Cannot argue with what you say. But hard can it be to trace the mortgage? If an investor buys a package of securities including mortgages then all the mortgages in the package would be owned by them.
Is this what the Judge disputed? Or was the ruling simply based on pity for the mortgagee and animosity for the “big bad investor”?
This country his HISTORY if people do not learn to be, in fcat FORCED to be accountable for their actions and stupidity. How about reading the damn document before signing it? How about hiring an attorney?
Caveat Emptor all the way.
>p>I agree that the buyer should beware, and that includes anyone buying a package of mortgages.
Personally, I can't work up any pity for a person who doesn't pay their bills but there is more at issue here than deadbeats. This is about maintaining a legal framework for doing business. Shortcuts were often taken, not by the person borrowing the money, but by the lenders and those in the secondary market. That they are being required to prove their untainted ownership prior to being allowed to foreclose is upholding good business practice, not upholding deadbeats.
I still worry about the people who send mortgage payment every month to someone who notified them that they hold the note but doesn't provide any evidence of that fact. What happens if you pay the wrong person for years then can't get clear title to the property. When you shortcut the legal process, it might save money in the short term, but it certainly causes problems down the road.