The court's decision is consistent with those assignments at issue; those that assign
all title and interest to the assignee.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Libertarian
This is an interesting case, because the issue often comes up of whether someone who has bought a debt from the original creditor has standing to sue the original debtor. The Court's opinion (click on the link above) traces the history of the rules of "assignment."
|
It has no bearing, however, upon consumer debt or other "loan" agreements, simply because the assignment does not transfer all title and interest, merely collection rights. Original creditors do not remain original creditors for long, as their accounts receivable are generally sold to third party entities. The third party entity therein assigns back to the original creditor the collection rights. The original creditor is now a lowly debt collector.
Banks make money when accounts are being serviced and moreso when fees are attached. But once the account is in default the money train ends and they assign their debt collection job to those further down the food chain.
The original creditor doesn't have standing to sue, that's why they never do. Ditto for assignee DC's, but standing usually isn't made an issue when ignorant consumers go to court, they just blindly step into the pot.
gldskr
