SCOTUS: Borrower Lacks Standing to Challenge PSA Violations

SCOTUS: Borrower Lacks Standing to Challenge PSA Violations

By Bob Hurt, 4 November 2015

. 31

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

Download this article with the above opinions embedded. Distribute broadly.

Advertisements

Author: bobhurt

See http://bobhurt.com

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