[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=SK in CV]The question is, should the lenders be allowed to ignore the law[/quote]
No one should be allowed to ignore the law, obviously. Have you ever thought of the distinction between the spirit and the letter of the law? The impression you give in this forum is that you are overly concerned with the letter of the law, without regard for the intent of the legislators or the intent of the law.
When a deadbeat or FB stops making payments, that constitutes a substantial violation of the loan agreement, and therefore, of the “spirit” of the law in addition to the “letter.” That behavior is the complete opposite of a technicality.
On the other hand, if we insist that lenders provide hard copies of every single document that prove that they are entitled to foreclose, we are putting the “letter” of the law over its “spirit.” In other words, a technicality.
You’re essentially defending those who “game the system”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_the_system “[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome.”[/quote]
I would suggest, that in this instance, the spirit of the law and the intent are same. Most contracts don’t have to be in writing. One of the exceptions are contracts related to real estate, including liens thereon. That isn’t accidental. That is the intent of the law. Real estate notes and liens have to be in writing, they have to be recorded, they have to be transferred through proper endorsement. They are negotiable instruments (at least the notes are, I’ve seen some arguments that liens are not).
I have not anywhere defended anyone that has gamed the system. I have no doubt there are a small minority of deliquent borrowers who have done just that. But using your definition of “gaming the system”, that percentage is dwarfed by the loan servicing industry which has repeatedly and illegally gamed the system in clear opposition to both the letter AND the spirit of the law the last three years.
