Foreclosure Defense Florida


Let’s start with real basic stuff here.   Sometimes law is complex, nuanced, difficult.   Other times it’s black and white…you just read the words, look at the facts and the answer is unavoidable.   Such is the case with the simmering dispute over the fact that the notes that are part of nearly every residential foreclosure case are not negotiable instruments.   Oh sure, too many courts won’t take the time to consider the argument and…just yesterday I heard an appellate court argument where the judges just kept repeating the mantra, “this is a negotiable instrument” without ever doing any analysis at all and without any finding of that “fact” from the trial court.   The attorney needed to stop the appellate judge right there and say, “No Your Honor, it’s Not A Negotiable Instrument”.
Just last week, in a trial court, here’s exactly they way it went down.   Now, keep in mind, this argument in court was supplemented by a long and detailed memo similar to the one attached here.   The best part it was in front of one of Florida’s most respected and brilliant judges.   He’s been on the bench longer than I’ve been alive, he knows more law in the tip of his finger than most lawyers get in their whole bodies in an entire lifetime, he’s presided over tens of thousands of foreclosure cases. It was a beautiful thing to see an argument before a dedicated jurist whose seen and heard it all before that really made him sit up, dig in to those decades of judicial wisdom and then do the heavy lifting. That’s one of the beautiful things about this job….despite decades of work and hundreds of years of law, out of nowhere something new and exciting can still get the intellect and wisdom fired up and shooting like a cannon. Here’s how it goes down:
Your honor, I’ve highlighted and present for you the statutory definition of a “negotiable instrument”.   Because it’s a statutory definition, it’s black and white. We cannot alter or weave or color it with shades of gray….here’s what it is:

673.1041 Negotiable instrument.””
(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (4), and (11), the term ” negotiable instrument” means
an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other
charges described in the promise or order, if it:
(a) Is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a
(b) Is payable on demand or at a definite time; and
(c) Does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering
payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money.

FL Article 3

Now, we’re all stuck with exactly that definition. Before we examine the note in this case, let’s first think about what a negotiable instrument is….a check made payable to a person for $100. An IOU for $100.   Bills of lading with a total included.   It’s all real simple.

So now that we’re fixed about what a negotiable instrument is, let’s examine what it ain’t.   What ain’t a negotiable instrument, as defined by Florida law is the standard Fannie/Freddie Promissory note and the following paragraphs are the primary reasons why.   Read each one carefully and ask, “Are these sentences conditions or undertakings other than the promise to repay money?” (Of course they are)

4.                 BORROWER’S RIGHT TO PREPAY
I have the right to make payments of Principal at any time before they are due.   A payment of Principal only is known as a ” Prepayment.”   When I make a Prepayment, I will tell the Note Holder in writing that I am doing so.   I may not designate a payment as a Prepayment if I have not made all the monthly payments due under the Note.
I may make a full Prepayment or partial Prepayments without paying a Prepayment charge.   The Note Holder will use my Prepayments to reduce the amount of Principal that I owe under this Note.   However, the Note Holder may apply my Prepayment to the accrued and unpaid interest on the Prepayment amount, before applying my Prepayment to reduce the Principal amount of the Note.   If I make a partial Prepayment, there will be no changes in the due date or in the amount of my monthly payment unless the Note Holder agrees in writing to those changes.
5.                 LOAN CHARGES
If a law, which applies to this loan and which sets maximum loan charges, is finally interpreted so that the interest or other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with this loan exceed the permitted limits, then:   (a) any such loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and (b) any sums already collected from me which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to me.   The Note Holder may choose to make this refund by reducing the Principal I owe under this Note or by making a direct payment to me.   If a refund reduces Principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial Prepayment.

This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions.   In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed (the ” Security Instrument”), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note.   That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amounts I owe under this Note.   Some of those conditions are described as follows:
If all or any part of the Property or any Interest in the Property is sold or transferred (or if Borrower is not a natural person and a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transferred) without Lender’s prior written consent, Lender may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if such exercise is prohibited by Applicable Law.

If Lender exercises this option, Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration.   The notice shall provide a period of not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given in accordance with Section 15 within which Borrower must pay all sums secured by this Security Instrument.   If Borrower fails to pay these sums prior to the expiration of this period, Lender may invoke any remedies permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on Borrower.


So, the deal is, if we were sitting in a law school classroom, there’s not a chance in the world but that every student in the room and the professor would agree and understand that the document being examined side by side is not covered by the definition provided.   The problem is we get into courtrooms and we get infected by considerations that are beyond and above the operative law.   Judgment gets clouded by preconceived notions and prejudices against our neighbors and favoritism for the criminal banking institutions that caused all this mess. Even to this day, years into this, years into all the fraud and the lies and the deceit, it’s like we’re still hypnotized by the banks and their black magic and voodoo.
Now, if you really want to take it a step deeper, Margery Golant makes a very credible argument that in doing this analysis we cannot just look at the note alone, but that we must also examine the mortgage that follows with it.   They truly are two integrated documents and you can see from her highlights that so many of the provisions in the mortgage have nothing to do with security and everything to do with conditions on the payment of money….these provisions are just jammed into the mortgage and kept out of the note to try and prop up this artifice of negotiability.   Read her highlights with this analysis in mind:

Fannie Florida Mortgage with Golant Highlights

Further supported by this case Sims v New Falls

Now, understand the industry never intended these notes and mortgages to transfer via endorsement.   The industry set this whole system up so that the notes and mortgage would transfer via Article 9 of the UCC.   It’s just so plain and simple.   They never set it up or intended that million dollar notes and mortgages would transfer via forged endorsements, undated squiggles and rubber stamps or floating allonges.   Of course not…that’s just crazy.   The entire system was created such that notes and mortgages and all the servicing agreements and rights and liabilities would transfer via far more formalized Assignments, with names and dates and notary stamps and witnesses.   The Article 9 transfer regime had nothing to do with protecting consumers, but everything to do with protecting the players in the industry from the scams, the lies, the cons that they all like to play on one another. (Hello, LIBOR anyone?)

But when the shifty con artists that set this whole securitization card game up, they were so focused on how much money they were making, they never considered what would happen when the whole house of cards blew down.   When it blew down, they threw their Article 9 intentions out the window and adopted the whole Article 3 negotiable instrument delusion.   Isn’t it an absurd argument when they cannot answer the question, “if assignments don’t matter, why do you still bother to do them?”   It’s because they do matter….assignments were and remain the foundation of their transfers.   The problem is Assignments, what with their pesky dates and legible names and notaries and all reveal the lies and the fraud and the con that developed once the system came crashing down and they all started stealing from one another. (With the explicit approval of our state and fedeal government to do so….too big to jail you know.)
Anywhoo, there’s still some faint glimmer of hope as long as we still have good judges out there that are willing to think these things through and do the heavy lifting, we might be able to rescue our nation’s judicial system and in fact our nation as a whole from this deep, dark black pit that we’ve all descended down.
I urge everyone to be very careful with these arguments.   I’m a very big supporter of pro se people and consumers being integrated into their courtrooms and being fully engaged in the public spaces they own. I’ve also seen some very good pro se people go into courtrooms and do some very beautiful things.   In some ways it’s like a “From the mouths of babes” experience.   Language and arguments stripped away from all their lawyerly pretense can have a magic effect on a judge’s ear and thoughtfully and well-prepared arguments are often received with great enthusiasm from our circuit courts….particularly those judges that recognize the roots of our civilian circuit justice system.   The danger is that ill-prepared and poorly presented arguments will taint the ears and poison the minds of judges that might otherwise accept with an open mind…..keep that in mind.   Max Gardner is the Obi One Kenobe of all this and there’s just something about the way he lays it out so clear and clean and simple that has it all make sense.   I really encourage everyone to get all his material and invest in the week long bootcamp before you go trying any of this out…..MAX GARDNER BOOTCAMP
Now, one last thing here….let’s talk about the practical impact of all this BOOMING and BOMBSHELLING!   When we get back around to some integrity of our laws and start recognizing that notes are not negotiable, that does not mean they aren’t enforceable….it only means they have to be transferred not by negotiation but via assignment pursuant to Article 9….do you see how that works?   The end of the delusion of negotiability is not the END OF THE WORLD!   It just means courts will not be relying upon illegible squiggles to transfer interests in billions of dollars worth of assets and the interests in real property to land and homes all across this nation.   See how that works?   When notes are enforced as non negotiable instruments, the transfer of interest in those documents occurs, along with the mortgage and the enforcing authority, pursuant to an assignment of mortgage or some other document which would actually show some chain of ownership…..
And now my briefs:
Motion to Dismiss
Initial Brief


  • sara smite says:

    so now we have THAT out of the way can someone please explain how this pertains to all of our foreclosures. does this uncover the fact that the non-negitiable promissory note null and voids the original. hence the robo signing/rubber satmping, and that all servicers are debt collectors? Is foreclosure just a fraud played upon to steal our homes back that they do not own any more? how can a judge not be educated but up on the thrown judicating wrong information. How would you like your cardiac surgeon doing your by-pass surgery not know how to do the surgery and you die. well thats what is happening here the judges are knowledgeable enough and so many people in the united states have lost their homes because of it. If this was a mass wave of cardia surgeons not knowing their “surgery” they would be sued for malpractice. how can this continue. what happens now?????? please help. Ido not want to lose my home. unforntunatley i live in a small county in florida and i i pretty much know buy the site of all the EMPTY houses in this area the judges are not judicating here they definately do not understand the differnece between the note. YOU DIDNT PAY YOUR MORTGAGE BACK TO THE BANK YOUR HOUSE GOES. THATS THE MENTALITY AROUND HERE. doesnt matter you have tried painstakenly to get a hamop loan and told by your servicer not to pay to qualify, induced into default.

    • indio007 says:

      Technically, non-negotiable notes pass only by assignment not endorsement. Also I pretty sure notice of assignment must be given.
      The reason banks want the notes to be negotiable is that the defences are very limited .A non-negotiable note is subject to all the defenses that would be available in a simple contract.
      What I’ve always wondered is why can’t they prove the deb by other means? All they need is a wire transmittal , cancelled check or proof that they gave ANY value.
      Why can’t they do this.
      Also a little known defense to negotiability is that the transfer was made solely for the purpose of defeating equitable defense of the maker.
      Whih is pretty much the purpose of the entire gig.

  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

    Thank you for doing the heavy lifting on this issue, Attorney Weidner. And thank you, Attorney Gardner and everyone else for sharing the proper analyses of everything from the sublime (esoteric issues of law upon which the Republic–governed by laws and not “men” is meant to be governed, such as trust law and Article 9 of the UCC) to the ridiculous (Linda Green, robo-stamps and squiggled forgeries.)
    Your years of struggle in Florida are so helpful to those of us in an area of the country which did not enter the foreclosure crisis until 2009, when the foreclosing entities decided that the next easy money scan would take place under TARP by declaring defaults and collected the full, falsely claimed loan balance. (12 USC sec. 5212)

    • sara smite says:

      I like your word loosley. YES, Inducing homewomers into default was a great plan and it is up to all the lawyers fighting foreclosures to PLEASE and i ask you that capitolized PLEASE educate the judge to what inducement into default is about. i was reading a case that the judge was actually using promissory estopple and was wishy washing even claiming promissory estoppel. how do we get these judges to judicate?? NO where in the hamp guidelines did it say that homeowners had to be in default or 3 months behind to apply for the hamp loan but that is what wells fargo ECT have been dishing out to homeowners. to get us right where they wanted us dual tracked to foreclosure. Is stealing homes from us the american dream or the american nightmare?? when will judges in the florida courts and the rest of the country understand what was done to home owners . I was current but was becomming crippled by the economy, and all we did was ask our bank for help. MY favorite part of my forecloure is the NOD can someone please tell us when the legal time these are suppose to be sent to homeowners. please refresh me. Most NOD’s didnt go out or not till 6 months after. how is that legal???? so many questions so few answers, so much fraud, so many people losing their homes to his garbage. Inducement into default is alive. Telling a homeowner not to pay his mortgage should be deemed as the bank telling the homeowner to break the contract nulling and voiding this said contract, Please all step up and stop letting these enities steal our homes. you have the helm save us

    • Stacyvan says:

      Wendy, I read your post from the last post by Matt. I thought your argument might be right on and was conflicted but then here you are saying that you appreciate Matt’s great efforts and clarifying the issues (which I do too). These are complicated issues so I’m just looking for a reconciliation. Do you still believe that the UCC doesn’t apply to real estate transactions? In the Eaton vs. Fannie Mae case the Supreme Judicial Court didn’t address the UCC issue and relied totally on property law in Mass. I think that gives your argument some weight but I’m not sure because I’m not an attorney. Anyway either Matt’s or Wendy’s response would be appreciated.

  • Raptor says:

    Wow–this is absolutely beautiful! And so simple! And airtight–the banksters can forge endorsements, robo-sign, etc., but they can’t go back and make the note negotiable! There’s no way out of this argument for them! At the earliest available opportunity, I will be suing again using this argument. Kudos to you and Max Gardner!
    The beauty of it for me is that in my case–which I lost due to fake endorsements–the judge and the Defendants both came to the conclusion that Fannie Mae received my non-negotiable note via negotiation! Um, NO THEY DIDN’T!

  • gwen caranchini says:

    Here is a new argument being used in discovery by BOA/BAC/Wilshire/CW/Merrill Lynch on the art 3 v. 9 position. BEWARE. They are using this argument in objections to discovery on the note so that it forces the debtor to bear the burden of proving relevancy and then no doubt will use that adverse ruling by trial on a Motion to Dismiss/SJ and preclude you from getting the discovery you need. Here is how this goes and why THIS case and like cases are important. You ask for information on chain of title conveyances or you ask for information on the note and payments on the note from various sources. They object claiming it is irrelevant and the only thing that is irrelevant is that they are the current holder–if that is the case, it does not matter if the chain of title is broken or anything else for that matter (although you would think valuation is still important). What they want to do is get the note to be an article 3 note, get them to be a holder of the note and thereby bypass all discovery. Think about this and how an an adverse ruling on discovery makes their claim on a Motion to Dismiss or M/SJ. This is their way to get around land law. I’m concerned about this but I do believe it is where the banks and servicers are going. They have already made that argument in discovery in my case on my Quiet Title/Declaratory judgment claims. So read this case and watch where the discovery objections are going

  • totellthetruth says:

    What else is mew? Have been saying this and all along. There is more yet to be uncovered. It is the bold attorney that will win in the end for his/her clients and himself. God is sooooo faithful and will continue to expose errors and highlight truth of the matter also in case law to confirm…
    By the way, what happens when a buyer makes advanced principal payments? How does that affect the servicer and the investors?

  • indio007 says:

    Quite simply anyone trying to say the Standard Fannie and Freddie Mac Note is a negotiable instrument loses at this phrase.
    “Some of those conditions”
    There can only be one condition in a negotiable instrument. Pay money.

  • neidermeyer says:

    Sucks to have to show an assignment and not have any documents regarding the sale or purchase price ,, no receipt or book entry.

  • P Nach says:

    Very interesting! I think it would be very helpful if you or someone could discuss the differences between UCC 3 and UCC 9 and the ramifications for real property, etc.
    I agree that this shows that the banks are engaged in the ole bait-and-switch routine. It’s my understanding that UCC 9 specifically applied to mortgages.
    To claim a thing is not to prove a thing. I think it would be very helpful to show where and when the bait-and-switch began, under what circumstances and why. More often than not, you have to lead judges by the hand. This would go a long way towards that end.
    Thanks for everything you do! What an inspiration you are to all of us out here fighting the fight!

  • brian davies says:

    The Mortgage Bankers Association agrees that UCC 3 does not apply. That the notes are not negotiable. April response to Illinois Foreclosure change recs.

  • John Stuart says:

    I think everyone has missed the boat on assignments and the verbiage the bank uses in the endorsements. The banks always use “without recourse” in their endorsement;.” this type of endorsement negates the banks responsibility to pay for the Note and leaves ONLY the original signer (you) financially responsible. But this is a 2 edged sword. The very act of allowing the bank to add ” without recourse” means the 2nd bank has now AGREED they ONLY have the right to collect PAYMENT for the debt but forsakes the right to foreclose because they have become a HOLDER and NOT a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.
    The liability protection garnered by using ” without recourse” is purchased with the powers afforded by the IN DUE COURSE right. The fraud then lies with the trustee who violated their fiduciary responsibility by allowing the Note to be endorsed “without recourse” which stripped parties of their rights. Once the trustee did this they voluntary forsook their position and authority and lost the power to control or oversee any future acts.
    In essence, the trustee is nothing more than the thug that does the wet work for the mafia we call the bank.
    Since the DoT states the “debt evidenced by the Note” and the Note has been invalidated by the bad endorsement there is no evidence of any debt.

    • keith says:

      John. Thank you. I had sent a notice to the bank who signed without recourse and acknowledged their responsibility for doing so. Now, would you be so kind as to divulge where i can find the information/case cite so I can substantiate this claim in court?

  • John says:

    This will be appealed and, most likely, reversed. In any event, it is meaningless until the entire appellate process is complete.

  • Todd Wetzelberger says:

    Matt, Been hammering the “not a negotiable instrument” angle in Md as well but decided to go after pre-complaint discovery and in NY (Shack’s backyard) via the Abeel v. BOA angle of all these banks have nexus to NY.
    If there is place to email you the Petition for Pre-Suit Discovery per NY CPLR 3102(c) will gladly send if it will help others. I just went to Brooklyn 2 weeks ago from Md. to file it. Similar to FL Pure Bill of Discovery.
    At least in the cases I’m personally litigating and everyone else we work with virtually 100% of the time we do discovery (pre-suit, pending appeal, or during active case) they all squeal like stuck pigs.
    Gardner and Nye Lavalle ironically spoke about this a few months ago so there is pattern there.
    Started to pre-suit discovery after running into (12(b)(6)dismissals in fed court (and state court equivalent) due to Iqbal and Twombly decisions/ heightened pleading standards.
    If you can’t get the discovery ahead of time how can you plead with specificity and particularity to survive the MTD ? You can’t of course and f/c mills tried to hide behind that.
    Just got a Motion for Protective Order yesterday in mail from fraudclosure mill atty Thomas P. Dore who I got lucky enough to force him to admit he had no first hand knowledge, was not document custodian, no credibility, couldn’t authenticate any documents, etc. It was rough transcript since I had to wing it, not knowing he was going to voluntarily get sworn in to make it look things on up and up.
    Since Dore’s admissions in 11 Aug 2010 hearing, Crooked (Circuit) Court of Balto Co created a special “wetzelberger rule” where they just ignore motions and req. for hearing and probably throw my stuff in the trash. Have to resort to mandamus just to force a hearing to get scheduled.
    Went to grand jury 2 wks ago in Md. with another “accidental litigator” and he presented info and indictment on 2 judges. Can’t be certain grand jury wasn’t spoken to by state attorney but we are going back for round 2 at end of summer once we have solid pattern of obstruction and theft of honest services.
    Let me know if you want any docs (discovery, etc) and will gladly send to you to post if you want. It’s the least I can do to contribute.
    thanks for sticking your neck out. I’ve seen you get a lot more outspoken over the last 2yrs and you have a lot more to lose than us “civilians” so I certainly appreciate the risks you are taking
    we well

  • Brian says:

    COULD you please provide the name of the Judge that youconsider the most respected and brilliant judge of judges? and the case number?
    Thank you.

  • Someone that can read says:

    This is nonsense. Even if you could get judges across the country to agree that the note is not a negotiable instrument, then what? The right to repayment may still be assigned. So we’re right where we are now. What have you gained? Nothing. Good job seeing the big picture.
    You all passed a bar?

  • Tim Bryant says:

    Article 3 is even worse for RMBS entities. Nearly every note requires ANY endorser of the note to be an obligor with the same liabilities, jointly and severally, as the original obligor (usually in Sec 9 of the note). Think of how many entities endorsed the note to get to the Trustee.
    Here is the good part of Art. 3…@3-116(c) clearly states;
    “(c) Discharge of one party having joint and several liability by a person entitled to enforce the instrument does not affect the right under subsection (b) of a party having the same joint and several liability to receive contribution from the party discharged.”
    Said differently, when an endorser sells an instrument, that endorser is required to receive those funds into the mortgage loan account, as it received payment on the instrument from another new endorser. Your loan is thus paid off. There is no longer a debt obligation. The recirculation of those funds for the endorsers personal use is fraudulent conversion. You actually have a right of action against any party who received funds above and beyond the payoff amount. They would also be liable under fraudulent conversion . The only claim against you could be for the possessory interest of the property. Considering that it was received through a fraudulent conversion, their chances of prevailing are slim.
    There is a great case that describes fraudulent conversion in mortgages.

  • Mike Hansen says:

    Part of the importance is this, if the holder is not a “holder in
    due course”, than the maker (borrower) can raise against the holder
    any defense they would have had against the originator, for example
    a fraudulent, inflated appraisal. This opens the door to a serious
    “cram down” of the balance owed. I have done this many times.

  • Anthony says:

    Want proof that this is real? Ask yourself the following questions:
    1. Were you told that the Federal Reserve Bank Policies and Procedures as well as the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all Federally-insured (FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the United States Code, Section 1831(a), prohibit banks from lending their own money from their own assets or from other depositors? Did the bank tell you where the funds for the loan were to come from?
    2. Were you told that the contract you signed, the promissory note, was going to be converted into a ‘negotiable instrument’ by the bank and become an asset on the bank’s accounting books? Did the bank tell you that your signature on that note, makes it ‘money’, according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sections 1-201(24) and 3-104?
    3. Were you told that your promissory note would be taken, recorded as an asset of the bank, and then sold by the bank for cash, without “valuable consideration” given to obtain your note? Did the bank give you a deposit slip as a receipt for the promissory note you gave them, just as the bank would normally have to provide when you make a deposit to the bank?
    4. Were you told that the bank would create a new account at the bank that would contain this money that you gave them?
    5. Were you told that a check from this new account would be issued with your signature, without your knowledge, and that this new account would be the source of the funds behind the check that was given to you as a “loan”?
    If you answered “No” to any of these questions, YOU HAVE BEEN CHEATED! How does that make you feel? It is now up to you to demand your deposit back and to challenge the validity of this bank loan Agreement. Since the banks and other lending institutions cannot allow “full disclosure” of your loan Agreement and cannot answer your challenges about it, their silence is the key, along with other necessary steps that can be learned by you, to get your deposit back and/or “payoff” their alleged loan to you.

  • roy rudisill says:


  • tim says:

    my note states: I understand that the lender may transfer this note. The lender or anyone who takes this note by transfer and who is entitled to to receive payments under this note is called the note holder.There are two things i cant figure out. One being does the word transfer also mean sold because servicer told me my loan was sold to an investor. Second being my servicer receives payments but servicer (c.c.o mortgage)says rbs citizens is the note holder and note owner. Confusing- can any one help explain?

    • keith says:

      Tim, My best advice is to invest in a world of knowledge by purchasing jurisdictionary. (google it, find out its immense value). Secondly, to find the answer to your question about “transfer”, I think as any legal word, you must look it up in Blacks law dictionary or the like and find cases that either the appellate or supreme courts in your state have decided it means in reference to a note. We must also uncover what “receive” means as well. There are two prongs in that sentence that must be fulfilled to be a “note holder”. We also must remember that the truth is always plain to see for those who have eyes to see it. Just as this original thread shows.

  • Iliana says:

    I just repeat the words of DOUG, I am about to loose my house.
    I need help.
    Thank you

    • lost my house too, still in it for now says:

      lilli…the quickest and fastest way to stop the foreclosure sale without anyones help but your own is to go to the bankruptcy court and file a bankruptcy…right then go to the civil court and record it in your foreclosure case. That will at least give you 30 days to be able to at least find a good bankruptcy lawyer, and then the courts and lawyer can force a cramdown in a ch13, give you room and a few days to breath…make sure you file it in your foreclosure case IMMEDIATLY… EVERY document the bank submits, and make sure they are exactly correct and the same thing you have (my bank in my bankruptcy interestingly enough omitted the mers numbers on every document and submitted that in federal court…sometimes a bankruptcy is not for everyone, but it will stop the foreclosure sale

  • flaboater1 says:

    This appears to be a circular argument. Please correct me if I am wrong here… UCC Section 9 (FS 679) defines ” Instrument” – means a “negotiable instrument” or any other writing that evidences a right to the payment of a monetary obligation, is not itself a security agreement or lease, and is of a type that in the ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary indorsement or assignment. The term does not include investment property, letters of credit, or writings that evidence a right to payment arising out of the use of a credit or charge card or information contained on or for use with the card.”
    So how does the negotiable instrument arguement pursuant to Section 3 get tossed out when in both sections FS 673 and 679, “instrument” is generally designated as a “negotiable instrument”?
    I am currently putting together an argument related to the negotiable instrument , separate from the mortgage, not in a foreclosure case

  • DS says:

    Can anyone tell me where to find the actual law/code or whatever it is that states that a negotiable instrument cannot exist at the same time as a security instrument with regards to a securitized note?? Wall street calls it “double dipping?”

Leave a Reply