Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
I'm not saying you're lying, and I'm sure those garbage movies do have something like this in them. but it is complete bunk. The fact is that the bank can prove that it issued a check for the amount of security claimed and that it could meet that obligation at that time. That is clearly the case because the seller would have been able to convert that cheque into hard currency with their financial institution. Therefore, the bank did give consideration for the security it was claiming and had the right to enforce its mortgage against the property.
The real reason I was responding to this thread though, was to confirm anecdotally that Tower is right about this lunacy spreading. I was at Court the other day on a couple of my real estate files and overheard a couple of other lawyers cracking jokes about a guy they had just seen in chambers that morning spouting off crap about being a freeman and not consenting to the Court's jurisdiction and the extremely direct and dismissive reply givwen by the judge or master. First time I've run into this garbage in RL.
|
Okay it may be bunk to you but the guy won the case and got possession of his house back.........how do you explain that?
It was not a dispute between new owner/old owner, it was over the bank trying to foreclose his home.....