You are asking the wrong question but you have the right idea. There are plenty of cases nationwide saying that enforcement of a mortgage without owning the debt is not allowed. But that isn't enough. The burden is on you to rebut the legal presumption that the claimant has paid for and does own the debt. That presumption arises from the presentation of copies of what appear to be facially valid documents. Sometimes a close look reveals they are not facially valid and that gives you added ammunition. The way you get from Point a to Point B is through discovery. Assuming they have not paid for the debt and don't own it and don't have any authority from anyone who does own the debt, your questions about ownership, agency and authority will not be answered. And that is what changes the narrative if you know what you are doing. Listen to the Neil Garfield Show Tonight at 6Pm EST.