying to enforce a contract whose obligations are more than one year in the future. Such contracts must be in writing, everywhere that I know of, and signed by the party against whom you are attempting to enforce it.
The real problem is that a lot of this stuff is owned by retirement funds and as a consequence a lot of folks are not going to enjoy the sweet fruit of their own labor.
I’d blame you 100%.
I think he is talking about the next guy to try to take title after foreclosure. When a mortgage is assigned 3 different ways and one forecloses to secure his portion of the debt, what happens to the coequal claims of the other 2 trustees / mortgage pools?
No problem. Trust me.
The mortgage is in writing. What we’re arguing is about the assignment of the mortgage. And frankly, there is no real dispute there. If the judge thinks there is an issue, all he’s gotta do is ask the original mortgagee. Apparently, he wasn’t interested in finding out, just in throwing the case out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.