[SK in CV]

I think she over-simplifies the problem and, at least in the written version, totally omits one of the key components in the process which as added greatly to the problems. The reason the note and the trust deed aren’t in the file is that after original funding, ownership of the notes (and the security instrument) have been transferred, sometimes multiple times, unually ending up in a securitized trust. That trust, is (almost always) the legal holder in due course of the note and the security instrument. MERS, as a nominee holder of the security instrument, has, overall, done a fine job of keeping track of who owns what. But the responsibility of properly endorsing and forwarding the hard copies of the notes falls to the buyers and sellers of the notes (And not MERS as far as I can tell.) It has always been in the buyers interest to make sure the proper tracking of those documents took place. The responsibility should fall on the backs of the loan servicers (which is a whole different party), but they have failed miserably.

I think she fails to really explain the dating problem with the notes comes in. What appears to have happened is that the foreclosure process is started, based on signed statements that the party foreclosing has full knowledge of the documents. The servicer then tracks down the actual notes (and trust deeds) makes sure that all endorsements are up to date, and adding missing endorsements (apparently sometimes forged, sometimes legal endorsements) but if those endorsements are dated after the foreclosure process has begun, the foreclosure may be invalid, as the foreclosing party did not have standing at the time of the filing. Under normal circumstances, refiling after all endorsements are caught up to date should remedy the situation.

I think she’s wrong on the assertion that buyers may have problems down the line with lenders suddenly appearing claiming to have a claim on the property. They can’t spontaneously own the property. And they can’t initiate foreclosure proceedings on a loan and trust deed that has already been fully reconveyed. They may have a claim against someone else in the chain, but not a subsequent buyer.

This shit is complicated.

[SK in CV]

I think she over-simplifies the problem and, at least in the written version, totally omits one of the key components in the process which as added greatly to the problems. The reason the note and the trust deed aren’t in the file is that after original funding, ownership of the notes (and the security instrument) have been transferred, sometimes multiple times, unually ending up in a securitized trust. That trust, is (almost always) the legal holder in due course of the note and the security instrument. MERS, as a nominee holder of the security instrument, has, overall, done a fine job of keeping track of who owns what. But the responsibility of properly endorsing and forwarding the hard copies of the notes falls to the buyers and sellers of the notes (And not MERS as far as I can tell.) It has always been in the buyers interest to make sure the proper tracking of those documents took place. The responsibility should fall on the backs of the loan servicers (which is a whole different party), but they have failed miserably.

I think she fails to really explain the dating problem with the notes comes in. What appears to have happened is that the foreclosure process is started, based on signed statements that the party foreclosing has full knowledge of the documents. The servicer then tracks down the actual notes (and trust deeds) makes sure that all endorsements are up to date, and adding missing endorsements (apparently sometimes forged, sometimes legal endorsements) but if those endorsements are dated after the foreclosure process has begun, the foreclosure may be invalid, as the foreclosing party did not have standing at the time of the filing. Under normal circumstances, refiling after all endorsements are caught up to date should remedy the situation.

I think she’s wrong on the assertion that buyers may have problems down the line with lenders suddenly appearing claiming to have a claim on the property. They can’t spontaneously own the property. And they can’t initiate foreclosure proceedings on a loan and trust deed that has already been fully reconveyed. They may have a claim against someone else in the chain, but not a subsequent buyer.

This shit is complicated.

[SK in CV]

I think she over-simplifies the problem and, at least in the written version, totally omits one of the key components in the process which as added greatly to the problems. The reason the note and the trust deed aren’t in the file is that after original funding, ownership of the notes (and the security instrument) have been transferred, sometimes multiple times, unually ending up in a securitized trust. That trust, is (almost always) the legal holder in due course of the note and the security instrument. MERS, as a nominee holder of the security instrument, has, overall, done a fine job of keeping track of who owns what. But the responsibility of properly endorsing and forwarding the hard copies of the notes falls to the buyers and sellers of the notes (And not MERS as far as I can tell.) It has always been in the buyers interest to make sure the proper tracking of those documents took place. The responsibility should fall on the backs of the loan servicers (which is a whole different party), but they have failed miserably.

I think she fails to really explain the dating problem with the notes comes in. What appears to have happened is that the foreclosure process is started, based on signed statements that the party foreclosing has full knowledge of the documents. The servicer then tracks down the actual notes (and trust deeds) makes sure that all endorsements are up to date, and adding missing endorsements (apparently sometimes forged, sometimes legal endorsements) but if those endorsements are dated after the foreclosure process has begun, the foreclosure may be invalid, as the foreclosing party did not have standing at the time of the filing. Under normal circumstances, refiling after all endorsements are caught up to date should remedy the situation.

I think she’s wrong on the assertion that buyers may have problems down the line with lenders suddenly appearing claiming to have a claim on the property. They can’t spontaneously own the property. And they can’t initiate foreclosure proceedings on a loan and trust deed that has already been fully reconveyed. They may have a claim against someone else in the chain, but not a subsequent buyer.

This shit is complicated.

[SK in CV]

I think she over-simplifies the problem and, at least in the written version, totally omits one of the key components in the process which as added greatly to the problems. The reason the note and the trust deed aren’t in the file is that after original funding, ownership of the notes (and the security instrument) have been transferred, sometimes multiple times, unually ending up in a securitized trust. That trust, is (almost always) the legal holder in due course of the note and the security instrument. MERS, as a nominee holder of the security instrument, has, overall, done a fine job of keeping track of who owns what. But the responsibility of properly endorsing and forwarding the hard copies of the notes falls to the buyers and sellers of the notes (And not MERS as far as I can tell.) It has always been in the buyers interest to make sure the proper tracking of those documents took place. The responsibility should fall on the backs of the loan servicers (which is a whole different party), but they have failed miserably.

I think she fails to really explain the dating problem with the notes comes in. What appears to have happened is that the foreclosure process is started, based on signed statements that the party foreclosing has full knowledge of the documents. The servicer then tracks down the actual notes (and trust deeds) makes sure that all endorsements are up to date, and adding missing endorsements (apparently sometimes forged, sometimes legal endorsements) but if those endorsements are dated after the foreclosure process has begun, the foreclosure may be invalid, as the foreclosing party did not have standing at the time of the filing. Under normal circumstances, refiling after all endorsements are caught up to date should remedy the situation.

I think she’s wrong on the assertion that buyers may have problems down the line with lenders suddenly appearing claiming to have a claim on the property. They can’t spontaneously own the property. And they can’t initiate foreclosure proceedings on a loan and trust deed that has already been fully reconveyed. They may have a claim against someone else in the chain, but not a subsequent buyer.

This shit is complicated.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz] [quote]It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative.[/quote]

I certainly hope you are employing hyperbole. [/quote]

Teaching it as science? Nope, no hyperbole at all. It is anti-science.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz] [quote]It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative.[/quote]

I certainly hope you are employing hyperbole. [/quote]

Teaching it as science? Nope, no hyperbole at all. It is anti-science.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz] [quote]It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative.[/quote]

I certainly hope you are employing hyperbole. [/quote]

Teaching it as science? Nope, no hyperbole at all. It is anti-science.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz] [quote]It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative.[/quote]

I certainly hope you are employing hyperbole. [/quote]

Teaching it as science? Nope, no hyperbole at all. It is anti-science.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz] [quote]It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative.[/quote]

I certainly hope you are employing hyperbole. [/quote]

Teaching it as science? Nope, no hyperbole at all. It is anti-science.

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]If anyone is going to insist on ID being taught in public schools then at least balance it out with the FSM theory as well.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/%5B/quote%5D

Yay! How’d I know you’d be a FSM follower? I’m wearing a FSM t-shirt as I type. All bow to his noodly appendage!

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]If anyone is going to insist on ID being taught in public schools then at least balance it out with the FSM theory as well.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/%5B/quote%5D

Yay! How’d I know you’d be a FSM follower? I’m wearing a FSM t-shirt as I type. All bow to his noodly appendage!

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]If anyone is going to insist on ID being taught in public schools then at least balance it out with the FSM theory as well.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/%5B/quote%5D

Yay! How’d I know you’d be a FSM follower? I’m wearing a FSM t-shirt as I type. All bow to his noodly appendage!

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]If anyone is going to insist on ID being taught in public schools then at least balance it out with the FSM theory as well.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/%5B/quote%5D

Yay! How’d I know you’d be a FSM follower? I’m wearing a FSM t-shirt as I type. All bow to his noodly appendage!

[SK in CV]

[quote=UCGal]If anyone is going to insist on ID being taught in public schools then at least balance it out with the FSM theory as well.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/%5B/quote%5D

Yay! How’d I know you’d be a FSM follower? I’m wearing a FSM t-shirt as I type. All bow to his noodly appendage!

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
I find that specific argument (that you want to have) spurious. Because if we have choice, why would you care about whether ID is taught in some schools? Unless you are interested in controlling other people’s kids that is.

[/quote]

This is really getting rediculous. I have no desire to tell anyone what they teach their kids. But it’s rediculous to include ID in publicly funded schools. Not only because it is a thoroughly modern version of creationism, designed specifically to get around constitutional limitations, but it because it isn’t science. It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative. To teach it as science is encouraging kids to be stupid. And at minimum, we all have a stake in not doing that.

Now you want to teach it in a private school? Go ahead and make your kids stupid. But I really don’t want to pay for it. Not because it’s religion. Because it’s stupid. There is no final constitional answer as to whether school vouchers are allowed under the law. But “vouchers for stupidity” isn’t a real good selling point.

[Author]

Posts