I do not think I am confused by this there seems to be a lot of cases exploring the whole “indorsement” issue. A made to order Note can only be transferred through negotiation with indorsement and delivery. If the indorsement was done years later, by a party with no authority – then the initial sale was never consummated.
There are volumes of cases on negotiation and indorsement. You just haven't read the volumes or the cases!
You already have the principle screwed up in the second sentence. You say "A made to order Note can only be transferred through negotiation with indorsement and delivery." This is NOT TRUE. It would be correct to say "A made to order Note can only be negotiated through indorsement and delivery."
A note can be transferred by delivery alone. See §3-203:
A transferee can be entitled to enforce the instrument. See §3-301. particularly (ii):
The transferee can also be entitled to the unqualified right to indorsement.
It is unclear what this means within the context of the corporate extinction of the payee. You seem to think this would extinguish the right of enforcement. I highly doubt it means that. More likely a court court order an equitable indorsement where this serves the ends of justice. Still the transferee would need to prove an entitlement, which might be at least challenging given the record-keeping issues and poor legal scholarship by the foreclosure mills.
Your statement that if the indorsement wasn't timely made that this would void the sale is also simply nonsense and shows that you have no core understanding of the issues or the law.
It has been noted repeatedly by Mr. Roper that ownership and holdership are distinct concepts. He is correct about this. ka and t have also posted about this. There is nothing mysterious about this. It is mainstream law taught in every law school in the U.S.
If New Century sold the ownership of the notes the NC Capital, then NC Capital owned the notes. A condition of sale might have been the valid negotiation of the notes, but like any other contractual condition, failure to complete the negotiation would NOT void the sale. To the contrary, it might only make the sale voidable.
Even so, it would be voidable only to the parties in privity to the contract, namely New Century and NC Capital.
Courts everywhere are committed both Constitutionally and by state statute and case law to preserve the sanctity of valid contracts and to carry out the intention of the parties.
If the parties intended to sell the notes and intended for the notes to be negotiated by indorsement, if the indorsement wasn't done properly, usually a party to the contract to seek to enforce the contract and order that the indorsement and delivery be made as contemplated.
Your notion that you can sit on the sidelines, read someone else's contract and then blow a whistle to decide whether the contract is being executed to YOUR satisfaction and simply declared the contract to be VOID is beyond absurd.
Parties to an agreement can elect to alter its terms, to waive various provisions or to cancel the contract. It is up to the parties, subject to the language of the instrument itself and the laws of the jurisdiction. You do NOT get a vote on the outcome as to someone else's contract.
YOU ARE WAY OFF INTO WINGNUT LAND!
Now what I am wondering Chuck, is you said that the transfer is done by indorsement and delivery; but to have a “holder” status doesn’t the party ALSO have to take the Note in “good faith” with no known defect or claim against the Note? And if so, if NCM was using fraudulent appraisals and they sold it to an affiliate that knew of and condoned the fraudulent appraisals, then didn’t they take it knowing there was a potential claim against the Note?Just wondering.I am just starting to explore this.
I never said transfer was by indorsement and delivery. This is YOUR bastardization and misstatement of the law. This sentence again reflect your ignorance and your failure to read and understand what has already been posted.
Negotiation is by indorsement and delivery. Transfer is by delivery alone.
You once again confuse the status of holder, which entitles a party to a right of enforcement, with holder in due course, a status which confers immunity against select defenses.
RE-READ WHAT MR. ROPER HAS POSTED ABOUT TIS!
Next you are off talking about "fraudulent appraisals". I have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN THIS TOPIC AS IT IS MERELY A PRE-TEXT FOR SWINDLERS.
THERE ARE NO DEFENSES READILY AVAILABLE TO AVERAGE BORROWERS ON THIS BASIS. IT IS A SCAM, A SWINDLE, A CON. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN DISCUSSING IT FURTHER. READ EXISTING POSTS BY MR. ROPER, KA, T AND OTHERS.
If the purchaser KNEW that NC was procuring fraudulent appraisals, sure, one might make out a case for collusive fraud. This would still be subject to the statute of limitations. And now you have TWO proof thresholds, not one. You will bear the burden of proof in proving the existence of a fraud and also you will separately have to prove that the purchaser KNEW ABOUT and PARTICIPATED IN the fraud.
Good luck with that! Your fixation with these issues seems to show that you are NOT actually seriously interested in succeeding in a foreclosure defense and your unwillingness to devote time to actually school yourself up on the law assures that you will FAIL.
You need to WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. All I see are rants that show that you have been deceived, confused and have very poor judgment in assessing alternatives. That makes you a great mark for swindlers. It does NOT make me want to invest any further time in trying to help you!