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

To: Alberta's Child
So the CMO, in effect, was originally designed to abrogate state banking laws!

I'm not disputing the need to abide by the State banking laws. The problem is if you separate the legal position of the note holder and the loan processor then it will become very difficult to foreclose. If Banks can't recapitalize home loans will dry up, or Fannie & Freddie will dictate terms on a national basis. Today Fannie & Freddie buy about 92% of the residential loans.

141 posted on 06/06/2010 10:58:09 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]


To: wmfights
The problem is if you separate the legal position of the note holder and the loan processor then it will become very difficult to foreclose.

I agree with you. This is why (in my humble opinion) the state where the loan was originally cast should have jurisdiction over any legal proceedings involving the property. Otherwise you end up with a situation where the governing jurisdiction gets changed "behind the borrower's back" simply because the original lender decided to sell the loan to someone outside the state. What alternative is there to having the "home" state of the loan serve as the governing jurisdiction?

147 posted on 06/06/2010 11:10:22 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | 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