Yes, let’s see, because mortgages, including federally guaranteed mortgages, are sold and although the “holder of the note” re mortgages defense in foreclosure cases did work sometimes when first raised-e.g. the case you cited from 13-14 years ago, the lenders/note buyers figured out how to satisfy the courts most of the time or in some …
Yes, let’s see, because mortgages, including federally guaranteed mortgages, are sold and although the “holder of the note” re mortgages defense in foreclosure cases did work sometimes when first raised-e.g. the case you cited from 13-14 years ago, the lenders/note buyers figured out how to satisfy the courts most of the time or in some cases the pleading and burden of proof were legislatively changed so it didn’t work so well anymore. If you’re relying on the statute, those can be changed-the Higher Education Act has been changed (e.g. eliminating FFEL loans), the Bankruptcy Code treatment of student loans has changed several times, and the statute of limitations on collecting federal student loans was eliminated.
So unless your loan has an anti-assignment provision I wouldn’t run to sue the SBA right away. The US legal system will bend over backwards to enforce property rights and I expect they’ll do it with regard to these
"The US legal system will bend over backwards to enforce property rights and I expect they’ll do it with regard to these"
I do too... for what it's worth. That said, my point is how ridiculously illegal and stupid this all was.
I fully expect the Supremes to wave a magic wand on enforceability. However, it won't be a legal one... just like we all raise an eyebrow when the Supremes said, "Bribery? Yeah of course that shit is legal."
Yes, let’s see, because mortgages, including federally guaranteed mortgages, are sold and although the “holder of the note” re mortgages defense in foreclosure cases did work sometimes when first raised-e.g. the case you cited from 13-14 years ago, the lenders/note buyers figured out how to satisfy the courts most of the time or in some cases the pleading and burden of proof were legislatively changed so it didn’t work so well anymore. If you’re relying on the statute, those can be changed-the Higher Education Act has been changed (e.g. eliminating FFEL loans), the Bankruptcy Code treatment of student loans has changed several times, and the statute of limitations on collecting federal student loans was eliminated.
So unless your loan has an anti-assignment provision I wouldn’t run to sue the SBA right away. The US legal system will bend over backwards to enforce property rights and I expect they’ll do it with regard to these
"The US legal system will bend over backwards to enforce property rights and I expect they’ll do it with regard to these"
I do too... for what it's worth. That said, my point is how ridiculously illegal and stupid this all was.
I fully expect the Supremes to wave a magic wand on enforceability. However, it won't be a legal one... just like we all raise an eyebrow when the Supremes said, "Bribery? Yeah of course that shit is legal."