What law prohibits a lender from destroying the note


What law, etc, prevents/prohibits a lender and associates from destroying the note and continuing to demand payments toward satisfaction of the note?

If the note is the contract Parties evidence in bargain and acceptance, enforceability would lean towards better judgment. There are alternative evidentiary for a “lost Note” that include the ABA Wire and HUD. Both are conclusive and are quite easy to bring into a controversy and sway a court. This assumes both are found in the borrower’s original files. Laws that prohibit destroying a note are not at question as are entitlement and enforceability…. Should the note be destroyed. It’s not an operation of the law, whereupon even UCC conditions enforceability and not necessarily willful destruction. (citation) Also, if the note rate emerges significantly higher over time in tune with the open market and due to the shift in cost of funds, the note becomes more valuable and marketable. Its marketability becomes impaired when the note is lost.

 Does the borrower have the right to demand to see the original note and all allonge prior to and as a condition of making each and every payment toward satisfaction of the note?

Let me say this…. I bought and sold impaired assets “problem loans” all the time. We were often forced to accept a lost note affidavit. It had no impact on the maker s obligation. In the above example, if the note were sold and the new party forgets to issue a servicing “hello” letter that is a servicing disclosure issue that can cause controversy for the true beneficial interest. It goes back to the old adage; first in line is the first to record. The first to record is the first to satisfaction. The line is where satisfaction comes into play

Does a rubber stamp “paid in full without recourse” on the face of the note actually render it paid in full and relieve the borrower of the obligation to make further payments? If not, why not?

Wow, huge question and something that the entire universe of attorneys on the consumer’s side has failed to pick up on. I say yes, satisfaction is not conditioned by source and use of funds. And each of these loans upon origination are delivered into an in an SPE. If delivered prior to a business trust sealing the vault – they could never be shown as Paid- Off! After is a whole different story and the information is just not something the attorneys I work for are unwilling to allow me to release at this point in time.

There is a reason the loan s stamped Paid in Full

A reason for MERS as I have said (make it an ally)

Most important, I believe yes, satisfaction from whatever and wherever the means are applied is satisfaction and constitutes a release of lien  

It’s foolish to think the lender would not come after you in a different venue or jurisdiction under a civil action seeking to be remunerated. Now however, you’re talking about an unlimited civil action and likely to find an ex parte motion to slap Lis pendants on the subject matter realty in question…..within 48 hours of filing.

 

M.Soliman

Expert.Witness@live.com

 

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this web site is provided to you “AS IS”, does not constitute legal advice, is governed by our Terms and Conditions Of Use, and we are not acting as your attorney. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this web site and its associated sites. The law changes very rapidly and, accordingly, we do not guarantee that any information on this web site or our affiliated web sites are accurate and up to date. Additionally, the law differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is subject to interpretation of courts located in each county. Legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case and the tools and information provided to you may not be an appropriate fit in your case. Nothing that you read or is provided on this web site should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel. Postings in the Forums, Message Boards, Guides and any other areas of and through our web site are for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or legal opinions. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between The Law Network, LLC, the author(s), and you. The opinions expressed in the postings may be opinions of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of The Law Network, LLC. its employees or agents. The seals, trademarks, or other advertising that may appear on our site or within our articles shall not be considered to create any sponsorship or affiliation with such other web site or author. The Law Network, LLC, its employees, agents, or others that provide information on or through this web site will not be liable or responsible to you for any claim, loss, injury, liability, or damages related to your use of this site or any site linked to this site.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: