“It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Foreclosure is authorized to recommend the entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 1:34-6 in uncontested actions which the procedures set forth in this Order have been followed.”

Business Week-

New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled documents indicating a bank’s intention to foreclose on a mortgage must name the lender before a residential property can be seized.

The case involves the foreclosure on an East Orange home owned by Maryse and Emilio Guillaume, who received a notice of intention to foreclose in May 2008. That notice included the name of the mortgage servicer, America’s Servicing Company while omitting the name of the lender. Credit Suisse AG made the loan and assigned it to US Bank National Association.

The state court in Trenton ruled today that the notice sent to the Guillaumes failed to comply with the state’s Fair Foreclosure Act, which requires the name and address of the actual lender, as well as contact information for a loan servicer. Failure to do so creates “potential for significant prejudice” to homeowners, the court said.

[BUSINESS WEEK]

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

A-11 September Term 2011
068176

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AS TRUSTEE FOR CSAB MORTGAGEBACKED
PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-3,
Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARYSE GUILLAUME and EMILIO
GUILLAUME,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
CITY OF EAST ORANGE,
Defendant.

[ipaper docId=83026127 access_key=key-1dy350f9dun9v27dcohr height=600 width=600 /]

I posted the quoted text below back on Nov ’10… I wonder who exactly signs off for MERS, if this is so?

The standard modification agreement
is between the Borrower and
the Lender. The agreement amends
and supplements (1) the Mortgage,
Deed of Trust or Deed to Secure
Debt (Security Instrument) and (2)
the Note bearing the same date as,
and secured by, the Security
Instrument. Prior to MERS, the
standard agreement worked
because the Lender was the mortgagee
of record and could modify
the mortgage and also had the
authority to modify the Note.

However, if MERS is the mortgagee
of record, the Lender can’t
modify the mortgage without the
“mortgagee’s” consent.

MNINEWS-

The Obama Administration Friday announced it is expanding its flagship mortgage modification program and will now encourage lenders to reduce the principal loan balance for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans.

The announcement comes just three days after President Obama said he would do more to support the struggling housing market and two days after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said housing is holding back the economic recovery.

Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Timothy Massad in a blog post Friday outlined the changes to HAMP — including extending the end-date by one year and refocusing on principal reductions.

Massad said Treasury notified the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they will pay principal reduction incentives to the GSEs if they allow servicers to forgive principal — if done in conjunction with a HAMP modification.

Massad also said Treasury will triple the incentives for HAMP principal reduction modifications by paying from 18 to 63 cents on the dollar, depending on how much the loan-to-value ratio is reduced.

[MNINEWS]

I disagree with the judge’s motion words below and see video below as to why even attorney’s have a difficult time.

“I have a lot of problems with saying that all that’s going, with all this evidence of [c]ourt process for over a year, to just rely on trying to negotiate something with the bank was like sticking your head in the sand.

This wasn’t going to go away and they
didn’t get any assurance from the bank that
they were succeeding in their negotiation
efforts or that an answer to the complaint
was not required. I mean they just focused
on one path. And they ignored the
negotiation path and they ignored the
litigation side of things. You can’t do
that.

And I have to say that . . . Mrs.
Guillaume was being so aggressive and so
persistent in trying to negotiate and going
to all these different places to get help,
but the one place she wasn’t going was a
member of the bar, a lawyer which is usually
what you do when you get [c]ourt papers.

Or if you absolutely can’t afford a
lawyer and that’s the case of many
foreclosures, a very heavy self-represented
area of the law to at least contact the
[c]ourt yourself and you send in some
rudimentary answer. And it doesn’t have to
be fancy. I mean you write a letter to the
foreclosure unit, they’ll stamp contested on
it.

Because I’ve seen so many of them long
hand. But nothing was done. And I don’t
regard that as excusable neglect. So that
prong is lacking.”  

(emphasis added).

Simply wrong, one does NOT understand how frustrating it is to even try to get anyone from the “bank” on the phone, attempting a modification as we have read time and time again were nothing but DISASTROUS and GOING ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE!

[Please watch Michigan Atty Vanessa Fluker and you’ll understand why].

Lets not forget, this reversal that goes to the heart of this from out of New Jersey: BANK OF NEW YORK vs. LAKS | NJ Appeals Court Reversal “A notice of intention is deficient…if it does not provide the name and address of the lender”

NJ.COM-

In the nearly five months since the state Supreme Court effectively allowed six of the country’s biggest banks to begin filing foreclosures again, attorneys and court officials have been expecting a flood of new filings to hit the courts.

Except it hasn’t happened. Foreclosure filings are down 83 percent as of October this year, compared with the same time period last year, according to court figures, and there are at least 100,000 cases either pending in the system or waiting to be submitted.

Attorneys involved in the work in New Jersey point to at least one reason for the significant delay: a court case that has reached the state Supreme Court, with oral arguments on Wednesday.

The case, US Bank National Association v. Guillaume, is important because the court …

[NJ.COM]

[ipaper docId=74692087 access_key=key-1xrvd0kemha1r7mycu2h height=600 width=600 /]

I think this is the case in every state and all will agree

North Jersey-

In a small Bergen County courtroom one recent Friday, a sheriff’s officer auctioned off two foreclosed properties in a matter of minutes, as a handful of investors kept their eyes open for bargains.

It was a far cry from the typical sheriff’s auction of mid-2010, when 15 or more properties were auctioned weekly and up to 100 investors crowded the courthouse’s large jury room.

[…]

The reason: an August appellate court decision, Bank of New York v. Laks, according to Kevin Wolfe, head of the state’s Office of Foreclosure. In that case, the court dismissed a foreclosure, finding the lender violated the state Fair Foreclosure Act because it didn’t properly identify itself in a notice sent to the troubled homeowners.

[NORTH JERSEY]

[ipaper docId=61908065 access_key=key-1zd2neascm8dxsn37rbr height=600 width=600 /]

Washington, DC (Oct. 18, 2011) – Today, Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, responded to an announcement by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) that it has instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin “transitioning away” from their use of designated foreclosure attorney networks to a system under which “mortgage servicers select qualified law firms that meet certain minimum, uniform criteria.”

“Several of these law firms were able to engage in abusive and illegal behavior that violated the rights of borrowers, in part because of deficient oversight by FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac,” said Cummings.  “In light of the extensive problems recently documented by the FHFA Inspector General, I urged FHFA to seriously consider terminating these attorney networks, and it appears they are implementing my request.”

“I remain concerned, however, that FHFA has not provided specific details about how mortgage servicers will select and oversee law firms to ensure that abusive behavior is prevented,” added Cummings.  “I will continue my oversight efforts to ensure that specific measures are in place to require mortgage servicers to properly oversee the actions of law firms conducting foreclosure proceedings, including those involving mortgages owned or backed by the government sponsored enterprises.”

On February 25, 2011, Ranking Member Cummings launched a major investigation into abuses and illegal activities by mortgage servicing companies, including wrongful foreclosures, inflated fees, and the filing of improperly executed legal documents during the foreclosure process.  As part of that investigation, Cummings sent a letter asking the FHFA Inspector General to examine “widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys and law firms hired to process foreclosures as part of the ‘Retained Attorney Network’ established by Fannie Mae.”

On September 23, 2011, the FHFA Inspector General issued a report concluding that Fannie Mae and its regulators, including FHFA, were alerted repeatedly to serious problems with the legal firms in Fannie Mae’s retained attorney network (RAN) beginning as early as 2003, but failed to take corrective action.  The Inspector General reported that “FHFA did not begin to act on foreclosure abuse issues involving Fannie Mae’s RAN until mid-2010,” despite “multiple indicators of foreclosure abuse risk prior to 2010 that could have led FHFA to identify and act earlier on the issue.”

On October 3, 2011, Cummings sent a letter to FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco requesting additional documents and information regarding these oversight failures.  Cummings requested that the agency “give serious consideration to terminating the existing Fannie Mae Retained Attorney Network program.”  He also requested that “FHFA take immediate and decisive action to remedy these failures and ensure that no additional borrowers suffer similar abuses.”

source: http://democrats.oversight.house.gov

Nothing last forever… But now the servicers get to make the call on who they want to use… Already see the drama unfolding.

Bloomberg-

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will phase out their foreclosure attorney networks in the wake of the so-called robo-signing scandal, according to two people briefed on the plan.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the mortgage companies, may make the announcement as soon as this week, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter isn’t public.

Fannie Mae has required the mortgage servicers handling its loans to use its Retained Attorney Network for foreclosures and bankruptcy cases. Some lawyers were accused by lawmakers, regulators and consumer groups of mishandling paperwork for evictions and foreclosures, including falsifying signatures on court affidavits. The dispute led many mortgage servicers to suspend foreclosure activity last year.

[BLOOMBERG]

.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4221-09T3

BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWALT
2004 26T1,
Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SARAH G. LAKS and EDWARD
EINHORN, her husband,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
___________________________________
Submitted May 23, 2011 – Decided August 8, 2011

EXCERPTS:

The defendants in an action to foreclose a residential mortgage appeal from the denial of their motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting that relief.

[…]

Laks missed her May 2008 payment on the note and every monthly payment thereafter. On August 13, Countrywide Home Loans,3 plaintiff’s loan servicer, sent a notice of intention to foreclose to Laks by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice of intention recited that Countrywide was acting on behalf of the owner of Laks’s promissory note, without identifying the owner. The notice of intention also warned that if Laks did not pay $21,279.64 to Countrywide within 30 days, then Laks’s noteholder, again not identified, would institute foreclosure proceedings against her. The notice concluded by advising Laks that if she did not agree that default had occurred or if she disputed the amount required to cure her default, she could contact Countrywide at an address and telephone number stated in the notice. Nowhere on the notice was Laks informed that plaintiff was the owner of her promissory note nor was she given plaintiff’s address. Three days before the foreclosure complaint was filed, MERS assigned Laks and Einhorn’s mortgage to plaintiff.

[…]

Thus, compliance with this notice provision is, in effect, a condition the lender must satisfy in order to either “accelerate the maturity of any residential mortgage obligation” or “commence any foreclosure or other legal action to take possession of the residential property which is the subject of the mortgage.” N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(a). In fact, with narrow exceptions inapplicable here, “[c]ompliance with [N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56] shall be set forth in the pleadings of any legal action” to foreclose a residential mortgage. N.J.S.A. 2A:50- 56(f). The notice of intention must include specific information “state[d] in a manner calculated to make the debtor aware of the situation[.]” N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c).5 The information the Legislature has deemed essential to the Act’s purpose includes:

“the particular obligation or real estate security interest”; “the nature of the default claimed”; the debtor’s right to cure the default; what the debtor must do to cure; and the date by which it must be done to avoid the filing of a foreclosure complaint. N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(1)-(5). The notice also must advise the debtor of the consequences of a failure to cure —specifically, that the lender may take steps to terminate the debtor’s ownership of the property by filing a foreclosure action and that the debtor will be required to pay the lender’s court costs and counsel fees if the debtor does not cure.
N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(6)-(7). In addition to the foregoing information about rights, responsibilities and consequences, the Legislature has determined that the notice of intention must include three items of information that are best characterized as helpful to a debtor interested in curing default. The first two are advice to seek counsel from an attorney — including references to the New Jersey Bar Association, Lawyer Referral Service and Legal Services — and a list of programs providing assistance for those seeking to cure default. N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(9)-(10). The third, and the one critical in this case, is “the name and address of the lender and the telephone number of a representative of the lender whom the debtor may contact if the 9 A-4221-09T3 debtor disagrees with the lender’s assertion that a default has occurred or the correctness of the mortgage lender’s calculation of the amount required to cure default.” N.J.S.A. 2A:50- 56(c)(11).

There is no question that the notice of intention mailed to Laks did not provide the name or address of the lender as required by subsection (c)(11). The notice of intention named no entity other than the mortgage servicer, Countrywide.

[…]

[ipaper docId=61908065 access_key=key-1zd2neascm8dxsn37rbr height=600 width=600 /]

you might want to know that some of these lender/servicer break-in cases that have been reported over the last two years involved homeowners who were current on their mortgages.

Bank Rate-

If you happen to see a contractor walking around your house, taking pictures, don’t panic. It’s just your lender “inspecting” your property.

According to new rules announced by Fannie Mae this week, mortgage servicers will be required to “order” a “property inspection” no later than 45 days after a homeowner misses a mortgage payment. “The servicer must continue to obtain property inspections every 30 days thereafter” until the delinquency is resolved.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON-fka THE BANK OF
NEW YORK TRUSTEE UNDER
THE POOLING AND SERVICING
AGREEMENT SERIES 2004-24 CB,

v

GEORGE S. ELGHOSSAIN and
MONA C. ELGHOSSAIN,

Excerpt:

In today’s widespread foreclosure litigation, the specific fact pattern this court addresses appears not to have been squarely decided before: does a mortgage lender’s “servicer’s” Notice of Intent to Foreclose satisfy the statutory mandates that notice be provided by the lender and that the lender as well as the lender’s representative be identified in that notice. The lender and the lender’s representation must be identified in the notice. Having not done so here, the motion is deficient. The foreclosure complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=52568581 access_key=key-l2p6uc3asz7q113ql3z height=600 width=600 /]

This according to Straight Talk by Sharon Horstkamp, MERS Vice President and Corporate Counsel. Below is an excerpt of the newsletter:

The standard modification agreement
is between the Borrower and
the Lender. The agreement amends
and supplements (1) the Mortgage,
Deed of Trust or Deed to Secure
Debt (Security Instrument) and (2)
the Note bearing the same date as,
and secured by, the Security
Instrument. Prior to MERS, the
standard agreement worked
because the Lender was the mortgagee
of record and could modify
the mortgage and also had the
authority to modify the Note.

However, if MERS is the mortgagee
of record, the Lender can’t
modify the mortgage without the
“mortgagee’s” consent. Therefore,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
changed the modification agreements
to reflect MERS as the mortgagee
of record.

Their change states the Agreement
amends and supplements the
Mortgage, Deed of Trust or Deed to
Secure Debt (Security Instrument)
granted or assigned to Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc., as nominee for the Lender.
The change also recommended a
signature line be added for MERS to
sign the agreement in its mortgagee
capacity. A MERS certifying officer
can sign the Agreement. It is important
to note that a MERS signature
doesn’t replace the Lender’s signature,
because MERS isn’t modifying
the note. Therefore, the Lender and
MERS must sign the document.

Debts Rise, and Go Unpaid, as Bust Erodes Home Equity

By DAVID STREITFELD NEW YORK TIMES
Published: August 11, 2010

PHOENIX — During the great housing boom, homeowners nationwide borrowed a trillion dollars from banks, using the soaring value of their houses as security. Now the money has been spent and struggling borrowers are unable or unwilling to pay it back.

The delinquency rate on home equity loans is higher than all other types of consumer loans, including auto loans, boat loans, personal loans and even bank cards like Visa and MasterCard, according to the American Bankers Association.

Lenders say they are trying to recover some of that money but their success has been limited, in part because so many borrowers threaten bankruptcy and because the value of the homes, the collateral backing the loans, has often disappeared.

The result is one of the paradoxes of the recession: the more money you borrowed, the less likely you will have to pay up.

“When houses were doubling in value, mom and pop making $80,000 a year were taking out $300,000 home equity loans for new cars and boats,” said Christopher A. Combs, a real estate lawyer here, where the problem is especially pronounced. “Their chances are pretty good of walking away and not having the bank collect.”

Lenders wrote off as uncollectible $11.1 billion in home equity loans and $19.9 billion in home equity lines of credit in 2009, more than they wrote off on primary mortgages, government data shows. So far this year, the trend is the same, with combined write-offs of $7.88 billion in the first quarter.

Even when a lender forces a borrower to settle through legal action, it can rarely extract more than 10 cents on the dollar. “People got 90 cents for free,” Mr. Combs said. “It rewards immorality, to some extent.”

Utah Loan Servicing is a debt collector that buys home equity loans from lenders. Clark Terry, the chief executive, says he does not pay more than $500 for a loan, regardless of how big it is.

“Anything over $15,000 to $20,000 is not collectible,” Mr. Terry said. “Americans seem to believe that anything they can get away with is O.K.”

But the borrowers argue that they are simply rebuilding their ravaged lives. Many also say that the banks were predatory, or at least indiscriminate, in making loans, and nevertheless were bailed out by the federal government. Finally, they point to their trump card: they say will declare bankruptcy if a settlement is not on favorable terms.

“I am not going to be a slave to the bank,” said Shawn Schlegel, a real estate agent who is in default on a $94,873 home equity loan. His lender obtained a court order garnishing his wages, but that was 18 months ago. Mr. Schlegel, 38, has not heard from the lender since. “The case is sitting stagnant,” he said. “Maybe it will just go away.”

Mr. Schlegel’s tale is similar to many others who got caught up in the boom: He came to Arizona in 2003 and quickly accumulated three houses and some land. Each deal financed the next. “I was taught in real estate that you use your leverage to grow. I never dreamed the properties would go from $265,000 to $65,000.”

Apparently neither did one of his lenders, the Desert Schools Federal Credit Union, which gave him a home equity loan secured by, the contract states, the “security interest in your dwelling or other real property.”

Desert Schools, the largest credit union in Arizona, increased its allowance for loan losses of all types by 926 percent in the last two years. It declined to comment.

The amount of bad home equity loan business during the boom is incalculable and in retrospect inexplicable, housing experts say. Most of the debt is still on the books of the lenders, which include Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.

“No one had ever seen a national real estate bubble,” said Keith Leggett, a senior economist with the American Bankers Association. “We would love to change history so more conservative underwriting practices were put in place.”

The delinquency rate on home equity loans was 4.12 percent in the first quarter, down slightly from the fourth quarter of 2009, when it was the highest in 26 years of such record keeping. Borrowers who default can expect damage to their creditworthiness and in some cases tax consequences.

Nevertheless, Mr. Leggett said, “more than a sliver” of the debt will never be repaid.

Eric Hairston plans to be among this group. During the boom, he bought as an investment a three-apartment property in Hoboken, N.J. At the peak, when the building was worth as much as $1.5 million, he took out a $190,000 home equity loan.

Mr. Hairston, who worked in the technology department of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, invested in a Northern California pizza catering company. When real estate cratered, Mr. Hairston went into default.

The building was sold this spring for $750,000. Only a small slice went to the home equity lender, which reserved the right to come after Mr. Hairston for the rest of what it was owed.

Mr. Hairston, who now works for the pizza company, has not heard again from his lender.

Since the lender made a bad loan, Mr. Hairston argues, a 10 percent settlement would be reasonable. “It’s not the homeowner’s fault that the value of the collateral drops,” he said.

Marc McCain, a Phoenix lawyer, has been retained by about 300 new clients in the last year, many of whom were planning to walk away from properties they could afford but wanted to be rid of — strategic defaulters. On top of their unpaid mortgage obligations, they had home equity loans of $50,000 to $150,000.

Fewer than 5 percent of these clients said they would continue paying their home equity loan no matter what. Ten percent intend to negotiate a short sale on their house, where the holders of the primary mortgage and the home equity loan agree to accept less than what they are owed. In such deals primary mortgage holders get paid first.

The other 85 percent said they would default and worry about the debt only if and when they were forced to, Mr. McCain said.

“People want to have some green pastures in front of them,” said Mr. McCain, who recently negotiated a couple’s $75,000 home equity debt into a $3,500 settlement. “It’s come to the point where morality is no longer an issue.”

Darin Bolton, a software engineer, defaulted on the loans for his house in a Chicago suburb last year because “we felt we were just tossing our money into a hole.” This spring, he moved into a rental a few blocks away.

“I’m kind of banking on there being too many of us for the lenders to pursue,” he said. “There is strength in numbers.”

Attorney / Trustee Network/ FORECLOSURE MILLS

NetDirector provides a centralized data exchange for a growing network of attorneys and trustees as they realize the value of this unique solution. The current network represents participants in 49 states with both judicial and non-judicial law practices. As critical mass builds, attorneys and trustees have more leverage over banks, service providers, and other trading partners to move toward standards and provide product/service enhancements. The following attorneys/trustees currently subscribe to the NetDirector Data Exchange:

Albertelli Law, P.L. (AL, GA & FL)
Baer, Timberlake, Coulson & Cates, P.C. (OK)
Barrett, Daffin, & Frappier, L.L.P. (GA)
Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss, L.L.P. (CA)
Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Turner & Engel, L.L.P. (TX)
Bendett & McHugh, P.C. (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI & VT)
Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A. (FL)
Buonassissi, Henning & Lash P.C. (DC, MD & VA)
Cal-Western Reconveyance (AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, TX, UT & WA)
Camner, Lipsitz & Poller (FL)
Castle, Meinhold & Stawiarski, L.L.C. (CO, NM, NV, UT & WY)
Clay Chapman Iwamura Pulice & Nervell (HI)
Codilis & Associates, P.C. (IL)
Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C. (TX)
Codilis, Stawiarski & Moody, P.C. (MO)
Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, L.L.C. (DC & MD)
Dale & Decker, L.L.C. (CO)
Davidson Fink, L.L.P. (NY)
Dean Morris, L.L.P. (LA)
Doyle Legal Corporation, P.C. (IN)
Dunakey & Klatt, P.C. (IA)
Fein, Such, & Crane, P.C. (NY)
Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. (NJ)
Feiwell & Hannoy, P.C. (IN)
Finkel Law Offices, L.L.C. (SC)
Fisher & Shapiro, L.L.P. (IL)
Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (FL)
Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg & Rappe, L.L.C. (IL)
Friedman & MacFadyen, P.A. (DC, MD, & VA)
Gilbert McGrotty Group, P.A. (FL)
Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever (NJ & PA)
Gray & Associates, L.L.P. (WI)
Greenspoon Marder, P.A. (FL)
Harmon Law Offices, P.C. (MA, RI, & NH)
Hellerstein & Shore, L.L.C. (CO)
Hudnall, Cohn, Fyvolent & Shaver, P.C. (GA)
Johnson & Freedman, L.L.C. (GA)
Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer, P.A. (FL)
Kivell, Rayment & Francis, P.C. (OK)
Korn Law Firm, P.A. (SC)
Law Office of Patrick D. Hendershott, L.L.C. (OH)
Law Office of Ira T. Nevel, L.L.C. (IL)
Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra (FL)
Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.C. (FL)
LOGS Network (AR, DC, FL, GA, IN, IL, KY, MD, MN, NY, OH, OR, PA, TN & VA)
Lundberg & Associates (UT)
Mackoff Kellogg Law Firm (MT, ND & SD)
Martin & Brunavs (GA)
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C. (CT, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA & VA)
McCalla, Raymer, L.L.C. (AL, GA, TN & TX)
Morris & Associates (MS)
National Default Exchange, L.P. (CA, GA, IN, MI, MN & TX)
Nectar Projects, Inc. (VA)
Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (CA, OR, WA, HI, ID, & MT)
O’Kelley & Sorohan, L.L.C. (GA)
Partridge Snow & Hahn, L.L.P. (MA, RI)
Pendergast & Jones, P.C. (GA)
Pierce & Associates, P.C. (IL)
Pite Duncan, L.L.P. (AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, TX, UT & WA)
Potestivo & Associates, P.C. (MI)
Powers Kirn, L.L.C. (NJ)
Powers, Kirn & Javardian, L.L.C. (PA)
Prommis Solutions, L.L.C. (All)
Regional Trustee Service Corporation (AK, AZ, CA, ID, MT, NV, OR & WA)
Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey, Co. L.P.A. (OH)
Richard M. Squire & Associates, L.L.C. (PA)
Robert J. Hopp & Associates, L.L.C. (CO)
Rogers Townsend & Thomas, P.C. (NC)
Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S. (CA, OR, WA, HI, ID, & MT)
Routh Cooper Castle Olsen, L.L.C. (AZ)
Routh Crabtree, A.P.C. (AK)
Rutherford Mulhall, P.A. (FL)
Samuel I. White, P.C. (DC, MD, VA & WV)
Scott Law Firm, P.A. (SC)
Shapiro & Burson, L.P.P. (DC, MD & VA))
Shapiro & DeNardo, L.L.C. (PA)
Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, L.P.P. (NY)
Shapiro & Fishman, L.P.P. (FL)
Shapiro & Kirsch, L.P.P. (AR & TN)
Shapiro & Sutherland, L.L.C. (OR)
Shapiro & Swertfeger, L.P.P. (GA)
Shapiro, Van Ess, Phillips & Barragate, L.P.P. (IN, KY & OH)
Shapiro & Zielke, L.P.P. (MN)
Shechtman Halperin Savage, L.L.P. (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI & VT)
Sirote & Permutt, P.C. (AL)
Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A. (FL)
South & Associates, P.C. (MO, KS & NE)
Spear & Hoffman, P.A. (FL)
Stein, Weiner & Roth, L.L.P. (NY)
The Cooper Castle Firm, L.L.P. (NV)
The Law Offices of Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A. (NC)
Tiffany & Bosco, P.A. (AZ)
Trott & Trott, P.C. (MI)
Weiss Spicer Cash, P.L.L.C. (TN)
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis CO. L.P.A. (IL, IN, KY, MI, NJ, OH & PA)
Wilford & Geske, P.A. (MN)
Wilson & Associates P.L.L.C. (AR & TN)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work 
in this message is distributed under fair use without profit
or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. 
GRG [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

A MUST READ!

via: 83jjmack

Copyright (c) 2010 Pepperdine University School of Law
Pepperdine Law Review

Author: Dale A. Whitman*

The premise of this paper is that the concept of negotiability of promissory notes, which derives in modern law from Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, is not only useless but positively detrimental to the operation of the modern secondary mortgage market. Therefore, the concept ought to be eliminated from the law of mortgage notes.

This is not a new idea. More than a decade ago, Professor Ronald Mann made the point that negotiability is largely irrelevant in every field of consumer and commercial payment systems, including mortgages. ¹ But Mann’s article made no specific recommendations for change, and no change has occurred.

I propose here to examine the ways in which negotiability and the holder in due course doctrine of Article 3 actually impair the trading of mortgages. Doing so, I conclude that these legal principles have no practical value to the parties in the mortgage system, but that they impose significant and unnecessary costs on those parties. I conclude with a recommendation for a simple change in Article 3 that would do away with the negotiability of mortgage notes.

I. The Secondary Mortgage Market

In this era, it is a relatively rare mortgage that is held in portfolio for its full term by the originating lender. Instead, the vast majority of mortgages are either traded on the secondary market to an investor who will hold them, ² or to an issuer (commonly an investment banker) who will securitize them. Securitization …

[ipaper docId=32796250 access_key=key-n62ohszj7y8skrfnvs2 height=600 width=600 /]

WooHoo! I tell you what…EVERY State needs to follow by this example!

Banks Oppose ‘Access To Justice In Lending Act’? Well, Let’s See What It Provides

Posted in bill, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, lawsuitComments (0)