Banking Law

Arrogance Has Its Price

A recent decision by a New York state trial judge has caused a bit of a buzz about the blogosphere, especially on borrower advocate blogs and other "fora" where banks are bashed and every set-back for foreclosing lenders is greeted with a cheer, a shot of Rye, and a beer chaser. The case is an extreme example of the bad things that are happening to residential mortgage servicers who try to dummie up after-the-fact assignments of notes and mortgages and fail to prove a chain-of-assignment that satisfies a trial judge who doesn't care much for the "mortgage follows the note" rule of law. In this case, what might be just as important to the extreme outcome (cancellation of the note and mortgage, and vacation of the foreclosure judgment) is the fact that the judge was obviously less than enamored with the demeanor of the officer that the servicer sent to testify. When a court's opinion makes much of the "opprobrious demeanor and condescending attitude" of that bank officer, you know the lender would have been better served to have sent someone to court who understands that when you talk down to a judge, your buttocks can end up in your hands.

Best of luck on appeal, OneWest.

Full post as published by Bank Lawyers Blog on November 30, 2009 (boomark / email).