SCOTUS:  Borrower Lacks Standing to          Challenge PSA          Violations
By Bob Hurt, 4 November 2015
Introduction
        The 2 November          2015 US Supreme          Court denial of certiorari in Tran v Bank of New York settled          once-and-for-all          the spurious assertion that borrowers can challenge putative          violations of the          Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) creating a securitization          trust.  Borrowers,          encouraged by Glaski v BOA, a California          appellate win for the borrower, have claimed that because New          York Law voids          assignment of a note into a trust after its closing date in the          PSA, the          assignee has no authority to enforce the note in a foreclosure          effort.  
This argument boils down to nothing more than          a borrower's          effort to use quirks in the law to get a "free house" by          preventing foreclosure          because the borrower did not make timely payments.  Bottom line the courts will          not allow a          borrower to get a free house unless the lender team injured the          borrower          sufficiently to justify it.
Numerous California courts have deprecated          the Glaski          opinion, as have other courts across the land.           Now the US Supreme Court has flicked its chin at it.
The US 2nd Circuit supported the          NY Southern District          in its reliance upon the 2nd Circuit's Rajamin v          Deutsche Bank          opinion that borrowers lack standing to challenge the PSA or any          assignment of          the note because they 
1.                    Never became a party to          the PSA or assignment
2.                   Did not get injured by          the PSA violation or          assignment, and 
3.                   Receive no 3rd          party benefits from          the PSA or assignment.
Now, the SCOTUS has put the KIBOSH forever on          the frivolous          argument that the borrower can cite irregularities in obeying          the PSA and          assigning the note as a basis for stymieing a foreclosure.  I have presented full          opinions of the          relevant cases.  READ          THEM.
        
If you want to know how to prove the lender          team injured the borrower, and how the borrower can use that          proof to win millions in compensatory and punitive damages,          visit http://MortgageAttack.com.
          
Court Opinion Links:
        1.                    Tran v. Bank of New York,          Supreme Court of the          United States 2 Nov 2015
          http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-260.htm
2.                   Tran v. Bank of New York,          Court of Appeals, 2nd          Circuit 2015
          https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13250751688791686592
3.                   Tran v. Bank of New York,          Dist. Court, SD New          York 2014
          https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8421089202998856475
4.                   RAJAMIN v. DEUTSCHE BANK          NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,          Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2014
          https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13230459673637581146          
5.                   Glaski v. Bank of          America, 218 Cal. App. 4th          1079 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate Dist. 2013
          https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8535344425094007526          
--
|  | Bob Hurt            Blog                      1 2   f  t   | 
          
        
No comments:
Post a Comment