I'm in BK and my objection to Servicer's proof of claim gets filed today. When people read it, things are likely to start moving right along.
In my case, note submitted by Servicer shows an indorsement from Lender on an allonge that misidentifies "THAT CERTAIN NOTE:" - their language, emphasis theirs - so that gives me a note that has no holders...
Since Lender's negotiation to Bank fails, Bank becomes a UCC 301 nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder to enforce - e.g. a transferee. Per the official comments to the UCC, a transferee can't negotiate the note, but Bank went ahead and indorsed it in blank and purportedly shipped it off to Freddie.
Since Freddie's transferor (Bank) was itself a transferee, Freddie derives NO rights because again, per the UCC commentary "nevertheless the transferee is a person entitled to enforce if the transferor was a holder at the time of transfer".
If I can get a federal judge to agree with my interpretation of the plain language of the statutes and blast Servicer out of court, then my next step needs to be a quiet title action in state court, using the federal court's denial of Servicer's claim to support my case.
Everything I hear about my BK judge says just being heard is going to be a challenge.
The second attack I have in my case is the MERS to Freddie assignment. It stinks in half a dozen ways. Assignor and Assignee are the same law firm. The notary is too. Plus there's the hultman deposition out there that lets me attack law firm's position as "MERS Assistant Secretary". Recent schack attacks in New York give me hope that NH courts might care about conflict of interest pursuant to our local rules 1.7.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the person in the robe, wish me luck...