Negotiability in foreclosures.

• Author: Cantor, Ileen J.
• Position: Letter to the editor

Journal guidelines prohibit publication by authors involved in proceedings on their article's topic, unless part of a forum for conflicting sides. December's article, "A Critical Look at the Role of Negotiability in the Foreclosure Crisis," is not part of such a forum.

Moreover, guidelines call for "clear identification by sufficient legal authority on all sides of an issue to enable the reader to assess the validity of the opinion."

The author of the article, who does not clearly identify legal authority for both sides, is the president of Ice Legal, P.A., a firm specializing in the representation of defendants in foreclosure proceedings throughout the state.

Please consider publishing an article in rebuttal from a plaintiff's foreclosure attorney.

To allow December's article to stand alone, outside of a forum identifying the way negotiability in a foreclosure is adjudicated under the plain language of the Uniform Commercial Code, is to otherwise promote a gross misstatement of the law and to obfuscate our state's statutes.

Among the article's misstatements of law are that a person entitled to enforce an instrument must prove ownership of the instrument and that when the foreclosing bank is not the original lender, it must prove a purchase and an intent to transfer the mortgage with the note.

Negotiable instruments, and the accompanying right to bring an action thereon without proof of ownership, were the first common law exceptions to the long-standing rule against assignment of choses in action, the first reported case being decided in 1602. William E...