The Neil Garfield Radio Show- The Missing Obligee

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Prior to the securitization era began, no party to litigation was entitled to a legal presumption of facts when they had engaged in patterns of conduct in which they had forged, fabricated or otherwise attempted to use self-serving documents that were neither official documents nor otherwise credible. It is time that people return to the rules of evidence starting with the Obligee and Obligor.

Presumptions are simply procedural gimmicks to assume in evidence that which is obvious and credible. Up until now they were not used, nor was their use affirmed on appeal, when the facts assumed were not obvious and subject to doubt as to credibility.

In every book, treatise, article and case decision on evidence — until now, the facts mattered.

It is time to return to a time when the foreclosing party prove each element and each fact of their case and a return to due process.  Foreclosers, like everyone else, should be required to prove each and every element of their case including who is the Obligor and who is the Obligee.

Remember even in a default situation they must still must prove actual damages- but there is no entity that can be identified as the obligee of the debt.

Definition of Obligee (creditor):

The individual to whom a particular duty or obligation is owed.

The obligation might be to pay a debt or involve the performance or nonperformance of a particular act.


Definition of Obligor (debtor):

The individual who owes another person a certain debt or duty.

3 Responses

  1. Roger
    That’s where non-bank mortgage lenders come in… THEY get a line of credit or table funding from the banks and then loan it. The banks escape the rule through 3rd party.

  2. Boots, banks cannot lend credit. Supposedly.

  3. If the original contracting party alleging to provide a loan (real funds) to the homeowner does not have a recorded financial record of actually personally providing said loan (real funds) to or on the homeowner’s behalf, out of their own funds, within the terms of the contract (whilst not disclosing to the homeowner that the alleged lender are using either borrowed funds or using an outside line of credit to fund the loan), then, within the terms of the contract; does the alleged lender maintain any rights in law or equity to further assign such a third party loan (debt), to which they were not a party in the first part, to additional third parties, or any other party; and is the homeowner an obligor to the contracting party which did not provide any personal funding?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: