Replies

The question of who technically “owns” the mortgage is somewhat academic, though, because the “owner” is merely a representative of certain easily identifiable bondholders who are entitled to be paid. Clearly the bondholders have a right to be paid from the properties. They can appoint anyone they want, and who they appoint is between them and the appointee, having nothing to do with the obligations of the mortgagor.

Clearly the bondholders have a right to be paid from the properties.

No, they have a right to an income stream from a pool of bundled securities, such as BS361-350-121-0a31. That security receives the income from the underlying mortgage payments.

The question of who technically “owns” the mortgage is somewhat academic, though, because the “owner” is merely a representative of certain easily identifiable bondholders who are entitled to be paid. Clearly the bondholders have a right to be paid from the properties. They can appoint anyone they want, and who they appoint is between them and the appointee, having nothing to do with the obligations of the mortgagor.

Absolutely FALSE. A NOTE and a Mortgage are not the same thing. Without the mortgage, that actually ties the note to the property, the note holder has ZERO authority to take the house when payments are not recieved. Without showing the court they are the true MORTGAGE HOLDER they have ZERO standing before the court to foreclose and take the property.

This is basic stuff, this judge made the absolutely right call and its amazing its taken this long for a Judge to come down with this ruling. No judge should be allowing a foreclosure hearing to procede without the plantiff physically producing the mortgage and proving they are its rightful owner.