The Emperor’s New Clothes: How the Judicial System and the Housing-Mortgage Market Have Turned a Blind Eye to the Destruction of the Negotiability of Mortgage Promissory Notes

This Article examines the common notions of negotiable instruments as they relate to the modern day promissory note in the context of residential mortgage lending. The Article further addresses the destruction of the negotiability of such promissory notes through various undertakings added for the benefit of the banking industry, often to the detriment of a borrower. The use of negotiable instruments commenced in the 1800s in England as a way of ensuring a fluid market between trades as there was no fiat currency system in place. The fundamental purpose behind the concept of negotiability was subsequently abrogated by the modernization of the financial industry, and the creation of a global marketplace for the purchase and sale of promissory notes. Furthermore, the Article discusses how the holder in due course doctrine, which limits a borrower’s defenses when a promissory note has been transferred from one note holder to another, has created significant abuse to consumers by the financial industry. The abuse of consumers through the holder in due course doctrine remains a problem unchecked by many courts that continue to apply negotiability law to modern day promissory notes in real estate mortgage transactions despite the fact that modern day promissory notes lack any of the tenets of “negotiability” under article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Article then calls on the judiciary, as theoretically the least political and most impartial branch of government, to find that such promissory notes are no longer negotiable instruments, and therefore must be transferred via assignment pursuant to article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Such a new construct or approach would provide the transparency necessary to protect consumers and preserve defenses to predatory lending by the financial industry

INVESTING FORMULA ENFORCEABLE BILL OF EXCHANGE, PROMISSORY NOTES AND CHECK

Right bills constituted a proper, solemn and formal training both bills of exchange, promissory notes or checks, but also in terms of bills receivable realization and autonomy is manifested in the sphere of application, and in priority and exclusivity of its incidence from common law, namely the Civil Procedure Code. Legal rules relating to bills of rights realization is a perfect rigorous regime. The special regime, derogating governing procedure execution quality bills is justified and bills of exchange, promissory note and check to be instruments of scriptural money, qualified as a legal system requires great rigor. The procedural and enforcement proceedings taken by the legislature to ensure fulfillment of trade are much stricter in the right bills to go faster and safer way to realization of rights emerge. Debt securities notes (bills of exchange, promissory notes and check), by their specificity, have boosted the feature of incorporating the right way, so the title itself forms a unit with built right, subject as such forms and rules special, simple operation, formation, movement and recovery, and their binding force is a substantial, not procedural, as the essence of such securities, as their constitution and other necessary items

PROMISSORY NOTE AS PAYMENT SECURITY INSTRUMENT IN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

In the modern world, a legal framework has been set up and a market regulator has been defi ned so that payment as a relation between the debtor and creditor can not be put in question regarding the realization of their integral rights. Countries in transition, including Croatia (the Republic of Croatia), are still trying to defi ne not only the shortterm, but also the long-term regulators that would clarify all open questions both in the economic and in the legal segment. Promissory note as the payment security instrument has in practice become operative only through a consistent use of Distraint law. A theoretical and an implementation mechanism merge into one functional mechanism, on the basis of which it can be said that in this segment the Republic of Croatia has truly overcome the transitional barriers.promissory note, collection of claims, payment insurance, blank promissory notes, Distraint procedure, Distraint law

Exchanging Goods Using Valuable Money

A group of people wishes to use money to exchange goods efficiently over several time periods. However, there are disadvantages to using any of the goods as money, and in addition fiat money issued in the form of notes or coins will be valueless in the final time period, and hence in all earlier periods. Also, Walrasian market prices are determined only up to an arbitrary rescaling. Nevertheless we show that it is possible to devise a system which uses money to exchange goods and in which money has a determinate positive value. In this system, tokens are initially supplied to all traders by a central authority and recovered by a purchase tax. All trades must be made using tokens or promissory notes for tokens. This mechanism controls the flow rather than the stock of money: it introduces some trading frictions, some redistribution of wealth, and some distortion of prices, but these effects can all be made small.Comment: 23 pages, 10 figures, revise

The Non-Uniform Commercial Code: The Creeping, Problematic Application of Article 9 to Determine Outcomes in Foreclosure Cases

[Excerpt] “This article will discuss the operation of two portions of the Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”) on mortgage foreclosure law. Article 3 of the U.C.C. governs negotiable instruments, whereas Article 9 governs secured transactions. For decades, courts have utilized Article 3 to determine the rights of lenders and their assigns to enforce mortgage promissory notes and to foreclose mortgages thereon. However, certain jurisdictions do not utilize the U.C.C. in foreclosure cases, whereas other jurisdictions have recently begun to look to Article 9 instead. This article argues that the Uniform Commercial Code should receive more uniform application, with Article 3 as the enforcement tool of the land. . . . Parts I-III of this Article will discuss the negotiable nature of mortgage notes, and the significance of this character. Part I will briefly discuss the importance of a plaintiff’s standing to initiate and pursue foreclosure. Part II will analyze the history of both the negotiability of notes and the foreclosure of mortgages. This historical analysis is meant to provide an explication of the divergent paths notes and mortgages have taken, in terms of the predictability of enforcement outcomes and the relative harshness each produces. Part III will discuss the negotiable character of mortgage promissory notes. If a note is a negotiable instrument, then transfer of the note may be analyzed under Article 3. However, even if a note is negotiable, that does not mean that it is not also potentially subject to enforcement under Article 9. Part IV will provide an overview of enforcement mechanisms utilized in various jurisdictions. This Part will highlight the law in jurisdictions in which Article 3 is applied to determine the standing of foreclosure plaintiffs. Following that, Part IV will review application of common law and other enforcement mechanisms in jurisdictions that do not look to the U.C.C. in determining a plaintiff’s standing to enforce a negotiable instrument and foreclosure the security interest secured thereby. Finally, this Part will explore recent cases in which Article 9 has been applied in the foreclosure context. Part V will argue that uniform application of the U.C.C. will aid the recovering housing market and provide a predictable framework for foreclosure of mortgage, going forward. Specifically, Part V will argue that the U.C.C. should be applied to determine whether a plaintiff has standing to foreclose and will further argue that courts should utilize Article 3 of the Code in making such determinations.

Hagan-Payne Family Papers (SC 2272)

Finding aid only for Manuscripts Small Collection 2272. Photocopies of letters, 1927-1929 (5), mostly written by Rosavelt and Lucian Payne, of Franklin, Kentucky; and promissory notes, tax receipts, and other receipts, 1894-1908 (17), of James K. Hagan of Woodburn, Kentucky

Promissory Note as Payment Security Instrument in the Republic of Croatia

In the modern world, a legal framework has been set up and a market regulator has been defined so that payment as a relation between the debtor and creditor can not be put in question regarding the realization of their integral rights. Countries in transition, including Croatia (the Republic of Croatia), are still trying to define not only the shortterm, but also the long-term regulators that would clarify all open questions both in the economic and in the legal segment. Promissory note as the payment security instrument has in practice become operative only through a consistent use of Distraint law. A theoretical and an implementation mechanism merge into one functional mechanism, on the basis of which it can be said that in this segment the Republic of Croatia has truly overcome the transitional barriers.promissory note, collection of claims, payment insurance, blank promissory notes, Distraint procedure, Distraint law.

Ward Family Papers (MSS 59)

Finding aid only for Manuscripts Collection 59. Papers chiefly of Hezekiah and Richard Ward of Ohio County, Kentucky. Promissory notes, 1857-79 (14 items); tax receipts, 1864-68 (4); telephone receipts, 1913-34 (44); and miscellaneous receipts, 1824-1937 (40); legal papers, 1873-1939 (14); essay and play, 189?; and genealogical data (2)