Beth Findsen, Esq. of Scottsdale, Az who is arguably one of the best legal writers in the country, along with our own Danielle Kelley, Esq. in Tallahassee, has written an article that I think captures the essence of the Steinberger. You can read the entire article HERE. As usual, Beth succeeded in stating the point in far less words than I do.
The court does a good job of explaining the separate instruments of the note and deed of trust, and listing and describing the rights and responsibilities of the three entities involved in a deed of trust, the trustee, the trustor, and the beneficiary.
The court understood the problem of an assignment of an interest years after the interest has already been transferred. If there is no interest to transfer, nothing transfers. It’s as simple as that.
The court also does a good job of analyzing what the Arizona Supreme Court actually said in the oft-cited Hogan case. The Hogan court did not say that one can never mention the authority of the beneficiary or the note holder in a lawsuit opposing foreclosure, or risk being swept into the dreaded “show me the note” category and summarily dismissed. Rather, the Hogan court was concerned with the lack of affirmative allegations in the Hogan pleadings about how and why the beneficiary might lack authority, or might not be the beneficiary.
The Steinberger court also recognized that the point of listing securitization facts is to establish a timeline that may show that the transfers in a purported chain of title cannot be true, if the note was in fact transferred to a securitization trust by a set closing date. This is relevant to the beneficiary’s claimed authority, not an attempt for the homeowner to be claiming rights or enforcement under the third party securitization documents.