“The underlying assumption is that since the debtor owes someone, ANYONE can enforce it. The theory advanced by courts is that the debtor/borrower/consumer has no standing to challenge the self proclamation. The theory advanced by courts is based upon the assumption that even if the debtor is right, it makes no difference to the debtor. The harm, if any, is to someone else who is the real creditor. The remedy can be worked out between the claimant and the real creditor.
The underlying assumption is incredibly based upon the assumption and presumption that the claimants are still acting in good faith and not acting as thieves.
(This is odd in view of the dozens of cases in which the self proclaimed participants in the securitization of debt have been shown to have committed forgery, fabrication, back-dating, robo-signing in what appears to be a majority of alleged loans to alleged borrowers that are subject to what now is obviously false claims of securitization.)
None of it is true!
Instead the defenses of homeowners were routinely ignored and their lawyers were reprimanded and threatened by judges who believed that their presumptions were proper and that the lawyers were merely hairsplitting to “get a free house.” Experience now shows that these defenses are being upheld in an increasing number of cases and that judges following the the rule of accepting self serving statements from banks and servicers are now being reversed in an increasing number of cases.”
“The conclusion to be drawn from these decisions has yet to be enunciated by a majority on the bench with the clarity expressed in Justice Rubin’s dissent. He admits that, ” The reason I point out the omission is to highlight the difficulty of learning from tangled paper trails “who, what, where, when, and how” in mortgage cases involving lender documents that are sometimes – take your pick – incomplete, lost, inaccurate, post-dated, altered, robosigned, or created after the fact….” It doesn’t have to be this difficult. Again, like the Judge opines, ” Chase either had the authority to act when it submitted a credit bid to foreclose on appellants’ home despite having sold appellants’ promissory note to Freddie Mac – and has the evidence to prove it – or it did not. (See Civ. Code, § 2924h, subd.(b) [the “present beneficiary” may credit bid at trustee’s sale].) It really is a simple matter. Is that too much to ask when people are losing their homes? ”
“The glut of claims on mortgage foreclosures caused the judicial system to switch into an emergency mode. In so doing they skipped over the elements of fraud, due process and moral hazard in favor of “processing” the claims as quickly as possible rather than determining if the claims had any validity.”