We reserve the right to edit, classify or refuse to publish any material submitted by a comment and/or information provider. While we take every precautionary measure to prevent inappropriate, inflammatory material we cannot rule-out such stray incidents. We request all the users to maintain proper decorum and let us continue and excel in providing this interaction service to our community.
We are a consortium of legal professionals, paralegals and journalists. We are not all attorneys. We do not play one on TV. Nothing in this entire blog should be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.
PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: In order for us to support the blogging activities, we may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
DeadlyClear advocates for transparency and accountability in an effort to preserve the rights guaranteed to the press under the First Amendment and strengthen the public’s right to know.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate and HarvestRight™ Affiliate we earn from qualifying purchases. If you purchase a product or service with the links we provide, we may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you for those associate links and your support helps us to provide free content on our websites.
DeadlyClear® is a product of Project Maui, Inc., a Hawaii corporation. Copyright 2012-2026. All rights reserved.
Deadly Clear 
There’s a BIG problem with the argument in many if not most States because you’re dealing with contract law. At closing you signed / entered into a contract to pay a certain amount per month for a certain number of months, REGARDLESS of who else is paying the “Lender” on the same mortgage. The Lender may indeed get paid twice, 3 times, or even more for the same mortgage & if you never make a payment the Lender still gets paid, but that does NOT satisfy the contract you entered into.
Having read numerous patents it appears to me that the loan applications were sold before the borrowers signed any documents (in many cases not even the application was signed). The transactions were not traditional mortgages contracts. They were quasi-securities. The homeowner’s collateral and credit were sold by the originator to the investment banks without disclosure. The homeowner was an unwitting participant in a securities transaction and others may have also contracted to pay.
The note was designed as an Article 8. Also note the paragraph regarding other obligors, endorsers, sureties, etc. The note was crafted and intended to be used in a securities scheme.
Just because you don’t make the payments does not preclude your grandmother or your Uncle Sam from making payments for you. The only objection the IRS would have is if either of you claimed a mortgage deduction.
“ArtNJr”: you are mistaken.
First, there are obvious cases where your theory demonstrably fails: where an insurance claim (be it homeowners, life, or disability) being paid extinguishes the borrowers obligation or the borrowers parents pay the the the debt etc.
Second, constitution and equity trumps contract law. E.g. Gelfert v. National City Bank of NY, 313 U.S. 221, 233, 61 S. Ct. 898, 85 L. Ed. 1299 (1941). (“Mortgagees are constitutionally entitled to no more than payment in full…equity will intervene in individual cases where it is palpably apparent that gross unfairness is imminent.” )
Make those arguments in a North Carolina court & see how far you get. The issue of a Lender getting paid more than once on the same mortgage when the borrower hasn’t been paying but the Note was “securitized” has already been raised & all that mattered to the court was the borrower being in “default”.
Now I’ll grant you that the courts do not understand “securitization”, the same loan being in 23 “tranches”, 11 of which had been paid in full & so on, but I don’t deal with legal theory, all I care about is what works, what doesn’t & why.
So, how do the financial disclosure statements of those judges in North Carolina (home of the bankster king BofA) look? Might check their last refinance dates too…
Read “Joint & Several Liability” in the note.
Also, a note can only be worth the amount stated on it’s face. That is what was negotiated between the borrower and lender. If the lender is making more than that amount through side deals, than “negotiation” fails, and there is a want of consideration on the borrower’s behalf.
Parties, even under contract law, must have equal bargaining power, and full disclosure of the “entire” transaction.