Doesn’t say much about anything specific. The only real clarification is between void and voidable. It doesn’t deal with New York law and void assignments to the trusts (very wimpy).
It did clarify that the homeowner can challenge an assignment that appears to be void. The interesting aspect of this was that an assignment from the mortgagee or its assigns is how the mortgage contract is constructed.
But in the case of say, New Century Mortgage or Lehman for example, assignments after their bankruptcy appear to be very questionable…especially to a trust dated earlier and the assignment made after the closing date.
Why a homeowner cannot argue the operation of the trust in its challenge is beyond me – it would appear if the controlling documents incorporated the instructions for the assignments, that it should certainly be an issue… I have to read that section more carefully and check the case law. Moreover, if the trust controlling documents say that the original mortgagee cannot assign directly to the trust based on securitization principles – why shouldn’t the homeowner be allowed to use that information in its defense? Again, maybe it can – I need to scrutinize exactly what was penned.
All in all I found it less exciting than I had hoped it would be. It’s like they didn’t deal with the elephant in the room.