tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3782644139927778760.post-67835175076270721882008-02-22T22:11:00.000-05:002008-02-22T22:11:00.000-05:002008-02-22T22:11:00.000-05:00Yves -<BR/><BR/>This is a non-issue beyond the press orgy on it.<BR/><BR/>I'm getting pretty tired of reporters interviewing defendant's counsel and then writing a story on it as if it were the gospel. See <A HREF="http://www.housingwire.com/2008/02/15/commentary-ohio-ag-sees-foreclosure-push-backfire/" REL="nofollow">this post</A> for a recent ruling in Ohio that might have surprised AG Marc Dann and some reporters, but isn't a surprise to anyone who actually knows this stuff.<BR/><BR/>From the magistrate's ruling: <BR/><BR/>[Those saying the original note is needed] conflate the need for real property transactions to be in writing with Ohio's recording statutes....under the Uniform Commercial Code as codified in Ohio, parties to a Note, subsequent holders of the Note, nonholders in possession of the Note who have the rights of holders, and persons not in possession of the Note who are entitled to enforce the Note pursuant to other statutory requirements, may enforce the terms of the note as to each other. <STRONG>Parties falling within these legal categories may enforce the terms of the Note even if the Note is lost, stolen, or destroyed.</STRONG><BR/><BR/>California is pretty much the same way. Judges often decide to rule in ways that meet the whims of the public they serve, but it doesn't mean they're following the law or that borrowers get to keep their home.<BR/><BR/>There is only one way to keep a home, and that's by paying a mortgage. We can bicker all we want about who is to blame for putting borrowers into mortgages they can't afford, we can brainstorm plans to keep them there -- we can even discuss who subsidizes such a move -- but to suggest that homes are "free" because of a lack of recording is just plain inane.P. Jacksonhttp://www.housingwire.comnoreply@blogger.com