to investors fractional interests in the trust’s pool of mortgages.” Katherine Porter, Misbehavior and Mistake in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 121, 126 (2008). For an extensive discussion of securitization, see Timothy A. Frochle, Standing in the Wake of the Foreclosure Crisis: Why Procedural Requirements are Necessary to Prevent Further Loss to Homeowners, 96 Iowa L. Rev. 1719, 1725-29 (2011). 8 . See, e.g., Bevilacqua, 460 Mass, at 774, 955 N.E.2d 884 (“The title held by a mortgagee is defeasible, and ‘upon payment of the note by the mortgagor ... the mortgagee’s interest in the real property comes to an end.’ ” (quoting Maglione v. BancBoston Mortg. Corp., 29 Mass.App.Ct. 88, 90, 557 N.E.2d 756 (1990))); Perry v. Oliver, 317 Mass. 538, 541, 59 N.E.2d 192 (1945) (<HOLDING>); Geffen v. Paletz, 312 Mass. 48, 53, 43 N.E.2d
holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or holding that extinguishment of the debt entitles the mortgagor to a surrender of the note and a discharge of the mortgage holding that the note and the mortgage must coexist to give the mortgage validity holding that effect of bankruptcy discharge under arizona law is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debtor holding that because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder