LivingLies: “While the banks never allege that they are a holder in due course because they know that the plaintiff has never paid for the debt, they often seek treatment as though they were a holder in due course and many courts do exactly that.
* By focusing on the promissory note, you are focusing the Court’s attention on Article 3 of The Uniform Commercial Code instead of Article 9. Under Article 3 there are numerous instances in which a promissory note can be negotiated. sold and enforced by parties who do not own the debt. In such instances it is generally presumed that the possession of the promissory note was delivered along with rights to enforce it on behalf of the owner of the debt. It is in effect treated as though it were the title to the debt. This is the law and it is not subject to philosophical discussion as to whether or not it should be the law.”
What is article 9?
Who wrote the UCC? The banks.
A guy by name of Karl Llewellyn who as I understand it, died before Article 9 (securities) was completed. Then it was changed in the 1990s and all but New York and South Carolina made the changes to Article 3. SC waited until 2008 to make changes. Each state Legislature is responsible for what is in your own state laws. UCC is not made to protect the citizens, if you doubted that at all. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1829&context=faculty_publications