Cites - Possession of Promissory Note Required

[KarenM]

Check out this article from Forbes.com 6/18/07

Looks like someone finally found a way to smack down some of those foreclosure artists.

for example

One Maryland man, holding documents suggesting his loan was held simultaneously by a pool of loans and a bank, is still in his home--five years after foreclosure was filed.

This doesn't look like a silver bullet for everyone facing foreclosure, but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye.

[mandalisj]

i wrote a response to many of the erroneous assumptions in this thread, but thought i should put it in it's own thread ...

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...ue-dollar.html

[mandalisj]

Originally Posted by KarenM

Check out this article from Forbes.com 6/18/07

Looks like someone finally found a way to smack down some of those foreclosure artists.

for example

This doesn't look like a silver bullet for everyone facing foreclosure, but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye.

this would not stop me from foreclosing on you if I was holding your note ...

this article is about a mortgage company that sold the note AFTER it went into default ... for a lender to file an affidavit saying they lost the note after they sold it, they would be committing fraud ... the buyer of the note cannot be a holder of due course because they had public notice that the note was not good ... if the buyer of the note bought it for value in good faith without any notice of a defense then they have every right to enforce the note or have their agent (original lender) enforce it ...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-302


the concept of the holder of due course (and endorser of due course) is the key concept in all of these issues ... for an assignee to qualify as a holder of due course the note must be:

1. negotiable in form (in writing, signed, unconditional, for a sum certain in lawful money only, in time or on demand, and to order) and

2. negotiated (bought and sold) to

3. a holder (physical possessor of the note)

4. for valuable consideration (as measured in gold at a par value of $42.2222 per ounce, see my above article)

5. without notice of any claim, defense, or default

because of the public notice of default the holder of the notes in the forbes article was ineligible to be a holder of due course ...

the METRIS VS EDWARDS foreclosure is the only one that has been successfully defended because EDWARDS demanded METRIS testify what the VALUE (in gold at $42.2222 per ounce) of the consideration (lender's credit) was at the time of the loan - hence METRIS could not hold in due course because they knew their consideration was not as valuable as they negotiated it for ...

http://www.citizensoftheamericanconstitution.org/

nevertheless, under the 1988 United Nations convention on INTERNATIONAL bills of exchange and INTERNATIONAL promissory notes, a 'protected holder' has the rights of a holder of due course if they acquired the note in good faith EVEN IF IT WAS NOT FOR VALUE ... i would argue that an acquisition cannot be in good faith without value, but then again I am not a communist like what can be found at the United Nations ... however, the 'protected holder' designation applies to international bills of exchange and international promissory notes and is contrary to the Uniform Commercial Code in your state which the court is applying to evict you ...

[monk3]

673.3091 Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument.--

(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:

(a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;

(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, s. 673.3081 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

How can you argue against this Stat.?? This is listed in my foreclosure suit.