I agree. Civil law codes are enacted to be followed and enforced, so banks and their agents should not be given the waivers, and hence Rights, of individuals.  They are artificial, statute-based entities who are franchised through the state and indemnified against liability by the taxpayers so long as they follow the word of the law.  Although in some cases they do, they non-the-less should not have the same rights by custom and tradition that the natural Citizen bears.  This is enforcement of the letter of the law.  If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, then it is certainly  not an excuse or waiver for a rich corporate bank with massive legal teams to do wrong.  Possession may be 9/10ths of the law, but this appears to be that "other" 1/10th where corps are held to account for their negligence.  Their shareholders will ultimately take the hit and should hold execs accountable for such losses (and this includes title insurers who fail to account for such lacks of proper assignment... it IS our job to detail such  matter, after all [despite the rush to send work overseas}).

to post a reply: login - or - register