Comments

What’s On Their Minds: Standing in Foreclosure Cases, Again. Note and Mortgage or Note or Mortgage at Time of Filing? SRMOF 2009-1 Trust v. Shari Lewis et al. — 2 Comments

  1. The issue before the court was whether or not the Trust had standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court in the first instance. On day one of this suit, the Trust arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing.

    The subsequent events, ie., finding the note, bankruptcy, etc. are irrelevant to the issue of the requisite of standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. The “so what” position suggested by some of the jurists will exponentially and incrementally encourage the mischief of the financial institutions . http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-06/bank-of-america-s-penalty-misses-the-point.

    What we are talking about here is a fatally flawed business model ( GSE Business Model) that as George Soros ( http://www.georgesoros.com/articles-essays/entry/reforming_a_broken_mortgage_system1/ )
    said it “simply does not work”. Jurists attempting to carve out special niches on fundamental issues like standing to sue will have nuclear adverse impacts. Nobody is asking Bernie Madoff how to fix his business model, he is where he belongs. The GSE Business Model’s failures make Madoff look like a piker.

  2. The real question should have been whether or not borrower agreed to the circus act which so many had no idea would happen. No disclosure was ever given, and if it had been, would borrowers still agree? Of course not. This is just another ridiculous twisting of law, words and truth. It’s disgusting. The borrower has no standing to challenge the trust as an alleged 3rd party, yet the trust can foreclose as an alleged 3rd party. Gross misconduct and perversion of justice. Besides that, the PSA specifically states physical possession is not with the trust nor will it be. It’s supposedly through the DTC, by another qualified or unqualified entity (extremely ambiguous). Was the allonge attached to the original instrument, of course not. He should of moved for an analysis of the document in question. The court could not in good conscious deny that request if the factual issues of the patterns and practices in forgery and fraud had been raised.