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 
As usual, Garfield has no idea what he’s talking about. the foreclosing party does not have to own the note to foreclose.
The Comment to § 3–203 states, “[t]he right to enforce an instrument and ownership of the instrument are two different concepts.” THE HOLDER OF A NOTE IS “ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE INSTRUMENT EVEN [IF IT IS] NOT THE OWNER OF THE INSTRUMENT OR IS IN WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF THE INSTRUMENT.” Id. at § 3–301. See also In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 909 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.2011) (“Article 3 does not necessarily equate the proper person to be paid with the person who owns the negotiable instrument.”); SMS Financial, LLC v. ABCO Homes, Inc., 167 F.3d 235, 238–39 (5th Cir.1999) (noting that a party’s status as a holder and its attendant right to enforce an instrument is separate from the party’s status as the owner of that instrument); In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 280 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2012) (“[T]he borrower’s obligation is to pay the person entitled to enforce the note (who need not be the ‘owner’ of the note).”); In re Simmerman, 463 B.R. 47, 60 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2011) (noting that “the holder of the note may differ from the owner of the note”). As the court noted in In re Veal, “[u]nder established rules, the maker [of a note] should be indifferent as to who owns or has an interest in the note so long as it does not affect the maker’s ability to make payments on the note.” 450 B.R. at 912.
These were not traditional mortgages. If properly dissected by astute attorneys the courts would discover – these were securities transactions from the onset. See Fannie Mae 1003 patent.
Total nonsense!