# Translate this legalese for me please **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 2, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/translate-this-legalese-for-me-please/627031 "2012-07-02T21:04:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/translate-this-legalese-for-me-please/627031/1 "2012-07-02T21:04:09Z")
I know all of the disclamers and I’m not trusting you for legal advice. Here is some legalese that one person claims it means they sold the mortgage to WIDGET. The other side says it assigns the mortgage as collateral for a loan but the originator (ACME) still owns the mortgage. Which side is correct? > [@](#): > > Know all men by these presents that for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned ACME, LLC hereby grants, assigns and transfers to WIDGET FINANCIAL (Lender) all of the undersigned’s righ, title and interest as seller under that certain hereinafter described deed(s) of trust (“Interval Mortgage(s)”) and all powers, covenants and provisions therein contained, together with the promissary note(s) executed in connection with such Interval Mortgage(s) (“Pledged Note(s)”), all monies due and to become due on account of such Interval Mortgage(s) and Pledged Note(s), and all rights, accrued or to accrue under such Interval Mortgage(s) and Pledged Note(s). ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/translate-this-legalese-for-me-please/627031/2 "2012-07-02T21:16:49Z")
The (badly written) document doesn’t explicitly state that the mortgage and the note securing it are being transferred as security for a loan, only that said transfer is being made “for good (and sufficient) consideration.” This means that the distinction between collateral (which remains the property of the borrower unless the borrower defaults) and payment/consideration is not made. Therefore, according to this document, WIDGET is now the owner of the note and holder of the deed of trust. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/translate-this-legalese-for-me-please/627031/3 "2012-07-02T21:20:28Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > The (badly written) document doesn’t explicitly state that the mortgage and the note securing it are being transferred as security for a loan, only that said transfer is being made “for good (and sufficient) consideration.” This means that the distinction between collateral (which remains the property of the borrower unless the borrower defaults) and payment/consideration is not made. Therefore, according to this document, WIDGET is now the owner of the note and holder of the deed of trust. Does that (Lender) tied to Widget’s name mean anything significant? ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/translate-this-legalese-for-me-please/627031/4 "2012-07-02T21:24:37Z")
No. It just means that for the remaining portions of the document, WIDGET FINANCIAL will be referred to as “Lender.” It could say “Baboon” or “Rutabaga” and not change the meaning of the overall document.