Known Legal Illiterate Neil Garfield Still Claiming Plaintiff In Foreclosure Action Must Own Note

Anyone making these discredited arguments Garfield suggests will lose their home for sure. https://livinglies.me/2021/07/06/the-difference-between-forensic-and-legal-analysis/#comment-520111

For the one millionth time the Plaintiff in a foreclosure action DOES NOT have to prove ownership!!!!

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. V. VALERIE J. SLOTKE (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (“it is the holder of a note who is entitled to enforce it. It is not necessary for the holder to establish that it is also the owner of the note secured by the deed of trust.); BROWN V. DEP’T OF COMMERCE, 184 Wn.2d 509, 514, 359 P .3d 771 (2015); BAIN V. METRO. MORTG. GRP., INC.. 175 Wn.2d 83, 104, 285 P.3d 34 (2012); TRUIILLOV. NW. TR. SERVS., INC., 181 Wn. App. 484, 502, 326 P.3d 768 (2014), rev’d on other grounds, 183 Wn.2d 820, 355 P.3d 1100 (2015); (“Ownership of a note is irrelevant to the power to enforce that note.”); MCLEAN V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., 79 So. 3d 170, 172–73 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that standing may be established by any of the following: (a) a mortgage assignment or equitable transfer prior to the filing of the complaint; (b) plaintiff’s status as a holder; (c) a special endorsement in favor of plaintiff or a blank endorsement; (d) an assignment from the payee to the plaintiff or an affidavit of ownership to prove plaintiff’s status as a holder of the note; (e) mere delivery of a note and mortgage, with intent to pass title; or (f) filing the original note with a special endorsement in favor of plaintiff) ; TROTTER V. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 275 P.3d 857 (Idaho 2012). (“a trustee may initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on a deed of trust without first proving ownership of the underlying note….”); WHITE V. INDYMAC BANK, FSB, No. 09-00571, 2012 WL 966638, at *7-8 (D. Haw. Mar.20, 2012) (recognizing a servicer can foreclose on behalf of the beneficial owner of the loan); U.S. BANK, N.A. V. KNIGHT, 90 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“to have standing, an owner OR holder of a note, indorsed in blank, need only show that he possessed the note at the institution of a foreclosure suit; the mortgage necessarily and equitable follows the note.”); FARKAS V. GMAC MORTG., L.L.C., 737 F.3d 338, 342-43 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), (two parties have standing to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure sale: the mortgagee and the mortgage servicer acting on behalf of the mortgagee.); MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICE V. AZIZE, 965 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“A servicing agent has standing to prosecute a foreclosure case on behalf of the principal.”); JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. V. MURRAY, 63 A.3d 1258, 1267 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (“If a party establishes that it holds an original note that is indorsed in blank, ‘under the UCC it will be entitled to enforce the Note . . . , even if there remain questions as to the chain of possession of the Note from the time of its making to its arrival in Appellee’s figurative hands.” ).

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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