Archives by Tag ' UCC '
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 […]
HAPPY NEW YEAR to readers who celebrate Rosh Hashanah! To all others, have a HAPPY DAY. This is a prescheduled article. ABOUT LIVINGLIES AND LENDINGLIES I have assembled a partial list of various possible claimants on the note and various possible claimants on the mortgage. Which one of these scenarios fits with your case? Once […]
A client of our internet services store asked a simple question. He had asked the opposing side if they were a holder in due course. What he received was evasive and misleading and essentially never answered the question. Now what? Below is my answer to his question and what we will be discussing tonight on […]
Lawyers, judges and homeowners are using different terms interchangeably thus muddying up the argument or ruling. An assignment refers to a mortgage whereas an endorsement (“indorsement” in legalese) refers to a note. The rules regarding enforcement of a mortgage are different than the enforcement of a note. Let us help you plan your foreclosure defense […]
The UCC is not ambivalent about protecting both the maker of a negotiable instrument and the party seeking to enforce it. The maker does not assume the risk of double liability except for instances where the note is purchased for value in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. In all other circumstances […]
Just because an instrument is not self-authenticating doesn’t mean it can’t be authenticated. Here the Plaintiff could not authenticate the note without the legal presumption of self-authentication and all the legal presumptions that follow. And that is the point here. They came to court without evidence and in this case the court turned them away. […]
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 […]
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. […]
The resulting case law is opening up Pandora’s box as the law of these foreclosure cases spills over into hundreds of other situations. Get a consult! 202-838-6345 https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER. —————- […]
The problem with all this is that the REMIC Trust never received the proceeds of sale of the MBS and therefore could not have paid for or purchased any loans. It had no assets. And THAT is why the Trust never shows up as a Holder in Due Course (HDC). HDC is a very strong […]
Search Our Blog
Categories
Contact Our National Headquarters Phone: 844-583-5339
Connect with us
Contact Our National Headquarters
- 844-583-5339
- Available 24/7
-
200 S. Andrews Ave. Ste. 604
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301