Correia v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. Ex Rel. Pooling & Servicing Agreement Series ITF INABS-2005-A (In Re Correia)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that debtors lack standing to argue that assignment of their mortgage violated service agreement because they were not parties to the agreement nor third-party beneficiaries thereof
• holding that debtors lack standing to argue that assignment of their mortgage violated a service agreement because they were not parties to the agreement nor third-party beneficiaries thereof
• holding that 7 mortgagors could not challenge mortgage assignment based on non-compliance with 8 the PSA because they were not parties or third-party beneficiaries of the PSA’s 9 terms
• holding that debtors lacked standing to argue that assignment of their mortgage violated a pooling and servicing agreement because they were not parties to the agreement, nor third-party beneficiaries thereof
• holding that debtors lacked standing to challenge the validity of a mortgage assignment because they were not parties to a pooling and servicing agreement, nor could they show that they were third-party beneficiaries
• finding that an individual who is not a party or a third party beneficiary of the PSA lacks standing to object to breaches of the PSA’s terms

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).