Tatics used to court to try not to prove the ORIGINAL NOTE?

[arizona1912]

What is the name of your state (NM)?

Hello All,

What tactics will the lawyers of the bankers, federal government (student loans) use to try to advoid showing the ORIGINAL NOTE not a copy but the ORIGINAL?

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by arizona1912

What is the name of your state (NM)?

Hello All,

What tactics will the lawyers of the bankers, federal government (student loans) use to try to advoid showing the ORIGINAL NOTE not a copy but the ORIGINAL?

They will use any legal means under the sun. The funny thing is they will prevail if not having the original available is your only defense.

[arizona1912]

Its deep rooted in common law and UCC that there must be an original note. No original note; no debt.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by arizona1912

Its deep rooted in common law and UCC that there must be an original note. No original note; no debt.

Yeah - you just keep on believing that.



.


.


.


.



Hey - look! A leprechaun!

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Yeah - you just keep on believing that.

It appears to have worked for this person:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/business/economy/25gret.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1256475710-tsFTCsQsw3ZzkLZ2E9pbFw[/url]

Originally Posted by nytimes

So the ruling may put a new dynamic in play in the foreclosure mess: If the lender can’t come forward with proof of ownership, and judges don’t look kindly on that, then borrowers may have a stronger hand to play in court and, apparently, may even be able to stay in their homes mortgage-free.

Hey - look! A leprechaun!

Where?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Stevef

It appears to have worked for this person:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/business/economy/25gret.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1256475710-tsFTCsQsw3ZzkLZ2E9pbFw[/url]



Where?

Did you even read the article? I think that the case in question was an exception

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Did you even read the article? I think that the case in question was an exception

I realize it is an exception, but it's an interesting concept. It also opens quite a can of worms. The bank still holds the mortgage, although they can't collect the debt. I don't think 'cloud' even begins to describe that title.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Stevef

I realize it is an exception, but it's an interesting concept. It also opens quite a can of worms. The bank still holds the mortgage, although they can't collect the debt. I don't think 'cloud' even begins to describe that title.

Our OP isn't asking about a mortgage.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Stevef

It appears to have worked for this person:

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/business/economy/25gret.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1256475710-tsFTCsQsw3ZzkLZ2E9pbFw[/url]



Where?

that is such a convoluted mess that while valid in itself, unless OP has similar circumstances, has no bearing on what the OP asked about.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Our OP isn't asking about a mortgage.

I found it interesting, and thought it seemed to fit in with the thread.

Sorry I even mentioned it.

[arizona1912]

Its not for a mortgage. Its for student loans. I know for a fact that student loans are packaged and bundled and sold to investors. Yes even federal loans. As for whether they can be disputed; they are commerical loans after all. Its almost guaranteed the original holder will not have the original document because they were sold.

[justalayman]

let us know how your argument serves you in court.

[HappyWanderer]

I couldn't use Wikipedia this time, had to use google.

§ 3-309. ENFORCEMENT OF LOST, DESTROYED, OR STOLEN INSTRUMENT.

(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if:

(1) the person seeking to enforce the instrument

(A) was entitled to enforce it the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or

(B) has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred;

(2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure; and

(3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person's right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.