Over on Housing Wire, Paul Jackson is crowing that chain-of-title issues in mortgage securitization are overblown because an Alabama state trial court rejected such arguments in a case ironically captioned U.S. Bank v. Congress.
But let’s actually consider whether the opinion matters, what the court actually did and did not say, and whether it was right.
Jackson and Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism have a running fued over the seriousness of chain-of-title problems, and I think that explains why Jackson is so worked up over this decision. My own take is that it is much ado about nothing. Before anyone gets too excited one way or the other about this case, let’s remember that this is a ruling by one judge in an Alabama state trial court decision. It was unlikely to get much notice anywhere else in the country, but for the securitization industry grasping for a legal victory to parade around. This court ruling doesn’t have precedential value anywhere, including in Alabama, and its persuasive value is very low too, both on account of it being an Alabama state trial court and because of the quality of its analysis. Put differently, this ain’t an Ibanez type ruling, where a leading state supreme court issues a very thoughtful unanimous opinion.
[ipaper docId=50074488 access_key=key-znfj6cxg5u875g8ams0 height=600 width=600 /]© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.