In thinking about and assessing the fallout from the Weisblum decision in New York State, it is essential to bear in mind that a long line of New York cases has persistently held that an assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the note, bond or debt is a NULLITY.
Take a look at these decisions:
US Bank Natl. Assn. v Madero, 2010-02046, 80 A.D.3d 751, 915 N.Y.S.2d 612, 2011 NY Slip Op 505, 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 532 (NY App. 2nd Dept., 2011)Weisblum shows that MERS cannot assign a note which it neither owns nor holds. But a long line of cases shows that the mortgage cannot be assigned without an assignment of the note.
U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578, 2009 NY Slip Op 9019 (NY App. 2nd Dept., 2009)
Kluge v Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537 (NY App. 2nd Dept., 1988)
There was an interesting post and thread on this topic by "Knows About Notes" about two years ago which includes some language from a U.S. District Court decision showing cases in other jurisdictions reaching the SAME holding:
"Separation of Note and Mortgage"