Both from Missouri (who knew that solid midwestern state was on the cutting edge of such an important issues?) both opinions rejecting foreclosure relief based on questionable assignments and questionable authority of agents issuing assignments. (Might be fraud, might be document creation, might be “just” creating evidence for a case) Read both here:
These opinions, and the Futtrell Oral Argument video previously posted remind us of the need to continue to make it clear that a mortgage foreclosure is really an action on two contracts: 1) the mortgage and 2) the note. Very different rules apply to each document. The foreclosure mills and their clients want to ignore these distinctions and judges sometimes aren’t catching them, (MERS hereby assigns all its interest in The Note) but they are fundamental, key areas of the law that cannot be ignored.
In my limited experience, defending my own case, I have found that many Judges do not seem to understand many of the basics of mortgage financing, even basic things like the difference between a mortgage and a note.
Truth is, in many of the “manufactured assignments” that the fraudsters are filing with the Court, their own filings bifurcate the mortgage from the note leaving the plaintiff with an unsecured loan at best. Unfortunately, since many Judges do not understand these complexities, they are giving the fraudsters a “pass” on this important issue. Federal bankruptcy trustees and Judges seem to understand this and are hammering the plaintiffs and their fraudsters on this issue time and time again.
How would a homeowner association foreclosure fit into the issues of contracts?
Really, the deed restrictions are the covenant or contract, it would seem to me. You signed up when you bought the property and they run with the land.