"Moot" Borrowers and the Unraveling of WAMU/Chase

Connecticut Attorney Stephen Wright joins Neil Garfield to discuss the Florida Court of Appeals Christiana Trust opinion, fake documents and the likelihood that lack of standing will gain traction in other states. We discuss the unraveling of the WAMU/Chase relationship and why you may not want to refer to yourself as a Borrower unless you possess evidence that the parties on the Note had a legal contract including consummation. Neil Garfield will explore the concept of  “Moot Borrowers” to compliment his theory of Pretender Lenders. Since it is almost impossible to determine who loaned the borrower money at origination, and the ownership of the loans can’t be traced- the homeowner can ONLY be a “borrower” if they executed a loan contract and the contract became enforceable because there was offer, acceptance and consideration flowing both ways. Without all four legs of the stool it collapses. In the Christiana Trust case- a successor plaintiff  failed to demonstrate that its predecessor (JPMC) had standing at the time the action was commenced. Although the bank eventually filed a blank-indorsed note, the note attached to the complaint did not contain the indorsement, and the bank failed to present any other evidence demonstrating standing at the time the complaint was filed. The Appeal court reversed due to lack of standing, and decided that any remaining issues such as proof of damages were moot. See: Septimus v. Christiana Trust/JPMC   Stephen P. Wright Wright Law Firm  324 Elm Street  Suite 103B  Monroe, CT 06468  203-261-3050 (O) [email protected]