Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Brilliant
To let the mortgagor off because the judge can’t figure out the answer to that tangential question is nonsense.

You think ownership of the note is a "tangential question"???? How would you like it if someone filed a foreclosure against you, and the judge let them take your house without proving that they had any right to do so? How would you like it if, after you lost your home to someone you didn't owe money to, the real mortgage company showed up and sued you for the balance of the note -- and won? Or how would you like it if you bought a house from Bank B after it foreclosed, then a Bank A sued you claiming that they owned the note on the house, not Bank B, and your title is subject to the unpaid note to Bank A, and Bank A won?

I agree with the posters who say this will do nothing but buy the borrowers time, as the mortgage banks track down the notes and mortgages and file proper assignments of each, but the question of who holds the note is hardly tangential.

82 posted on 11/16/2007 9:48:16 AM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Pilsner

We know who holds the note. It’s the mortgage which is in doubt, and even that isn’t really in doubt because the mortgage follows the note.


85 posted on 11/16/2007 10:26:14 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson