Now UCC Me, Now You Don’t: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ignores the UCC in Requiring Unity of Note and Mortgage for Foreclosure in Eaton v. Fannie Mae

Court

Now UCC Me, Now You Don’t: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ignores the UCC in Requiring Unity of Note and Mortgage for Foreclosure in Eaton v. Fannie Mae

Abstract:

On June 22, 2012, in Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a trial court ruling and held that an entity must hold both note and mortgage in order to foreclose properly. Because this represented a significant shift in Massachusetts foreclosure law, the court applied its ruling only prospectively. To support its holding, the court relied on common law and statutory justifications. In so doing, the court did not address pertinent sections of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that could have led to the same outcome. This Comment argues that examining the UCC in the context of mortgage and foreclosure cases could lend clarity to an outmoded and inconsistent area of the law.

Full paper below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Now UCC Me, Now You Don’t: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ignores the UCC in Requiring Unity of Note and Mortgage for Foreclosure in Eaton v. Fannie Mae

Comments
5 Responses to “Now UCC Me, Now You Don’t: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ignores the UCC in Requiring Unity of Note and Mortgage for Foreclosure in Eaton v. Fannie Mae”
  1. triumphant says:

    “Centuries-old property concepts are illsuited
    to governing the modern, paperless mortgage world.97 This
    historical baggage, however, continues to burden courts today.98″

    And the County Official Land Records are likewise an unecessary relic of the past as well, since MERS’ secret and proprietary records serve the “banks” so well… Boo hoo, our beloved UCC doesn’t supplant all laws in the nation… yet…

  2. Giglio John Miglietta Jr says:

    So by court ruling I can kept my $100 Ben Franklin at home prove that I have it at home and buy what ever I need with that at home money because I need not present it as a means of exchange but rather show that I am the holder of a debt for any such exchange. That sounds fair as I read this. Please advise or comment, Hello any smart Lawyers (LAWERS)(LAW, YERS)YERS IS LAW?) up for the challenge. Lost in value

  3. withament says:

    Property and Interests in Property are ABSOLUTELY Protected …… PROPERTY RIGHTS https://duckduckgo.com/?q=4th+5th+and+14th+Amendments+Apply+to+the+STATES

  4. withament says:

    4th and 5th and 14th Amendments Apply to the STATES

Leave a Reply