Monday, March 26, 2012

So Now Banks Have to Have Signatures on Their Notes?

Oh federal court with all those rules and pesky legal requirements!

Now comes one from Judge Seitz -- banks need to have their notes signed by the borrowers!
Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment because no dispute exists that Plaintiff has a valid First Preferred Ship's Mortgage and because Alvarez is individually liable for payment under the Note. Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Plaintiff seeks summary judgment based on the terms of the Note. However, Plaintiff has not established that Alvarez signed the Note or that the terms of the Note are the governing term s of the loan. While Alvarez has acknowledged that she is indebted because of the loan, she has not acknowledged that the terms of the Note were the terms of the loan. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden.
I know I know, HCR before the Supremes.

Listen, if you're that interested, go pay someone to fight the Civil War wait in line to see the arguments like the rest of the proles.


swlip said...

I seem to remember being pilloried on this site for claiming that the lawsuits against the ACA had merit.

Apologies accepted.

Anonymous said...

take a chill pill court hasn't ruled in your favor yet

Anonymous said...

somehow swlip has a little less credibility than Judge Stanley Marcus on the ACA's constitutionality. Plus no one pilloried you; they disagreed with you. I know your ilk deems that concept as communist or socialist talk, but we don't think you are a fascist. Just wrong.

swlip said...

Ah, smacked by an appeal to authority. Stanley Marcus thinks that the ACA is constitutional, so that settles it!

A bit of revisionist history is going on, so let me be clear: Pretty everyone on this blog, including SFL, adamantly claimed that the suits were "frivolous."

Now, if you're a lawyer, I shouldn't have to spell out what "frivolous" means. But here's a clue for the laymen who read this blog: "Frivolous" lawsuits don't reach the Supreme Court of the United States, and certainly aren't granted three days of oral argument.

I'm not breaking out the Cohibas, quite yet. But the ACA is starting to smell nice and toasty.

swlip said...

Here you go, comrades. Even the NY Times grudgingly gives Randy Barnett some first page, above the fold respect:

South Florida Lawyers said...

Actually, I believe I said the 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause arguments were "somewhat plausible" -- though I admit I was trying to be generous.