On February 16, 2005, Joseph and Margaret Buset borrowed $192,000 from Fremont Investment & Loan (the Originator). The loan was secured by a mortgage on a residential condominium. The mortgage named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as

“mortgagee.” Within a few months, the Originator packaged the note with others for purposes of securitization and sale to investors. In this regard, the Originator entered into a Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the “Fremont Home Loan Trust 2005-B Mortgage Backed Certificates Series 2005-B.” The parties to the Agreement included the Originator, another entity as Depositor, and the Bank as Trustee. The language of the note allowed the current holder (and any subsequent holder) to freely transfer the note. In 2012, after the Borrowers defaulted on the note, MERS executed a recorded assignment of the mortgage to the Bank which reads “This assignment is from … MERS as nominee for Fremont Investment & Loan, … its successors and assigns … to HSBC Bank.” Additionally, the note defined “Note Holder”

as “anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note. Following the Busets’ default, HSBC began foreclosure proceedings. The Busets then sued. Were the Busets right in suing? Why or why not, based on the language of the note?