Finally! A Judge That Hammer's Plaintiff's Attny for the "Show Me the Note" Crap.

[despritfreya]

A very amusing read and the correct outcome. Wish other judges would do this.

I hope this link takes you right to the Minute Entry Ruling. If it doesn't I will try to cut and paste.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Civil/112011/m4984508.pdf

And. . . Plaintiff had the audacity to seek a Reconsideration - which was. . ., you guessed it. . ., denied.

Des.

[HHM]

Ouch.

What Desp is saying is that the borrower tried to raise a bunch of defenses to a foreclosure, and among those was "produce the note". The court slapped the borrower and borrowers attorney with sanctions for bringing, arguably, frivolous and unjustified claims. Basically, the court concluded that borrower borrowed money to buy house, borrower stopped paying a few years later, someone had the right to foreclose.

So, be careful.

The underlying facts are not spelled out in this case, but there is still a valid objection to foreclosure and Motion for Relief based on proper standing, but the foreclosing entity need not produce the note as proof it has standing, it need only prove that it is in possession of the note (I know, legal hair splitting).

[justbroke]

I believe that we have said many times, since at least late 2010, that the "Show Me The Note" defense is almost surely a dead issue. Standing (locus standi) is the only logical attack.

“About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” Hill v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 814 F.2d 1192, 1202 (1987) (quoting Elihu Root, the noted attorney, statesman and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize).

[despritfreya]

Clarification. . .

While I am sure the "show me the note" argument was one of the Counts in the various complaints (original and amended), when I use the phrase I am using it to describe general "foreclosure defense" type litigation that has constantly and consistently been thrown out or simply used to cause delay.

Just wanted to point that out as I do not know what "claims" were raised in the Puzz v. Chase Home Financial, LLC case.

Des.

[justbroke]

Des, maybe this is more a "the attorney should have known better than to raise such a defense when there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory". I could see an attorney being rebuked or sanctioned for that.