I don’t agree with the judge. If they did not own it, then the true owner can sue to foreclose. If they did own it, then they can sue to foreclose. Someone can sue to foreclose. To me, it looks like the judge was looking for a way to let the borrower off the hook. Not good for the economy for judges to simply let people who owe money off the hook.
If you could rephrase that in a way that makes sense I'd be forever indebted.
>> If they did not own it, then the true owner can sue to foreclose.
I wonder if maybe a whole bunch of mortgages were pooled as collateral for some complex investment vehicle that in turn is owned by a whole bunch of investors. Thus, there’s a many-to-many relationship between investors and borrowers.
So, each investor kinda sorta owns a little piece of each mortgage — but no particular investor can prove complete ownership of any particular mortgage.
If so — what a mess!!!
Problem is....they can’t prove they own it. This needs to be sorted out somewhere. It just happens to come at a bad time for some of these paper holders.
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.
I absolutely agree with the judge, if you file for foreclosure you better damned well be able to produce the mortgage and note physically to the court that you have indeed the right to file foreclosure. Showing up with some document that just says one party agrees to sell to another party some note and mortgage is not proof that you actually hold the mortgage on the property and have legal right to foreclose.
This is elementary stuff, the judge did the absolutely right thing. Good ruling and it should have been handed down years ago.