Massachusetts Judge Requires Foreclosing Servicers and Lenders to Prove They Own Their Note

It is truly amazing to think that in 2009 in the United States that it would be newsworthy that courts are requiring those filing a lawsuit to have an actual interest in the outcome of the litigation  but welcome to the alternate reality of fallout from the mortgage securitization debacle of the last decade.

Last week  Massachusetts Judge Keith Long held that plaintiffs seeking to use that state’s court to foreclose on real estate must be the real party in interest and be able to prove that they actually own the note and mortgage.

This ruling mirrors the finding in Ohio’s Wells Fargo v. Jordan which the Ohio Supreme Court recently let stand.

“The issues in this case are not merely . . . a matter of dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Instead, they lie at the heart of the protections given to homeowners and borrowers,” Long wrote

“The judge has thrown into question every foreclosure performed in the Commonwealth over the last 20 years,” said lawyer Lawrence Scofield, who represents Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Forclosure, Predatory Lending
One comment on “Massachusetts Judge Requires Foreclosing Servicers and Lenders to Prove They Own Their Note
  1. Paulann Sheets Esq. says:

    SO glad to see you still fighting the good fight despite the outrageous atack on you ost Spitzer, call it Spitzeritis. I supported your run for AG in a small way $$ from CT because you caught my eye as a fighter. Now I am on the line fighting for consumers in trouble and feel sorely the need for something better than mortgage codification, namely, defenses v. foreclosure , the juicy ones are “who owns the note”? the mortgage? ones. I have one in which the endorsement is left blank. WHOOOO? In CT we are stuck with some case law and a statute that I think misinterprets a 1934 case, saying, if the plaintiff “holds” it- has it in possession, it is good for standing,(name on the line, assignment, is irrelevant- as in “holder in due course” doctrine. I am tempted to take on the few post-wwII cases and the statute–or get the statute amended. Comment anyone?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: