quote: "Walt, re: Mr. Roper suggests that a means around the ratification argument would have been to point out that the document might have taken legal effect at the date of ratification rather than the date of execution. That can screw up the plaintiff's standing. But this argument seems not to have been made in the In Re Jessup case."
In support of William A. Roper Jr. " that a means around the ratification argument would have been to point out that the document might have taken legal effect at the date of ratification rather than the date of execution. That can screw up the plaintiff's standing." reference:
In re: Barry Alton Parker, Chapter 13, Debtor.
Barry Alton Parker, Plaintiff,
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee on behalf of the Holder of the Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust 2007-1, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 09-10186, Adversary Proceeding No. 09-1022.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont.
March 18, 2011.
See Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 18, supra; see also doc. # 51-3 (“Credit Suisse . . . ratifies and approves the indorsement of the Note by Patrick Brown, post Closing Manager for Lydian Data Services as the attorney-in-fact for Credit Suisse”). The leading commercial law treatises shed light on the issue of the effectiveness of ratification. An unauthorized signature may be ratified expressly, thus binding the ratifying principal. See 2 White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 16-4 (5th ed. 2010). A signature by an agent in excess of his or her authority may be ratified. See 4 Hawkland UCC Series § 34-04:2 (2010). Once a signature is ratified, it becomes effective as if authorized at the time made. See id; see also 9A V.S.A. § 3-403, Official Comment 3 (“[r]atification is a retroactive adoption of the unauthorized signature . . .”) (emphasis added). Thus, the Court finds that upon ratification by Credit Suisse, the endorsement by Mr. Brown became effective as if it had been authorized at the time made.
This raises the question of when the allonge was endorsed, as the allonge endorsed by Mr. Brown is not dated. The Bank argues that the timing of the endorsement is immaterial to the question of whether the Bank is the holder of the Note because regardless of when the Note was endorsed, it is now endorsed and in the Bank’s possession. See In re Wilson, 442 B.R. 10, 15, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4252, * 9-11 (Bankr. D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2010).
From the Blog: Being Middle Class quoting Stopforeclosurefraud: