THE COURT: · I remember this very well.
·2 · ·Mr. Weidner — it’s a brilliant effort on
·3 · ·Mr. Weidner’s part. · It’s well written; it’s well
·4 · ·thought out. · I remember reading the memorandum.
·5 · ·He’s the only one that makes the argument. · It was
·6 · ·really great. · I read the memorandum and I denied
·7 · ·the motion having read the memorandum.
· THE COURT: · I remember this because it is a
·3 · ·unique case in the sense it’s the only case I’ve had
·4 · ·where this issue has been raised. · And I remember
·5 · ·the memorandum. · I remember reading Mr. Weidner’s
·6 · ·memorandum. · I don’t remember, respectfully, your
·7 · ·memorandum. · But I remember reading Mr. Weidner’s
·8 · ·memorandum and rejecting the argument and denying
·9 · ·the motion.
Transcript of Hearing_cond_N
Seymour – Defendant’s Memo on Assignmetns of Mortgage
All right. I give up. How could the court have denied this motion? What was the judge’s reasoning?
They most assuredly are not negotiable. The mere fact that fees of an uncertain amount are part of the equation before there is satisfaction is certain proof.
There is some cites and stuff here.
https://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/broadening-your
There is also , in Corpus Juris ~ Bills and Notes,a little section that says transfer of the note for the purpose of defeating the equitable defenses of the maker is a no-no.
That is the entire motive behind making these notes negotiable… to cut off any defenses. Like failure of consideration or fraud in the inducement.
They still want a bunch of other enforceable stuff like forced placement insurance, late fees, taxes PMI, etc… none of those undertakings are in the note but some how the obligation is not discharged unless you perform those acts.