Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 50% Gains Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (82681)	9/22/2009 10:55:13 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 118717

I often wondered how packaging and reselling mortgages really worked . So that's it :O) Yikes..

To: Dale Baker who wrote (82681)	9/23/2009 8:23:20 AM
From: tom pope	Respond to of 118717

has no standing to foreclose because it never was a party to the contract Interesting concept. Does it imply that if you buy a third party obligation you have no standing to sue for non payment because you were not a party to the original contract????

To: Dale Baker who wrote (82681)	9/23/2009 9:08:27 AM
From: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

Kansas foreclosures are judicial in contrast to a trustees sale by publication. So you have a judge looking at everything. (Kansas judges tend to be technical.) There is a lot of controversy nationwide on whether the holder of an asset must prove the entire chain of title to prevail in court and just what you must do to accomplish that. Some courts are requiring affidavits at every step in the transfer process for what happened. As a practical matter, the infrastructure does not exist to do that. My guess is that the case in Kansas turns on the failure to prove the chain of title and the documents granting the management rights. I will pull the case and read it. ij