In October 2006, America's Wholesale Lender (AWL) agreed to loan John Horvath $650,000. The loan was stated in an interest-only, fixed-rate note and was secured by a deed of trust on Horvath's home. In exchange for the $650,000, Horvath agreed to repay AWL in monthly installments ranging from about $3000 to $5000. The note allowed AWL (and any subsequent holder) to transfer the note freely. In fact, the note provided for "anyone who takes this Note by transfer" to inherit the powers of the "Note Holder," including the right to accelerate payment if Horvath defaulted. Any party who took the note would have the right to enforce it. In 2009, the note was transferred to Bank of New York where, after little over a half year, Horvath defaulted. Horvath's property was foreclosed on, and he proceeded to sue. Was Horvath right in suing? Why or why not, based on the wording of the note? [Horvath v. Bank of NY, 641 F.3d 617 (2011) U.S. App. LEXIS 10152.]