Bank of NY Mellon v. Anderson: Standing must be Established

The truth is surfacing. Maybe we are returning to the Rule of Law – finally.

“Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the mere attachment of a copy of the note to the verified complaint does not demonstrate that plaintiff had physical possession of the original note when the action was commenced (see generally Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 142 AD3d at 684-685), and thus is insufficient to establish standing.”

Livinglies's Weblog

In the Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Anderson, the New York Supreme Court Appellate court got it right by ruling that submitting an affidavit to support a motion is insufficient to establish standing when the affiant cannot swear they are familiar with the servicer’s record keeping practices and procedures.
The mere attachment of a copy of a note to the verified complaint also failed to demonstrate that the servicer had physical possession of the note when the action was commenced, and was ruled insufficient to establish standing.

If every court in the United States demanded proof of standing before a suit is allowed to proceed, foreclosures would come to a screeching halt.  It is concerning that the Bank of NY Mellon was able to proceed in the first place, and the decision says a lot about the lower courts abuse of erroneous presumptions and lack of concern for jurisdiction.

__________________________________________________________

View original post 656 more words

Advertisements

NO TRUST ASSETS: In the eye of the storm

Livinglies's Weblog

This is one more nail in the coffin of false securitization: the only assets attributed to apparent “Buyers” were those related to and including servicer advances. By severing the investors from their positions as creditors, the banks were able to create the illusion that they — or their “originators”, brokers, nominees, fronts and sham operators — were the owners of the debt. NONE of the “transfers” of the “loan documents” involved a purchase and sale of a loan. NONE of the original “loan documents” referred to an actual transaction between the homeowner and the originator. That is because at the base of the paper chain was an entity that served only as a conduit for the paperwork and which had nothing to do with the advance of money to or on behalf of any homeowner. The paper trail and the money trail diverged the moment the loan papers were executed.

View original post 428 more words