Oct 14, 2009

Many Thanks to Max Gardner for this contribution:

See  entire Case at US Bank v Ibanez Memo of Decision Denying US Bank Mts Oct 14 2009Misc 384283 and Misc 386755

See Neil’s Abstract: judge-long-principal-must-be-disclosed

See Boston Globe Article: judge-long-massachusetts-foreclosure-decision-throws-securitization-intermediaries-into-chaos-reo-sales-stopped

See what-do-these-case-decisions-mean

US Bank v Ibanez. Memo of Decision Denying US BankMts. Oct.14.2009 Misc 384283 and Misc 386755.doc “The issues in this case are not merely problems with paperwork or a matter of dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Instead, they lie at the heart of the protections given to homeowners and borrowers by the Massachusetts legislature. To accept the plaintiffs’ arguments is to allow them to take someone’s home without any demonstrable right to do so, based upon the assumption that they ultimately will be able to show that they have that right and the further assumption that potential bidders will be undeterred by the lack of a demonstrable legal foundation for the sale and will nonetheless bid full value in the
expectation that that foundation will ultimately be produced, even if it takes a year or more. The law recognizes the troubling nature of these assumptions, the harm caused if those assumptions prove erroneous, and commands otherwise.”
>

> THIS IS A MUST READ CASE ON STANDING, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, THE
> ALPHABET PROBLEM, SECURITIZATION, FOLLOWING THE CONVEYANCING RULES OF
> THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENET, ASSIGNMENTS IN BLANK, POST-FILING
> ASSIGMENTS, ETC. The above quote is from the final conclusions in the
> decision. I started highlighting the important stuff in red font but
> most of the written decision is now red. This is a VERY important case.
>
>
> O. Max Gardner III
> PO Box 1000
> Shelby NC 28151-1000
> 704.418.2628 (C)
> 704.487.0616 (O)
> 888.870.1647 (F)
> maxgardner@maxgardner.com
> http://www.maxgardnerlaw.com
> http://www.maxbankruptcybootcamp.com
>
>