Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEggert, Kurten_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-15T22:03:46Z
dc.date.available2013-02-15T22:03:46Z
dc.date.issued2002en_US
dc.identifier.citation35 Creighton L. Rev. 363 (2001-2002)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40401
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|The holder in due course doctrine is part of the little-known, often-ignored backwater that is negotiable instruments law and, simultaneously, is at the heart of today's great crisis of the American financial system, predatory lending. On the one hand, even the authors of the standard treatise on the Uniform Commercial Code open their chapter on the holder in due course doctrine with this question: Given the declining significance of the holder in due course doctrine, why study it? Grant Gilmore has called negotiable instruments law "so dreary a subject," one "which has disappeared from the curricula of most forward-looking law schools." On the other hand, in years of Congressional hearings designed to understand and halt a "national scandal,"-predatory lending and the resulting foreclosures that are devastating poorer communities throughout the country-advocates for residential borrowers are calling for an end to the holder in due course doctrine. These advocates decry the doctrine's pernicious effect on defenseless homeowners, as it encourages fraud and sharp practices by unscrupulous lenders, aids them in their attempt to plunder the equity in borrowers' homes, and leaves its victims, most often the elderly, minorities, and the financially unsophisticated, defenseless and threatened with foreclosure when the initial lenders almost immediately negotiate the loans to a third party. A recent analysis of lending practices estimated that predatory lending costs U.S. borrowers $9.1 billion annually; an estimate that expressly and intentionally excludes perhaps the greatest damage caused, residential foreclosures. Worse yet, the problem of mortgage fraud and unscrupulous lending appears to be growing...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleHeld Up in Due Course: Codification and the Victory of Form over Intent in Negotiable Instrument Lawen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume35en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note2001-2002en_US
dc.description.pages363en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record