.....................Total Pageviews

THANKS for HELPING to GROW SWARM The BANKS

THANKS for HELPING to GROW SWARM The BANKS

SUPPORT INSIDE JOB!

My photo
I am a Product and Brand Value Accelerator with over 2 dozen IMDB Credits, Los Angeles EMMY Winner. Top 25 Lifetime Tongal Ideationist, Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Internship Scholarship Winner. Also am a Video Forensics and Video Analysis Expert for Hire.

Followers

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CLICK ON IMAGE

CLICK IMAGE

CLICK IMAGE

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Massachusetts Supreme Court Securitization Ruling was one that Swarm The Banks predicted in articles from late November and early December of 2010.

There have been many established bloggers over the past few years who have been warning about how fragile the securitization process was.

Swarm the Banks is pleased to have taken its own, less educated path to the same conclusion. In late November and Early December of 2010, Swarm the Banks simply stated that any change in terms to an original banking note should not be considered valid without the expressed written consent of the mortgage payer each and every time the mortgage note changed hands.

While it is easy to dismiss such a simplistic view of a complicated securitization process, the point Swarm the Banks was making is that no matter how convoluted a series of securitization processes are, there should be a common sense solution. It appears the Massachusetts Supreme Court is saying that there can be no change in terms without the approval of the mortgage payer with each and every transfer of the note.

If the Massachusetts Supreme court is not saying A Change in Terms with out the expressed written consent of the mortgage payer is prohibited, they should!


No comments:

Share Gadget


FOR INFORMATION ONLY, NOT AN OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT.