Niel Garfield's Comment: Like a breath of fresh air, I received Bill's email and I encourage anyone in Minnesota to seek him out. He totally gets it , explains it, and understands it. Here is the beginning of the attached article:
Friday, March 29, 2013
BEWARE: USING THE FOUR-LETTER WORD “NOTE” IN MINNESOTA FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT MAY COST YOU $337,603.08
The Butler Liberty Law firm has commenced 27 lawsuits involving 197 plaintiffs challenging the mortgage foreclosure rights of the October 2008 Bailout Banks holding “securitized” mortgages. The plaintiffs’ claims in all of these cases is based on a “quiet title” cause of action.
Quiet title law allows a person in possession of real property (or a person asserting a title interest in vacant property) to bring suit against someone claiming a lien or other interest in real property. A successful quiet title action results in a court “quieting” title to the real property; that is, resolving the claims and interests of the parties and removing and/or voiding any invalid liens or claims.
In 1995 I tried and won the only case I am aware of that resulted in the voiding of two securitized mortgages. In that case, First National Bank of Elk River v. Independent Mortgage Services, 1996 WL 229236 (Minn. Ct. App. No. DX-95- 1919) (FNBER v. IMS), I represented a bank against a mortgage loan securitizer who was claiming rights in a mortgage without having possession of the homeowner’s promissory note and without having ever advanced any funds to the homeowner. As indicated in the decision above, my bank client won the battle of the putative mortgagees because my client was able to produce the original promissory notes with endorsements that clearly indicated that the defendant securitizer and pretender mortgagee had no right, title or interest in the notes.
A note is a promise to pay. A mortgage is security for that promise to pay. No note = no mortgage. The rubber meets the road reality of FNBER v. IMS clearly illustrates this ancient legal principle.