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 : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (12544)	9/24/2009 6:45:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

OK. Maybe this is just nitpicking but if that's true, then it isn't really true that "The ruling effectively nullifies bank's ability to foreclose on about 60 million homes because they are no longer party to the mortgage contract." It would be the nature of basic contract law, and the structure in this contract nullify the banks ability to foreclose. This ruling would only be indicative of the non Kansas mortgages associated with such special purpose entities being unforclosable, it wouldn't be the causative agent of the unenforceability (at least it wouldn't be the root cause, or the proximate cause, but it may be a link in the chain, the root cause would be what I mentioned above and the proximate cause would be court decisions in other states, but this decision might help more of those decisions happen, both as a precedent and as motivation for people who face possible foreclosure to make this argument in court)