Here's the deal. We have UCC 3-603, collateral source of pmt. We also have UCC 3-804 (I think), re lost note affidavits. In NY, they have to be accompanied by a bond = to twice the amount of the note. In other jurisdictions, adequate security. If I were not in NY, I would still be pleading the NY requirement, tying it to NY law governing all these securitized deals.
I have two BA cases, where they sold the note to FNMA. But they still claimed they owned the Note and mortgage...until recently, where they admitted that FNMA was "the investor" a term not defined in the UCC.
In a letter to the court, I said that a lost note aff would have to be double bonded or, if the purported original were produced, then it would have to be subjected to forensic analysis.
Guess what? No original, and no lost note aff. Given what the insurers now know, and given that a good number of them are into receivership as a result of this fraud, there is no way they are going to double bond the note.