This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
NC Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen Takes on MERS, Questions if County is Owed Millions, Titles Compromised
“For
me, the question is clear. Do we want land records in America to be
governed by major banking conglomerates on Wall Street or the people and
laws of the United States of America?”
~
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Greensboro, NC
March 2, 2011
Contact:
Jeff Thigpen, Guilford County Register of Deeds
Ph. 336-451-5300
Ph. 336-641-3239
jthigpe@co.guilford.nc.us
THIGPEN WANTS TO TAKE ON MORTGAGE GIANTS:
SEEKS INVESTIGATION OF “MERS” FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF $1.3 MILLION IN LOST REVENUE TO GUILFORD COUNTY
Guilford
County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen announced today that he will be
conferring with County Attorney Mark Payne, NC Attorney General and
Secretary of State as to whether the Mortgage Electronic Registration
Service (MERS) owes Guilford County fees estimated at $1.3 million in
lost revenue from mortgage assignments. Thigpen also wants to review
pending legal actions against MERS and consider options to protect the
integrity of public land recordation offices.
“As Register of
Deeds, I have two primary responsibilities in land records: a sworn
duty to protect the chain of title and a fiduciary responsibility to
collect recording fees. Quite frankly, MERS has undermined both.
Through their own “private for-profit” Register of Deeds mortgage
tracking office, MERS has created a dangerous centralization of power
whose sole purpose is to protect and serve the interests of major
banking conglomerates and undermine public recording offices,” said
Thigpen.
“For me, the question is clear. Do we want land records
in America to be governed by major banking conglomerates on Wall Street
or the people and laws of the United States of America?”
MERS
has an electronic registry and database system that tracks more than 65
million mortgages for its paid membership throughout the country and
aides the mortgage backed securities trade in the secondary market.
MERS is reportedly involved in 60% of US mortgage loans. It was
established by some of the largest mortgage lenders in the United States
including Wells Fargo, Chase Mortgage, Citi Mortgage, Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. and Bank of America among others in 1997. A number of
class action lawsuits and civil racketeering suits have arisen against
MERS recently, including a suit alleging its members owe California
$60-120 billion for circumventing land recording fees. MERS has also
been at the center of recent foreclosure chaos.
Since the
founding of America, counties in the United States have maintained
public records of land, mortgages and deeds of trust, by maintaining
indexes of grantors and grantees. Register of Deeds offices ensure
transparency and an important check and balance in private property
ownership. County recording practices have been in place for 300 years.
“It is interesting that the first fundamental change in public land
title recording systems was not initiated by publicly elected leaders,
but a small group of mortgage industry insiders. Now it’s coming back
to bite all of us- homeowners and taxpayers. MERS creates a system
where only certain eyes see the data and what’s going on. I have a real
problem with that as a Recorder.
Thigpen is asking for clarity
on the California suit and others surrounding MERS business practices
in packaging and repackages home owner loans through securitization.
MERS has saved larger financial firms millions of dollars while
avoiding recordation and payment of fees related to mortgage transfers.
Since
2005 there were 47,553 deeds of trust that list MERS as a beneficiary
filed in the Guilford County Register of Deeds office. Experts have
indicated that those kinds of loans are repackaged and sold two and
four times on average under the MERS system. “One repackaging of MERS
documents would have generated $665,742 if documentation had been filed
in our office. Two repackaged loans would have generated $1,331,484.
And that’s conservative estimate.”
Thigpen maintains the lost
recording fees would help local elected officials reduce budget
deficits and maintain core services such as public education and public
safety in this time of fiscal crisis.
Thigpen’s primary concern
relates to recent court rulings in Arkansas, Kansas, Maine and Missouri
questioning MERS legal standing in home foreclosures and suits
challenging that MERS filings may be fraudulent. “If MERS filings are
false statements, there are laws that say if you decrease the money
that you pay for a service through using those false statements then
you can get damages. The legal term is “unjust enrichment”. Thigpen
wants to explore unjust enrichment and other options related to
recovery of lost revenue.
Thigpen acknowledges that NC General
Statutes do not currently require assignments to be filed in local
Register of Deeds offices which allow the public to know the rightful
owner of a mortgage. “That may need to change among other things”, says
Thigpen. Thigpen points to a major policy change from MERS in the past
two weeks conceding that assignments should be filed in public
registries across the country even if the state law does not require it
and instructed members not to foreclose in MERS name. “It indicates to
me that they know they need to fix this.”
“It used to be that
if you bought a house, the mortgage would stay at a single bank until
you paid it off. Times have changed. Through securitization, mortgages
are all put in a blender and sold off to Wall Street investors and
Fannie and Freddie among others. MERS has its finger on the spin
button. At the end of the day with MERS, Susie Homeowner can’t keep
track of who owns her loan and if she’s going to get hit with new fees
or even foreclosure.
“This type of unregulated greed is giving
charity to all the people who should be giving it and undermines good
business practices.” says Thigpen. Thigpen points out those local
credit unions like State Employees Credit Union who didn’t participate
in sub-prime lending have avoided legal difficulties.
“This is a
mess and the MERS system impacts millions of homeowners across the
country in danger of having their homes foreclosed”, said Thigpen. He
wants a review of the lawsuits and investigations into MERS by state
attorney generals and others and believes it will take a coordinated at
the local, state and federal level to resolve it. “To me these issues
with MERS are simple. Are major banking conglomerates going to tell the
truth or not; and are we going choose to have two standards of justice
in America: one for Big Money and the other for the rest of us?
Thigpen will also join Southern Sussex Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brian, Jr.
in urging national organizations such as the International Association
of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT) to
address MERS in the coming weeks.
###
Two counties in, thousands to go...
Look forward to your support, every county USA...
Go after the stolen revenue you deserve...
4closureFraud.org
Thigpen Takes on MERS, Mortgage Giants
»
- advertisements -
the problem is that there is no paperwork, the MBS don't have any actual mortgages in them. It is entirely systemic--i know this firsthand from the ex-head of Wells Fargo structured finance. There are no ASSIGNMENTS through the ABCD of securitization that occurred anywhere in the US by 2005 or so.
Not only are the deeds (mortgages) dodgy by inclusion into MERS, there is no way to perfect the chain of ownership on the note either. MM how can you walk back the cat to the offending entity of ABCD when A and C are no longer in existence?
I'm sure Mers is now being hit with 1000 lawsuits a day (one yesterday was mine)...they don't have the manpower to respond to them all. My title company immediately resigned as trustee as soon as I filed my suit!
MM, many states require that deeds be recorded in writing by the owner of the note. Idaho does. I'd check your facts on that one. If you didn't have to record a deed, what did the banks need MERS for?
Declaratory actions could just as easily be implemented to enforce liens and correct the chain of title... If I were a lender and I was faced with serious putbacks, I would be considering filing a declaratory action for each property above $X, naming the entire chain of title as parties... the court then determines who the proper holder is/was and, once determined, you file a foreclosure in the name of that person/entity... or, alternatively, properly transfer that right to another person/entity (servicer). All the court does is back the liens to when the note and mortgage were legally combined.
Huh? The lender files a declatory action? 1) on what grounds? They aren't sure if people owe them money? 2) there is no paperwork to credibly assess who is the owner. The paperwork doesn't exist. There is no sorting it out through discovery that ends happily for the banks on any level. Discovery will be death to the banks on the deed front and the note front.
Bottom line: people should challenge the banks on everything. It mostly comes down to local judges, but it is open season on pigmen. The banks have a serious document problem, and the only way for them to fix it is fraud. Call them on it.
First, it generally helps for clarity's sake if you reply to particular posts...
Second, you can walk back as far as you like with either: (a) the agreement of the parties [after their own internal search for the likely real holder]; or (b) the court's blessing. In the event a corporation is no more, it may be possible to revive the corporation through its shareholders... In other words, when the bondholders look for someone to sue and cannot sue the corporation, they sue the shareholders/owners/principal actors of the corporation (or members of a company as may be)(numerous possibilities... equitable trust, etc.). Now, when a corporation dissolves, there are generally notices that must be provided to creditors and if a certain period of time passes, then any claims are time barred. However, it may be impossible to revive a party in the chain... but, it may not be necessary, depending on the facts, if skipping that party is possible (i.e. the assignment before the missing party was invalid also). Just depends... there is not a one size fits all approach.
Yes, states require the recording of a mortgage... however, they do not necessarily require the recording of a subsequent assignment of that mortgage... hence the MERS model. In other words, the initial mortgage is recorded, the subsequent assignments are not...
The assignment chain can use its documents, bogus, valid, or somewhere in between to file a declaratory action. Determining the rights associated with a contract are universally within the power of a court in a declaratory action... all the court is doing is determining if the parties have any rights to the assignment (whether the assignment was valid). If no paperwork exists, then we go on up the chain... eventually, we hit the originator/first filer of the mortgage. There is virtually always an underlying mortgage... however, the assignments thereof are of considerable concern.
The reason the banks don't want to do this is because they may end up asking the court to determine they have no interest and, on top of that, it may be possible to get left holding the bag. One way or the other, they're going to be subject to putbacks... my point is why not join in with everyone in the fun and enter an agreement with everyone that if you're left holding the bag, at least you get to foreclose... then record the necessary documents from the real holder as determined by the court... and rock and roll... the securities violations are a totally different ballgame though...
Obviously if you have a defense to a foreclosure, then you should assert it if it is financially reasonable for you to do so... I certainly advocate debtors to do so. The law is on their side in most cases. Obviously, they'll still owe on the note... but, they might be free and clear from foreclosure.
Bottom line, if they file with the wrong party, then they're screwed. By being honest with the court on the front end as to what the problems are, they can completely gut the fraud upon the court meme... and, therefore, the penalties associated with it (dismissal with prejudice).
Thigpen for President!
Rights?! Rights?! You don't have no Rights! You don't need no stinkin' Rights! You think you gonna get justice through the courts? Ha, whata losa! Don't you know all the judges have already been bought off? It's Devolution time. Strap'em on, light'em up, an' don't look bad, dudes, cause it won't be pretty...
Looks like Pigpen has higher political aspirations. Gonna run for.governor after championing the little people?
go for it ,, for 1.3 million.. cost about 50 million
the banks will keep it alive thry have billions of your money ,
go it alone LO that works
MM, I agree that in dispute the recorded deeds will stand in court. Unless they have MERS on them. Mers splits the deed from the note. There is no way to perfect chain of title after Mers. Quiet title actions are working to blow up liens.
If the idiot banks didn't file properly to protect their interests, it's their fault. Hooray, you skipped the proper fees and opened Pandora's Box. Hoisted on their own pitard.
Declaratory actions could just as easily be implemented to enforce liens and correct the chain of title... If I were a lender and I was faced with serious putbacks, I would be considering filing a declaratory action for each property above $X, naming the entire chain of title as parties... the court then determines who the proper holder is/was and, once determined, you file a foreclosure in the name of that person/entity... or, alternatively, properly transfer that right to another person/entity (servicer). All the court does is back the liens to when the note and mortgage were legally combined.
Compare and contrast this with filing a foreclosure action by a nonholder of the mortgage and swearing to the court you are the holder... not going to be fun when the court finds out otherwise...
The only reason declaratory relief has not been sought prior to foreclosing is that it requires the dumbass banks to admit how much they screwed the pooch and, in all likelihood, violated securities laws in the process... requiring putbacks on them at a time when they cannot withstand the added strain... [this is why you name the whole chain, that way the court can divvy up who owes who at the same time it determines the holder of the note/mortgage].
It's kind of funny that being honest with the court would allow them to proceed, but they just can't find the courage to do it... kind of a fitting punishment... hilarious actually.
http://bankimplode.com/list/troubledbanks.htm clearly states...
"This list represents a small subsection of US banks. The majority of banks are currently well capitalized."
Check it out.
So with that in mind...let's take back what they stole.
What did they steal exactly? You mean what they paid our congresscritters to steal from us? Sure, I'd like that back... but I'm not sure assigning a mortgage is theft... maybe if they assign the same mortgage multiple times... or if they borrow from the fed or some other entity knowing full well the loan has little or no likelihood of being repaid... same goes for the homeowner... in that case, I would say their relative thefts equal out and the only possible complaining party would likely be the fed... who just prints more... I guess taxpayers could complain given in a roundabout way we'll end up paying for it... but, I'm not sure theft is the right word... I think "gamed" would be better... or "exploited"... remember, they're pretty adept at staying out of jail and/or paying material fines.
Thank you for your comments on this issue MachoMan.
Although not personally involved in foreclosure, I have tried to keep up with MERS and its associated problems. This is the first time that I have read anything about the "Declaratory actions" strategy to enable courts to clean this mess up.
Question: Given bank retisence to follow this procedure, - Can RRE bondholders force the banks in any way to follow this path. Can the banks forestall them as well?
Yes. The bondholders have to bring actions for putbacks on the banks. If this means fannie or freddie, then I think they have a fiduciary duty to putback the toxic sludge onto the banks. I probably oversimplified the earlier post. There are a couple of important dichotomies. First, if the investor in X MBS was to try and stuff that mess back to the assignor, then my guess would be that the putback would end with the institution that failed to properly assign the mortgage. In other words, the entity immediately proceeding the entity who transfered the mortgage to mers could conceivably be off the hook, given it made a proper assignment and it shouldn't be responsible for a later party's negligence.
Second, the general role of equity amongst all the chain of mortgage. (I say chain of title, but there is only one title holder, the debtor). If we have A xfer to B xfer to C xfer to D and the transfers back to A are invalidated, then the court should seek to put the parties back in the respective positions as if the transfers had not occurred. Meaning, D the present purporting holder would transfer the mortgage back to C and C would give D's $ back... on down the line. In this sense, the mess would fall back to the first invalid assignment... possibly with the mortgage originator. Now, the final resting place for the mortgage should then be able to initiate a foreclosure suit against the debtor AND the debtor could not deny the court's previous ruling as to who the true holder... The real question would be how to divide the proceeds of sale/what the various assigning parties would agree to amongst themselves. In other words, I'll agree to putback this assignment, but only if I can get X% of the proceeds, etc.
Each of these issues may be present on a particular mortgage... in other words, I'm not sure that a declaratory action could remotely cure any defects in securities law violations... however, it could cure traditional problems rendering assignments invalid, e.g. insufficient description. The declaratory action could be used to determine the true holder, but it would still likely keep the party making the invalid assignment to mers or trust X on the hook to any bond holders.
In short, I think bond holders need to assert their rights and seek putbacks and then it will force the affected party to seek likewise down the chain... ultimately, the goal is to make the first party that screwed up (invalidly assigned a mortgage) to be stuck with the turd home and eat the loss. The problem is the turd eaters are likely either .gov or TBTF... but, I'm pretty sure these bondholder suits have already been started... there will only be more... and will create some comedy gold... "shitbird scandanavian municipality sues X corp, who is partially owned by bankrupt fraud spewing Y sovereign (USA)"... all kinds of screwed up.
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for them and all other counties to simply change the law regarding recording of mortgages and assignments and state that every change must be recorded or there is no foreclosure recourse in that county? Associate fees with each change, past or present, and its done. Right? It seems to me without foreclosure recourse, the mortgage holders have no choice but to comply.
Pretty much. All they have to do is repeal the exemption for assignments and, if necessary, expressly require any lien transfers to be recorded or, otherwise, they're void. The issue isn't recourse... recourse has to do with when there is a deficiency in the difference between the amount owed on the note and the value of the property. In other words, in a recourse state, the note holder could still foreclose, but it would have to be after a judgment on the note and not through the mortgage AND it would be subject to any other liens on the property (lower priority)... and the deficiency after sale of all the debtor's non-exempted assets would then be garnished from the debtor.
Again, priority.
Bless you Jeff Thigpen, and true public servant, do your job, uncorrupted and competently. Thank You.
MoMentum.
The problem lies with these "PREDATORY BORROWERS" who prey mercilously on these poor banks and mortgage companies. How did our country get so rat fucked that people think A) they deserve obscene compensation for producing nothing of value like these banksters or B) they deserve a free house they cant afford by virtue of being unable to afford it. Buy a mobile home you indigent fucks.
How dare the peasants expect a free handout, give the handouts to the banks and corporations that caused the financial crisis that makes sense. Two wrongs doesn't equal a right, but so far the common man has gotten the short end of the stick. Business as usual.
This is the natural and necessary conclusion to the nanny state.
Ya think? Does that mean there's a ray of hope?
The ray of hope appears as a tidal wave racing towards us... if you are lucky enough not to be swept back to sea or otherwise drown, then the future might be a little brighter. Of course, this presupposes that there are no noahs arks out there to ride out the storm... and I have a sneaking suspicion that there are more than a few already christened.
BTW, fuck you and the stupid pig you live with and anyone that looks like either, with a barbed-wire hot dog. Twice.
s l o w l y.
Wow Crumbles, that is one of the finest punches I've seen thrown here at the fight club. Well done sir.
re: B) In NC, it just may be the mobile home is title-impaired by a wealthy bankster, Dickhead. Out of work and po' folks that can't find any sort of job right now.
well it sounded good while it lasted.
Duplicate
I think Mr Thigpen will fail by going to State and Treasury level. He will get squashed in the mush.
What he should be doing is going straight for the jugular and suing MERS direct for loss of fees and usurping national law that gives property documentation titles to local States. No beating around the bush, no nonsense negotiations, no political footballs.
Keep it simple and straightforward Mr Thigpen, the path you've chosen is like expecting the US Govt who helped create this WS mess to turncoat. You will fail completely (unless your goal is to be bought off in the process!)
to by Zero Govt
on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 12:57
Love the "zero govt; how can that be made to happen?
and you're a clear thinker re Thigpen and his quest. He should file against MERS directly, which is where the problem is. Anything else is a loser. Also why sue the fed gov and cost taxpayers and himself more money...
the way to end Govt is easy peazy ...a public petition
...if you can get enough signatories to sign up that they do not want Govt. There will be 10's of millions with that attitude in the years to come as both US and European Govts are following the suicide socialist path to self destruction (100% guaranteed).
The key is to get the argument across in the coming 'window of opportunity' over the next 4-5 years (we hit rock bottom in 2017 if the cycles are right). Lots of angry people, lots of unemployed people to get the message across that Govt is the spanner in the works of society, that it's not the solution but the problem
Holy shit... a petition? This needs to go into the internet record books. Even if we have a thermonuclear war that wipes out centuries of knowledge, I hope this gem stays...
Yes.... a simple.... Petition
as simple as a sentence on a piece of paper that says fraud is illegal and sits on a shaded shelf in Washington gathering dust... that's called the "law" this is called a "Petition" ....as simple as that.
when millions of citizen sign a Petition it is of itself a public mandate and becomes a social and political event.
Just as simple as a million people simply getting out on the street and telling their parasitical Govt to 'fuk off'...
...that simple ...that effective
A petition, in and of itself, is completely and totally meaningless without the directive to resort to physical violence should the petition's mandate not be implemented. So, unless you are willing to sign the petition in blood, you might as well not waste your time... because it will be tossed in the trash bin of whatever executive's desk it happens to cross... including the commander in chief. You could have 300 million americans sign it...
Why should he sue? On what grounds? His attorney is going to say, we have a snowball's chance... you're crazy... and you need to take it up with the legislature, fix the exemptions, and then we'll talk.
The fundamental issue is that the recorder IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECORDING FEES FOR EVERY DEED OR LIEN. The recorder is only entitled to these fees when one records... and there is no requirement for recording... rather, there is incentive through priority.
This guy is a complete idiot.
Machoman
The States were given the rights to record title of property transactions in their State over national Govt precisely to protect the citizen from abuse by national Govt. The WS and Fanny/Freddie fabricated MERS system usurped that safeguard which Washington in their usual bend-over to Big Banks waved through. Mr Thigpen has grounds based on that national Law to recover the fees MERS shareholders literally defrauded from the States
On that basis, I think we all should be able to recover our losses. Does the theory cover individuals?
You have no idea what you are talking about... The states have the right to impose laws regarding their property. The problem is that THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO COLLECT RECORDING FEES FROM SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS. Mr. Thigpen's locale chose not to... it's as simple as that.
Machoman
"...A number of class action lawsuits and civil racketeering suits have arisen against MERS recently, including a suit alleging its members owe California $60-120 billion for circumventing land recording fees..."
circumventing land recording fees sounds to me like there is already State processes in place which have been circumvented! And I've read at least a couple of articles with similar claims that States are protected in national (Washington) legislation precisely to stop national or centralist forces from taking over property. This is precisely what MERS was formed to do by WS and the Govt quangos Fanny and Freddie, to usurp US States powers which is the goal of all monopolists who can't be arsed dealing at micro level (see also your 401k)
What does this have to do with the letter posted? Also, I hope you realize filing a lawsuit does not mean you actually have a cause of action that will see a decision on the merits... or that you have any chance of success if you can keep it from dismissal/summary judgment. I'm not going to dig up california statutes to see... so, if you want to cite a particular case or statute, then I'd be willing to discuss in the context of california... however, every state is different and the dumbass who wrote the letter in the present case has already shot off both feet.
Maybe so, idiot that he may be; he raises the level of consciousness a bit and perhaps someone will offer him a pathway through the law. Really, Legislation is occasionally quick and if the State of NC is broke, a fast Mil and a half, plus ongoing revenue for every time an assignee changes (for 'chain of title' of course) is always appreciated. And 'fugly the bankers for a change' is strong political speech. It could even be a negative tax credit and allow the State to go back a few years for which no filing was done - Create waves at least. Go Jeff!
Right. I agree that this charade is likely to end up in new legislation and acts to put such legislation on the fast track. However, the former fees are water under the bridge. They cannot try and collect after the fact. The legislation would only affect prospective assignments. I have a sneaking suspicion that the number of assignments will be... err... smaller going forward.
The neat part is that the state may enact punitive fees for assignments given the only places making assignment would be national chains... of course, punitive fees in this regard would just make it more difficult for local banks to offload bad local mortgages to national lenders/us gov. Self fulfilling prophecy. [This is what local governments don't want to admit... their local lenders benefitted from the lack of assignment fees... which helped them offload their bad loans onto national lenders/.gov... now that the gravy train is running to an end, they want to change the rule... fine].
I still think this is nonsense... the big issue is going to be property taxes... all this joker is doing is displaying how desperate state and local governments are to collect tax revenue. They can't tax their citizenry first, so they need national candidates to step up to the plate and, if not, to be created. I suspect that as .gov takes over RRE, .state will jack up the property taxes :)... everyone piles into the property that's in private hands and when .gov sells, the rest gets filled in and we're back to scratch.
“As Register of Deeds, I have two primary responsibilities in land records: a sworn duty to protect the chain of title and a fiduciary responsibility to collect recording fees. Quite frankly, MERS has undermined both. Through their own “private for-profit” Register of Deeds mortgage tracking office, MERS has created a dangerous centralization of power whose sole purpose is to protect and serve the interests of major banking conglomerates and undermine public recording offices,” said Thigpen.
WHY THE HELL ARE YOU JUST FIGURING THIS OUT NOW???????????
I've been asking myself the same question about a lot of things related to sub-prime and world econ. collapse. I think that people who got laws passed, changed, or rescinded, though, and those who did the passing/changing/rescinding DID realize what the consequences would be. They got rich and piss on the rest of us.
I'll guess he's planning to announce a candidacy for a position higher than (dog catcher) recorder of deeds. I won't even try to figure out whether he's looking to pad his resume or hoping for a campaign contribution from MERS. Or all the above.
+1 ...i have the same suspicions of Mr Thigpens crusade!
..and similar ones with State Attorney Generals 'joining' with WS's favourite bend-over, Timmay Gitner at Treasury to 'investigate' the MERS scandal. Nothing good will ever come of 'joining' with the 'Crones of Crime & Grime' at Treasury... expect another fuking whitewash same as the 'investigation' of the financial disaster which 'recommended' stronger legislation (ie. even MORE power for the Crones of Crime to destroy competitors to the WS fraudsters)
$1.3 mil is the prize. reason enough to go after criminals and I hope he gets them
Me too. The outcome will be interesting.
This is patently ridiculous. First, he admitted that assignments in his locale were not required to be filed. Second, the recordation acts inherently benefit those who record and punish those who do not through changes in respective priority. In other words, there is no inherent requirement/punishable offense that all deeds be recorded... rather, those deeds that are not recorded will be cast aside in favor of recorded deeds/claims. It's pretty simple. The choice is up to the interested parties whether or not to go through the expense of recording, but if they do, then the law will provide them with benefits. The question has always been whether or not the juice is worth the squeeze. All he needs to do is lobby to require the recording of assignments and a large part of this mess will be promptly taken care of. [the non-requirement to record assignments is a uniform law I believe].
I sent a copy of this link to my county recording office. I had just gone there last week to talk to them about this very matter and took with a copy of the ruling by that NY Federal Bankruptcy Judge where he called MERS "absurd." The county had no idea what MERS was or how it worked. So, I explained it to them and the guy listened intently because, as it so turns out, he had HIS mortgage transfered to Citimortgage also. Luckily, here in Texas, you DO have to record the deed!
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Texas Property Code Sec.13.001. VALIDITY OF UNRECORDED INSTRUMENT.(a)A conveyance of real property or an interest in real property or a mortgage or deed of trust is void as to a creditor or to a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice unless the instrument has been acknowledged, sworn to, or proved and filed for record as required by law.
Right. This is exactly what I am talking about. Even when a recording act requires deeds (or assignments) to be filed, IT ONLY AFFECTS PRIORITY. In other words, if the transfer is void, then the county recorder is not entitled to any fees... again, the only time a recorder is entitled to fees is if you choose to record your transaction. Otherwise, you're simply taking a risk with your priority or the validity of your lien. This is what the poor schmuck who wrote the letter does not understand...
The funny thing about real estate is it's tendency to stay in the same place. That "same place" is where it should be recorded, not some dumb database run by cronies.