You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #87: That does not remove it from the state court. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. That does not remove it from the state court.
Edited on Sun Oct-10-10 10:43 PM by NutmegYankee
That just justifies Congress passing the law. Congress cannot regulate Intrastate commerce. If the bank is based in Florida, and seeks to foreclose on a house in say, CT, The bank would start legal proceedings in CT court. With the law, the bank would not need a CT Notary to witness the documents being signed prior to filing in court in CT as is the requirement now. That said, the house is in CT, and only a CT court can order the eviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC