If mortgages were not left to a deep discount, never subject to any settlement with investors for failed mortgage-backed securities that were charged off and a written down, then what is it causing the banking industry to avoid these toxic assets?
The claim in question is hardly held in the proof filed [date] by The Bank of New York Mellon as trustee for certain certificate holders in the amount of [$0.00} plus [$0.00] in arrears, and secured by the debtors” property commonly known as [address] [Postal] [state]
The objection is some 29 pages long and is supported by a declaration of one Maher Soliman of another 47 pages. The objection is filled . . . with numerous undefined acronyms, all purporting to raise some kind of an issue about the veracity of the debt or the validity of the claimant as current holder of the debt.
This is not similar in any way to other challenges the court has recently seen by debtors to the efficacy of their mortgages arising out of the real estate finance meltdown. The reply by debtors accurately distills the argument into something factual concerning the debt being written off or written down by reason of actions of various prior holders, or the fact that certificates may have traded at a steep discount.
Of course, this is an accurate issue respecting the obligation of the borrowers to repay something obligating another party and avoids a surety right of subrogation.
Now the debtor accurately aims all of this at the standing of the claimant to collect the debt.
The court also shall observe that there is no dispute that the debtors actually borrowed the money, and there does not appear to have been for some years. Now rival claimant to repayment bring valid claims as the creditor even acknowledged the name and address of the true holder who has admitted to charges and write down of the subject loan.
The creditor, and the approximate amount owing, in their schedules are subject to law and revocation due to material changes made to the loans secondary construction of capital markets opportunities .
How all of this can now amount to getting a home “free and clear” is not explained, of course. This because the house for free is an ignorant moot point of conversation.
Now, the FDCPA government appointed agent, not the debtor, unleashes a barrage of non-legalistic rhetorical arguments lacking merit..
Hence, the court is not inclined to attempt unraveling this dispute in a summary proceeding such as a claims objection hearing.
If this question is to be pursued it must be in the context of a claim the claim must be set aside by the parties under a hearing to decide granting declaratory judgment and other injunctive remedies before the matter can proceed.
(Not an attorney and for informational purposes only)