Are all assignments fraud

As a rule out of appropriate directions to pursue, a 'no loss' argument is very unlikely to bring re-course or remedy for the defendant of a claim.

Under what capacity is the originator making a claim, do they have a right to make a claim, are they adjoining the third party the equitable assignee or are they making a claim as trustee on behalf of the third parties. I would suggest an avenue to travers is by finding out if they have a right to make a claim, there is a possibility they have assigned the full estate to an SPV, ergo would potentially be operating as trustee or through a trust relationship, are they going to want to admit this to you, or would they say, lets let this one go and we'll fight another day.......

In relation to the title of this thread 'are all assignments fraud' I feel a bit of pudding with a stick could reveal the answer. The questions that should be asked are, has the estate or the benefits of been securitised, what type of assignment underwent for that process, was it equitable or legal.

ok so how would one know which type of assignment said, oc sold on,, as is thier any real remedy?

When the OC sells it on absolutely you should get a 'notice of assignment' this is a legal assignment. If there is no notice it falls because it has failed to meet the requirements under s136 of the LoP.

If a DCA is acting as third party they have an equitable assignment and cannot enforce any condition of the agreement or make a claim in court. The only thing they can do is join the legal owner and have them make a claim in their name. The legal owner doesn't have to be the OC it can be a DCA after the OC has made a legal assignment.

What you appear to be asking is does the OC have a legal right to pursue you for the debt if it has been assigned in a securitisation process. What I am looking at and trying to get to the bottom of is exactly that. It would appear that for the OC to make a claim in court they have to be adjoined withe the beneficial owner also termed the equitable assignee, unless they make a claim as trustee.

The law of property is dominated by two types of property, legal estates and equitable interests.

It appears most assignments from securitisation are equitable, however, we have the OC, then the SPV (the issuer), then the investors.

I don't think its out of this realm that the OC legally assigns the debt to the SPV/issuer, then the issuer assigns equitable interests to the investors.

As a remedy we ned to be asking for proof of assignment as we are by way of deed of assignment, we should actually be asking for documents of title, we should be asking if the choose in action has been securitised and if so what type of assignment took place.

If the debt has previously been assigned legally by the OC and they have no legal title to the estate then unless there are some specific conditions somewhere they have no right to assign it again to a DCA. If the OC wants to make a claim against us are they adjoining the equitable assignee or are they operating as trustee, if so then we really need to focus on using equity as a remedy, which it is of my opinion we should be anyway, but mores if we are party to a trust.

I was hoping some more people may get involved and help come up with some solutions, there can be road blocks or a lack of knowledge preventing solutions arising when performing the research on your own, two or more heads are better than one.

yes i never got deed only a notice by dca, then its wording in claims made to the trust name in staute law, court sytems

Then if you got a notice they have legally assigned title rights and interests. But a notice is not factual proof that a debt exists or factual proof that they have a legal estate to claim. You need to see absolute proof they actually have legal title rights and interests.

This is where asking for documents of title comes in, without that what have they actually got?? Not saying they won't pursue you anyway, but that should be asked for and it is your right to see (see the moving forwards section in the debt forum).

i did ask in my letter process in 2016 all the proof of claim used the letter process, dca company refused , thierfore i not signed any contract with dca company ,,either, so this fraud claim amde for ccj, so i wonder if worth to counter claim

He threw the Grahamstown High Court into a spin when his attorney, Bev Carruthers of Port Elizabeth, plonked a securitisation audit in front of the judge. The securitisation audit suggests that his bank loan has been on-sold to a Taiwanese bank and is no longer owned by Standard Bank. That being the case, Standard Bank has no right to be in court. More than that, the audit suggests the bank has securitised (or on-sold) his bond for R5 million, not the R3 million he supposedly signed for.

To attack a mortgage would be dangerous, but we know for a fact they securitise any type of receivable, bar social security benefits. Taking this into account, what are the chances of determining who and where and in what capacity your receivables have been assigned. If there has been an absolute assignment, the OC shouldn't be able to bring a claim.

In the states there are stories coming out that upon default of a mortgage people are receiving letters from up to 3 different banks....!!!!

i know your right on pints made, im been i ncourt already and tried before court, in letter process for the above proof, nothing only notice not a deed thier dca refusal to provide it, im seen not heard in court and it like system is against many unwell disbaled people in to life to unreal ,