Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email


8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day


Powered by Squarespace


Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos




Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"

Get Our Videos By Email


Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
« Fear and Loathing on Wall Street - Catastrophic Implications For Banks Of The Ibanez Case Ruling | Main | Josh Rosner On Massachusetts Foreclosure Ruling: "Opens the floodgates to more lawsuits and strengthens cases in other states" - Includes Amicus Brief »

Mass. court ruling has potential to void thousands of foreclosures - Washington Post

UPDATE - Read the following story:


Here's the earlier analysis.

Washington Post

The Massachusetts Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower court ruling voiding two foreclosures because the banks failed to show the proper paperwork to prove they owned the loans-a decision that challenges the way mortgages were bundled and sold around the world.

The Massachusetts court is the highest to ruled on this issue and the decision has the potential to invalidate thousands of foreclosures across the state.  It also provides more ammunition to borrowers in other states who could push the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  If the nation's highest court rules that these transfers are not legal, the multi-trillion-dollar mortgage-backed securitization industry could face massive liability.

The closely-watched decision involves two foreclosures: that of Antonio Ibanez and Mark and Tammy LaRace and whether U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo, respectively, had proper legal standing to take back the homes after the borrowers missed their payments.

U.S. Bancorp spokeswoman Teri Charest said the judgment "has no financial impact" on the company and that its role in the case was as a trustee for a securitization trust. Wells Fargo representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The American Securitization Forum, which represents over 330 financial firms, said that it remains "confident securitization transfers are valid and fully enforceable." It said that the case in question critical deal documents and loan schedules were not introduced in the lower court leading to the negative decision. "If these documents had been introduced, it appears that the ruling would have been substantially different," the ASF contended in a statement issued Friday afternoon.

Continue reading at the Washington Post...



Does MERS have legal authority to foreclose?

Start watching at the 1-minute mark.  Includes excellent testimony from foreclosure lawyer Thomas Cox, and Utah professor Dr. Chris Peterson.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (8)

Jan 10, 2011 at 2:16 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Jan 10, 2011 at 2:17 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Jan 10, 2011 at 2:18 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Jan 10, 2011 at 2:19 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Once the banksters lose a pivotal case is sets precedent and relieves the caseload burden off of the courts. In other words, if they lose one, they lose them all.

Folks, if you can't afford to pay your mortgage, let them foreclose, you can hire a good lawyer for a fraction of your mortgage payment. Worst case situation, you live in your house at a discount for years. No mortgage, no insurance and no taxes. Screw the banksters!

Oct 21, 2011 at 8:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterMiguel Grande

I don't suppose that this ruling in any way had anything to do with Citi and BAC attempting to dump trillions in derivatives into
entities backed by the taxpayer. You don't suppose that they knew the outcome and unloaded before the ruling was announced?
Would this constitute fraud because it is a willful attempt to commit fraud against the taxpayers?
Oct 21, 2011 at 11:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterDDearborn

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.