Possessing rights to payment does not imply right to the property itself. Without the note, DB can’t take possession of the property. This is not a systemic problem, it’s institutional laziness, and it seems the judge is telling everyone to get their sh*t in order before challenging the integrity of the court to look the other way.
My point is that it’s not DB’s rights anyway. DB is acting on behelf of the people who have a right to payment. They are merely an agent.
It’s sort of like if you hired a lawyer to handle a case for you, and he sent one of his associates to go with you to the hearing, and the judge refused to hear the associate because he can’t prove that he works for your lawyer. Who cares? You and he are there, and you’re telling the judge that he represents you. The judge doesn’t need to see the associate’s employment contract in order to decide the case.