The answer is yes but the movement of the debt is often, all too often, presumed to have occurred. After more than a decade of research and analysis I find no support for the informal “doctrine” that the debt, note and mortgage can be used interchangeably. But the human inclination is to treat them the […]

Tags: Article 3 UCC, article 9 UCC, assignment, debt, DEED OF TRUST, merger doctrine, Mortgage, note, self-serving statements, transfers, TRUTH
Posted in Uncategorized |

There is a difference between the note contract and the mortgage contract. They each have different terms. And there is a difference between those two contracts and the “loan contract,” which is made up of the note, mortgage and required disclosures.Yet both lawyers and judges overlook those differences and come up with bad decisions or […]

Tags: borrower, creditor, debt, default, HOLDER, holder in due course, legal standing, liability, maker, merger doctrine, mortgage contract, non-creditor, note contract, Obligation, Payee, probate, promissory note
Posted in Uncategorized |

Judges may be biased in favor of “national security” (i.e., protecting the banks), but they have a surprisingly low threshold of tolerance when they are confronted by the bank’s argument that they don’t have to accept the money and that it is the bank’s option as to whether to accept the money or proceed with […]

Tags: ARTICLE 3, bondholders, Golden Rule of Mortgage Foreclosure, holder in due course, merger doctrine, MERS, noteholders, PETE, proper negotiation of ntoe, UCC
Posted in Uncategorized |

The assumption that the Judge already knows the facts and the law is what drives lawyers into defeat. The Judge is not required to know anything, and is actually prohibited from taking an active role in favor of one party or the other. Get a consult! 202-838-6345 https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. […]

Tags: ARTICLE 3, JPMC, merger doctrine, negotiable instrument, UCC
Posted in Uncategorized |