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.
dannlaw.wordpress.com 
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?