Financial Turmoil Evokes Comparison to 2008 Crisis –

I know that this blog is dedicated to Foreclosure Defense but this post, I feel, is important to all of us, especially those of us in or facing foreclosure.  For me, it is all the more reason to fight your foreclosure, which is still laden with fraud from the inception of the loan to the filing.

Standing is still the main issue.  You cannot get around the fact that those taking the action DO NOT HAVE the right to do so as they do not OWN your mortgage note.  I don’t care about the “show me the note” defense as merely holding the document does not mean your “own” the document.  Sorry, all you lawyers and judges who think that way.  If I give you the title to my car – unsigned – to “hold” for me does that mean you have ownership of my car? No!  Does that mean you can “sell” my car?  No! Then obviously possession is not 100% of the law, is it?

As the Recession deepens once again, banks will be moving to foreclose even more so as to retain the financial benefits they derive from doing so.

In addition, knowing that things will be getting worse, we can all try to make new plans to survive the tide once again.

For those who think the Recession has been over, think again.  Talks of another Recession have been in the media for weeks now.  However, I believe that the Recession has never ended.

Here now the link to the title story:

Financial Turmoil Evokes Comparison to 2008 Crisis –

For those who think the Recession has been over, think again. Talks of another Recession have been in the media for weeks now. However, I believe that the Recession has never ended. No you say? No! Just ask those nearly 18 million under and unemployed. Just ask the millions of new people facing foreclosure – not due to over buying but due to lack of earnings caused by this Great Recession. And, ask those who once again lost much of their money in the stock market. Not much has changed. Only the government guided media trying to convince us – as always – that “things are OK and moving forward. That attitude by government that if they tell us things are OK long enough – We, The Stupid People – will believe them and begin to function as if nothing is wrong. WRONG! Can’t function normally, we have no money to do so. The Recession will dip once again and as I have been saying, the worst is yet to come. Guide yourselves accordingly.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • S. Ross  On August 11, 2011 at 4:19 PM

    It is not only the “guvmint” that is claming incessantly that the “great recession” is nearly over, but let us not forget the corporate puppet masters who are seemingly in charge of not only our elected representatives, but of course most of the media, which is complicit in the brainwashing attempt. It appears that more and more folks are not being fooled by all the B.S. Check out G. Romneys speech at the Iowa State Fair, and the surprising pushback from some in the audience.

  • Ohio lawyer  On August 17, 2011 at 10:34 AM

    I disagree about ownership of the note being the only issue. Under the UCC, to be entitled to enforce the note, a person MUST be in possession of it (except when they can claim the note was lost, destroyed, etc.). In fact, a person in possession of a note endorsed in blank, even if they stole it, may enforce the note. Ownership is not necessary. Likewise, a person who “owns” the note may not enforce it unless they are also in possession of it. I was not sold on the “show-me-the-note” defense for a long time. But after briefing the issue several times in Ohio, I accepted its importance. Without actual possession of the note, a lender cannot prevail. I agree that standing is a major issue, but “ownership” is not the proper way of thinking about it.

    • Larry Rubinoff  On August 21, 2011 at 3:31 PM

      Thank you for your take on this very important subject. Since standing is a major issue and “”ownership” is not the proper way of thinking about it”, then what is the way to think about it.

      Possessing the note, as you say, endorsed in blank, gives the holder the right to foreclose. I was always under the impression that a mortgage note endorsed in blank is not like a bearer bond where anyone in possession of it can execute it. In other words, mortgage notes are not bearer bonds. What is your take on this?

      Of course, if a mortgage note is held by someone but has never been endorsed in blank then it is your argument that now the bearer does not have standing. If this is what you are saying, I must agree.

      On the issue of lost, stolen or destroyed, banks often use this as an argument and basically are using a “trust me your honor, I did have it at one time but it was lost, stolen or destroyed, therefore I should have the right to proceed with the foreclosure action”.

      Too many judges simply accept this from a bank because they are “the bank” and of course, banks don’t lie. Only one judge questioned this in the past asking the plaintiff which occurred.

      Was the note lost, stolen or destroyed? It could not have been all three and if you don’t know which it was then you probably did not have it. I believe it was now Supreme Court Judge Schack in New York who questioned and disallowed this argument.

      DISCLAIMER: i am not an attorney and my comments do not reflect legal advice in any way. My comments come purley from my research and experience in these matters.

      I do, very much, welcome comments from attorneys like the one I am responding to for their legal opinions. More dialogue like this can be of great assistance to our readers and the millions facing foreclosure.

      If you are an attorney and would like to publish your views and opinions here at TheForeclosureDetonator please contact me at

      • Ohio Lawyer  On August 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM

        The question is whether someone is a “person entitled to enforce” the note. This status is defined by the Uniform Commercial Code. Below are the relevant provisions of the U.C.C. as adopted in Ohio:
        UCC 3-301
        (A) “Person entitled to enforce” an instrument means any of the following persons:
        (1) The holder of the instrument;
        (2) A nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder;
        (3) A person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section 1303.38 or division (D) of section 1303.58 of the Revised Code.
        (B) A person may be a “person entitled to enforce” the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
        A “holder” is defined in U.C.C. 3-301
        (T)(1) “Holder” with respect to a negotiable instrument means either of the following:
        (a) If the instrument is payable to bearer, a person who is in possession of the instrument;
        (b) If the instrument is payable to an identified person, the identified person when in possession of the instrument.

        These two provisions have to be read together to get the complete picture. Let’s go through each type of person listed in U.C.C. 3-301.

        1. Holder – is someone in possession of an instrument which is either payable to that person (i.e. initially made payable to that person, or payable to that person via a special endorsement) or payable to bearer (e.g. endorsed in blank). This person need not be be the “owner” of the instrument, and may be in wrongful possession of it. Under this provision a thief could be a person entitled to enforce the note. All he needs is possession of a note endorsed in blank.

        2. Non-holder with rights of a holder – To qualify under this provision a person must: (1) be in possession of the note, but it need not be order or bearer paper; and (2) the person must have been given the rights of a holder. How does someone get the rights of a holder without being a holder? A holder transfers possession to the person and also grants to that person rights through a separate document, but doesn’t get around to negotiating the note. For example, Bank A sells a group of notes to Bank B. The notes are physically transferred to Bank B, but are not endorsed. Bank A also executes a bill of sale acknowledging that it sold the notes to Bank B. Think of it as possession plus ownership without endorsement.

        3. Someone not in possession under certain circumstances: There are two possibilities here. The first in the “lost, stolen, or destroyed” note. We see that often in foreclosure cases. The bank has to submit evidence to the Court to prove it can enforce the lost note. The other circumstance is almost never seen so I won’t go into it.

        That’s it. Only three classes of people can sue on a promissory note. Aside from “lost note” cases, possession is required. After that you need either negotiation (payable to order or an endorsement in blank) or some other evidence that you are intended by the last holder to be the person to enforce the note.

        This framework addresses commercial paper in general. That said, there may be other restrictions on transfers of certain types of mortgage notes. For instance, an FHA note cannot be sold to just anybody. They can only be transferred to other FHA-approved lenders. Some have suggested that such FHA or VA regulations renders notes issued under their programs to be something other than negotiable instruments. I do not know much about those arguments, but want to caution people that generalities are just that – general. Every situation is different and must be evaluated on its own facts.

        I can’t emphasize that last point enough. It’s all well and good for people to know the law, but too many borrowers try to go it alone. Law is not viewed in a vacuum; it is applied to fact. Most of the time the fact is harder to come by than the law. I urge borrowers to find counsel to help them. Doing it yourself almost never turns out well.

        I agree, Judge Schack drew attention to these issues by asking the simple questions and demanding some proof. Now, judges everywhere are more likely to listen to a borrower who challenges broad assertions of standing. Currently, this issue is pending before the Ohio Supreme Court and will likely be decided late this year. You can see the briefing on the issues on the Court’s website. The case name is U.S. Bank v. Antoine Duvall, Case No. 2011-0218.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: