Quote:
|
Originally Posted by netwrkranger
|
I must say, these recent decisions, as in the Duetsche bank cases, have me wondering what is really going on. The reason I say this is because there is "case law" where the "judge"s have decided (and then quote each other back and forth) that a copy of the note is sufficient to establish that a contract exists. Of course this flies in the face of UCC article 3 on negotiable instruments, (and mounds of other "case law" to the contrary) but hey, breaking their own rules and regs has become custom and tradition in these "courts". I wonder if this does in fact represent a policy change, or just a few instances of "judges' covering their own a$$es...? Either way, I do think that people should ride this wave, and try to develop a cookie cutter approach/petition for using the same facts that were used in the Deutsche bank cases. In a foreclosure situation, you need not look any further than the issue of standing, to do so only muddies the waters, and opens the door for the other side to file "failure to state a claim" motions, when we are the plaintiffs. In other words, your arguments/statements would be incorrect and moot. This is also the case in most foreclosure cases where the homeowner/plaintiff is unknowingly fighting a "servicer", not realizing the nature and character of a servicer, as compared to the "lender". Your arguments are moot right out of the gate, but don't expect the "court" to point this out to you.