Every time a homeowner wins in foreclosure the investors are actually protected. It’s the sale of the property and/or entry of the foreclosure judgment that cuts investors off from their investment. Weird, right? An article in the recently published Florida Bar Journal illustrates perfectly the confusion that occurs within the courts and by lawyers when …
Applying Common Sense and Law to Assignments of Mortgage Read More »
Parties claiming a right to foreclose allege they are the “Holder” and do not allege they are the holder in due course (HDC) because they are ducking the issue of consideration required by both Article 3 and Article 9 of the UCC. So far their strategy of confusion is working. They are directly or impliedly …
Why They Sue as Holder and Not as Holder in Due Course Read More »
Corroborating what I have been saying for years on this blog, the Supreme Court of the state of California is reasserting its position that if entity ABC wants to collect on a debt in California, then that particular entity must own the debt. This is basic common sense and simply follows article 9 of the …
Glaski Court refuses to "depublish" decision, two judges recuse themselves. Read More »
WHY YOU SHOULD SIGN UP FOR MEMBERSHIP AND SEND A DONATION. GO TO THE HOME PAGE AND SIGN UP FOR BOTH: Every morning I read the recent cases, news articles and other blogs with an eye toward developing strategies and tactics that will get at the truth of the mortgage disaster. It takes hours and …
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE Start with the Federal Rules of Evidence. This is an act of congress signed into law by the President of the United States. You can’t get much higher than that for authority. At issue in this article are Rule 901 and 902. Judge …
NEW RULES IN JUDGE CASE COURT; FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE Read More »
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE — EVIDENCE COUNTS!!! NEIL GARFIELD, GARFIELD CONTINUUM SEMINARS, LIVINGLIES VINDICATED IN FULL NO MERIT TO FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, PAST PRESENT OR FUTURE UNLESS THE REAL CREDITOR IS PRESENT. BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO PRETENDERS 57568003-IN-RE-VEAL-w “IN THIS CASE, ONE COMPONENT OF PRUDENTIAL STANDING IS …
GAME OVER? VEAL CASE VINDICATES EVERY POINT REPORTED ON LIVINGLIES Read More »
