It's called "standing", people. The fact that a party bringing an action has to show that they have the right to bring an action is about as basic a legal procedural issue as there is. I just can't go into court and claim that Morgan Stanley Bank owes me ten gazillion dollars, I have to show that I have proof of that claim.
It is basic fairness, really. If the banksters can't prove that they own the loan, then they have no legal right to demand payment, let alone foreclose on the collateral. So if the banksters have created a house of financial cards because they have been sloppy on their paperwork and they can't find the original note, well, it sucks to be them and I do not see why the legal system should carve out an exception to the rule that a party has to prove standing.
5 comments:
It's almost as if the laws applied to them! It's almost as if they can't just take anything they want!
I'm sure they'll be on the line to the president to see what's holding up the enslavement program.
It was (as they say) a feature, not a bug. Being "sloppy" never entered their minds as they devised the derivatives and the methods to reap even more profits as their marks (easy marks it turned out) went into "default."
There was never any confusion on the bankers' part about the legality of MERS, etc. They knew there was no chain of ownership maintained. No one employed there ever thought what they were doing was legal. Cons always recognize a "game."
If Obama's peeps allow this to be passed over (and "forgiven") without everyone going to jail for fraud, well, we know already what that indicates.
Thanks for following this!
S
if the banksters have created a house of financial cards because they have been sloppy on their paperwork and they can't find the original note, well, it sucks to be them and I do not see why the legal system should carve out an exception to the rule that a party has to prove standing.
So on the front end they need proper papers and procedures to foreclose and on the back end the investors are finding cause to put back a big old pile of crap on the banks. Not much fun in running a bank anymore.
I'm starting to regret that I re-financed last year.
If I had an old mortgage, it would be fun to find out whether the place I send my monthly check actually holds the note. If they don't, and they can't put their hands on it, I'd own the place free and clear.
If I had an old mortgage, it would be fun to find out whether the place I send my monthly check actually holds the note. If they don't, and they can't put their hands on it, I'd own the place free and clear.
Joe, no, you wouldn't. Such a mortgage would still be recorded against the property.
Maybe nobody would have the right to enforce it, but nobody of sound mind (or who was represented by a lawyer) would buy the place. They couldn't get title insurance against that mortgage, so no bank would finance the purchase.
So you could live in the place, but you could never sell it. Which means that you would have to pay taxes on it, even if you move away. It'd be wrapped around your neck like a dead albatross.
Post a Comment