In TYLER v. BANK OF AM., 2013WL 1821754, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61383 (Opinion not yet released for publication), where a foreclosing lender has the original note, indorsed in blank, it may proceed to foreclosure. Per the court, “when a note is indorsed in blank, the instrument becomes payable to bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially indorsed.” Even, as here, where there is a claim by the mortgagor/debtor that there was fraud in an assignment by one lender to another, the debtor did not have standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of the note. In Texas, a debtor can “assert against an assignee any ground that renders the assignment void or invalid.” In contrast, a voidable contract is one where “one or more of the parties, by manifestation of the parties, may seek to avoid the legal relations created by the contract.” The only parties who can seek to avoid the enforcement of a voidable contract are parties to the contract. Consequently, because “deeds obtained by fraud are voidable rather than void,” the debtors lacked standing to challenge the assignment. To similar effect, see SCOTT v. BANK OF AMERICA, 2013 WL1821874 (W.D. Tex., Apr. 29, 2013), where the court also dismissed the mortgagors’ claims raising the same issues.