Abigail Field | The Banks’ Huge Eaton Loss: Showing the Note Owner

The Banks’ Huge Eaton Loss: Showing the Note Owner

The seminal Eaton v. Fannie Mae decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not a huge banking industry win going forward. In fact, if the Legislature lets it stand, it’s a huge homeowner win. Forget the part about the decision applying in the future only; while I think it is wrong, it was doctrinally reasonable and arguably protects many innocent third parties.

Going forward, the really big deal is that the Court has taken the “show me the note” defense and made it “show me the note owner.”

“Show me the note owner” is really hard to do in an era of mass securitization fail. Securitization fail means the trust doesn’t own the loans. And if the trust doesn’t own the loans, then the servicer isn’t the agent of the note owner and can’t foreclose non-judicially. Moreover, as this Court’s earlier Ibanez decision revealed, securitization fail may have occurred more often in Massachusetts than elsewhere.

By requiring the non-judicially foreclosing servicer to have authority from the note owner to foreclose, the Court is strengthening foreclosure defense in Massachusetts. See, homeowners have tried to get the courts to take securitization fail seriously, and specifically the standing problem it creates for servicers. But generally judges hate hearing about how banks screwed up securitization, fearing it leads to undeserved free houses. In fact, a bankruptcy appellate court reviewing a Massachusetts case got basic doctrine wrong to reject the argument.

Securitization fail arguments should have a lot more traction now.

Check out the rest here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
7 Responses to “Abigail Field | The Banks’ Huge Eaton Loss: Showing the Note Owner”
  1. MARGETTA LANGLOIS PRO.SE says:

    NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE ON “NO” FLA. “ENTITIES”

    THESE ASSHOLES DON’T CARE THEY’RE ON “KICK-BACKS” & “ORGANIZED-CRIME ”

    YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE DEALING W/ THE “M-O-B”

    THERE IS “NO” JUSTICE” ONLY MORE “INJUSTICE” MAY GOD GET ALL THESE CORRUPT JUDGES,

    ATTY,’S W/ “NO” CLIENTS & BANKS & I HOPE THEY ALL DIE A LONG SLOW & MISERABLE DEATH LIKE

    WE’VE BEEN TORTURED TO LOSE EVERTHING ILLEGALLY …PAYBACK’S A BITCH BUT REVENGE IS

    AN ORGASM….THE JUDGE’S ALL SUCK THEY RE PATHETIC THEY ARE SADISTIC

  2. MARGETTA LANGLOIS PRO.SE says:

    NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE ON “NO” FLA. “ENTITIES”

    THESE ASSHOLES DON’T CARE THEY’RE ON “KICK-BACKS” & “ORGANIZED-CRIME ”

    YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE DEALING W/ THE “M-O-B”

    THERE IS “NO” JUSTICE” ONLY MORE “INJUSTICE” MAY GOD GET ALL THESE CORRUPT JUDGES,

    ATTY,’S W/ “NO” CLIENTS & BANKS & I HOPE THEY ALL DIE A LONG SLOW & MISERABLE DEATH LIKE

    WE’VE BEEN TORTURED TO LOSE EVERTHING ILLEGALLY …PAYBACK’S A BITCH BUT REVENGE IS

    AN ORGASM….THE JUDGE’S ALL SUCK THEY RE PATHETIC THEY ARE SADIST IC

  3. Gene says:

    With full knowledge this is a MA decision… does anyone have any idea of foreclosure defense attorneys have successfully (or unsuccessfully) used the “Eaton argument”?

    It seems pretty clear that a mortgage owner’s rights are different than a mortgage holder’s rights vis a vis right to foreclose. As I was reading another great article from Abigail, I thought of this analogy. Let’s say I walking down the street and I find a car title. Does that mean I can go “take” the car associated with the title? What if I falsified a chain of title making it appear as though I was the “legitimate” owner of the title. Of course, I would go to jail but let’s assume I am a financial institution and therefore immune from the responsibility of breaking common law against fraud. I’m sure I am not the first to think of this analogy…

    I would love to hear from someone in the trenches on this most meaningful decision. Like Abigail said: only those that fight this fraud have an opportunity to challenge note ownership vs. note holder.

  4. lies is all they tell says:

    judges need to start following rule of law and not making up there own laws

  5. John C. Schumacher-Hardy says:

    It is despicable that the SJC is shielding and perpetuating past fraud commited by the mega-banksters and their servicers by rendering their ruling to apply only prospectively and not retrospecitvely…

    I disagree with Ms. Field’s statement that she felt the SJC’s ruling is “doctrinally reasonable and arguably protects many innocent third parties”… fraud is Fraud is FRAUD… it’s NOT reasonable nor arguable to continue to shield this far-reaching and explicit fraud so blatently committed by the mega-banksters, their servicers, and their lapdog lawyers… what of the many innocent first party homeowner victims harmed by this wild web of deceit and defrauding?? Any “innocent third parties” wronged still have their rightful recourses too… let them sue the fraud-makers, not simply reap the rewards of foreclosure fraud! They have title insurance (which, as you may recall, Uncle Scam already helped underwrite with past bailouts such as to AIM)… so where is their harm? They could and should recover any damages or financial harm by suing the fraud-makers and likewise by submitting their legitimate claims with their title insurers, etc.

Leave a Reply