“When your paperwork is woefully incomplete in a foreclosure case, you can ask for a delay or you can drop the case or have it dismissed, and you usually get another chance. Bankruptcy, by contrast, is kind of a one-shot deal by nature. The judge will add up all the debts, add up all the money available, approve a plan, and that’s it. Very limited do-overs.
Olga’s motion listed a number of problems:
# PHH didn’t own the note.
# The owner of the note was not joined in the proceeding.
# PHH did not file all the documents necessary to show that it was authorized to bring the claim by the holder of the note.
# PHH therefore is not the real party in interest and had no standing.
# The documentation for the securitization trust that probably owns the note probably severely limits the way notes and mortgages can be handled, but
# The mortgage documentation was not provided, so there is no way to know if it was assigned properly.
# The note was provided, but it had an endorsement dated after the bankruptcy filing.
These items are explained a little bit more in Olga’s Response to the lender’s objection to her motion to expunge the proof of claim, which is a pretty good summary of things borrowers might want to think about when they are considering whether to contest foreclosures. MERS was a nominee at some point, but was not directly involved in the case.”
Calculated Risk guest post from albrt.