The Court. The “Court” refers to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, U.S.D.J., presiding.
The Court. So while you don’t agree that I’m right, but you recognize that if that is my ruling and I’m going to be consistent, that I have to do the same thing with con- tractual subrogation. MR. GERRARD: And replacement and equitable subrogation; right? THE COURT: I’m just – if you want to skip ahead – I’m just giving you the oppor- tunity to make – MR. GERRARD: I don’t know how it can come out any other way. If my – THE COURT: – any other position to me known so I have the opportunity to con- sider anything else that you think might cause those particular claims to be treated differently given my ruling regarding the ef- fect, the evidentiary effect of Exhibit 183. MR. GERRARD: Well, again, Your Honor – you know, we went over this the other day, but let’s be clear about this. If Ex- hibit 183 does not effect an assignment, if you can’t find that that effects an assignment of the loan at issue in this case to BB&T, then there’s not one more thing for us to talk about. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GERRARD: Because the minute that you rule that this – that you cannot find that this document effected an assignment to my client, then we don’t have the right, we have no standing to make the equitable sub- rogation claim, to make the – THE COURT: It’s not a standing issue, Mr. Gerrard. (Transcript of hearing Day 10, April 14, 2010, page 25, lines 9-25, page 26, lines 1-18.) Counsel for BB&T continued: