- advertisements -
MERS's problem that can not be "fixed" is they do not have any money or real interest in the property, MERS assignments are subject to attack for this and other reasons. Forclosure in MERS name were prohibited by OCC in 2010...the truth of 8 million failed loans...yet to be written..
Does this mean that Biden is going on the terrorist/no fly list?
I fully expect this to get very ugly, very quick.
And yes this is a political move. The dismantling of MERS has finally received the blessing of the powers that be-that may or may not be a good thing depending on restitution to the truly aggrieved. Let's hope this apple fell a little further away from the tree.
It's amazing / amusing to me that the US can threaten a sovereign nation regarding their financial records being kept private as the case with swiss bank accounts, but it takes 16 years for the Biden controlled state of Deleware to acknowledge their laws of incorporation may have been less than adequate in preventing a sham entity like MERS.
What other corporations have hidden under the watchful eyes of the Biden's?
This is the root to stabilizing the real estate market on a legal basis, the fraud brought on by lenders is a seperate step in the long way back. To say that technology and the warpspeed was necessary to break our land laws is ridiculous. Seems more letters are in order, and thank you to our Atty Generals that remain vigilant in fighting the good fight.
This lawsuit will go nowhere, and 4closurefraud will never mention it again.
Shut up dopey.
Is that you, Janis or Karmela?
BURN THAT BITCH!
MERS - AKA - The Secret Electronic Mortgage Society.
This link is to a *gasp* blog. The ad-free Foreclosure Hamlet. If you don't like blogs don't click it.
Bevilaqua v. Rodriguez (What does it tell us?)
Zombie lenders maintain homeowners have no right to challenge assignments. The MA Judicial Supreme Court (Oct. 18, 2011) calls bullshit on that citing COMMON LAW.
That means (to me) homeowners DO have the right to challenge assignments in either a Lien Theory state or a Title Theory state.
It is common practice to include contractual provisions in the mortgage/note that they can be assigned (and thus assigned without challenge/objection from the mortgagor/borrower). Not sure what this is getting at...
Forget Credit Default Swaps and all that for a minute. (Described nicely by Neil Garfield below - the 9-minute mark is where it get's good.)
Foreclosure Defense - What You Need To Know
I see "original" Notes all day long that contain material differences. I see loans being sold all the time to investors *after* foreclosure actions have been initiated.
Bottom line here to me is this - and I use an analogy that should resonate well on ZH.
If everyone who held in their hand a contract that entitled them to X ounces of gold suddenly called them in for physical delivery - are there really that many ounces of gold?
I truly believe there are more Notes out there than actual houses. That is why, on the rare occasion, a sly attorney manages to persuade a court to grant on Order to compel a response to discovery requests, alleged lenders seek open-ended extensions for more time and/or seek a protective order.
What would motivate them to do that?
It's common place in business litigation... literally, all day every day. When you respond to discovery requests, you throw in a blanket objection for "proprietary information" or some bullshit like that... the whole point of answering discovery requests is to answer without actually answering... the art of the non-answer if you will. But, sometimes you simply outright object... and, in this case, the natural response by the original requesting party is to simply sign a protective order... who gives a shit if the world knows? As long as your client wins (gets the information), who cares...
Now, if they are the prosecuting party and decide to delay inevitably (also causing waste to the collateral), then I think you've got something... I can't fathom, practically, there is any other answer other than they doubt their own standing to pursue the lawsuit.
The problem with protesting your assignment because of the suspicion of "extra" notes floating around is probably not going to get very far... might even be sanctionable if you can't back it up any better... especially in cases where the protesting party has executed an agreement that expressly contemplates downstream assignments AND that the protesting party has a contractual obligation to acknowledge the assignee... presuming, of course, that proper notice is given. Ultimately, you're going to have to prove that the particular assignment in question is an "extra" assignment... good luck with that. It probably requires a "fishing expedition" not likely to be granted by ANY judge. (you'd at least need a favorable judge assignment... any, "by the book" kind of judge would throw that shit out).
Practically speaking, you've got an indigent client and this type of discovery is going to take a lot of time... not saying it ultimately wouldn't lead to anything, but JFC... not gonna happen in 99.9999999% of the cases. And, frankly, deadbeats aren't a favorite of the law... even as against shitass lenders and their assignees.
Here's a great one. Defendant's Counsel "discovers" 4 "original" notes in a contested f/c. One is endorsed in blank, two are endorsed to different lenders, and another has only one witness, the others have two. All of them are dated and notarized one full year prior to the closing date (to back before they were aquired). At that time everyone in the building knew the originator had been aquired per SEC statements except the borrower.
In this case, an OCC inquiry was made on behalf of the borrower by a US Senator. The alleged lender responded to the OCC complaint that the Note had not been sold. In the meantime, two execs from the alleged lender asserted that the Note had been sold to an investor and persuant to their proprietary agreement it was none of their business.
Counsel for the alleged lender proceeded to schedule an ex-parte MSJ despite answers/counter claims filed by defendants counsel.
It's like committing a crime and saying you're not guilty because you made a proprietary "trade secret" with your fellow burglars.
WAAAAAA? Please do this to me lol... I wish someone would try...
There has to be more to the story... Generally speaking, around these parts (especially in federal court), the court would even laugh that one out... let alone the beatdown that would ensue from a capable attorney on the other side.
The fact that there are 4 "original" notes, in and of iteself, does no damage to the purported borrower. Now, when the assignees of the bogus notes get pissed that they got ripped off, then they sue the seller and the purported borrower... herp derp. Borrower goes back to title company that handled the closing (because no one actually keeps copies of these documents) and gets a copy of the original... (or heads down to the courthouse to get the only one that's actually filed)... check and mate. [now, if all 4 notes were assigned to these folks, you might have some problems... but they won't be able to prove that to the court's satisfaction I'm sure... once you raise the plausible inference, it's curtains].
Now, an answer or counterclaim isn't enough to withstand a M4SJ... what typically happens is the creditor signs an affidavit that X bugger owed X$ to Y and we're the assignee of Y. Then, as any good defense attorney would do, the borrower (bugger) signs an affidavit that he doesn't owe shit. A fact question remains and the motion is defeated... all day every day...
If an order is improperly entered, then they can seek to set it aside... if the judge won't budge, then appeal... obvious procedural errors are really, really easy decisions for appellate courts. (they'll do anything not to actually decide the merits of a case). You just have to nudge them into the whole, "you can serve justice AND not do anything (actually dive into the merits)" gig.
And no, it's not like commiting a crime and saying you're not guilty because your methods are proprietary... This whole argument is instantly and easily defeated with a protective order... happens every day. Maybe that's their story to congress critters or government investigators, but that shit doesn't fly in real court.
The Wakulla County (2nd circuit, FLA - Deutsche v. Graham et al) judge just ordered a very thorough "Request For Production". They key component of the very detailed production request = if any claim of privelege is made - who are they made between. Makes a great cite as well as Bevilaqua. The case I referenced above resulted in 200 pages of affidavits filed by Defendants Counsel. Counter claims included forgery, fraud on the court, and a ton of other shit. Luckily they found it on the docket and counsel for alleged lender cancelled the MSJ hearing they set ex-parte. Otherwise a writ of possession. Bogus. I believe the case will be dismissed w/o prejudice. Strike 1. Three strikes you're out. They've already spent more in legal fees than the house is worth and will be reponsible for defendant's fees to boot if it gets dismissed.
If a homebuyer wanted a Fannie conventional was it possible to ever "opt out" of MERS at closing? I don't remember being given a choice. You either signed right then or you lost your deal. How many folks were ever even told what MERS was/did?
I still don't think anybody but MERS knows what MERS is supposed to do. According to them they can do anything they want.
Beau Biden related to Joe? Both from Delaware, so must be. Anyhoo, seems like MERS was set up purposefully to defraud county registrars of their fees and to easily transfer stolen (foreclosed) properties to banksters. Without any assets, there will be no restitution from MERS, only a trail of stolen dollars residing in bankster coffers. Yecch!
How can you purposefully defraud county registrars when recording isn't required AND the laws were changed in most jurisdictions to facilitate the assignment of mortgages without the requirement to record the assignment?
The former point is lost on too many people associated with this issue... I'll say it once again for emphasis because I suspect it will be a topic of much discussion in this thread (as it is always)... YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RECORD ANY DEED OR OTHER INSTRUMENT IN LAND... THERE IS NO RECORDING POLICE... YOUR PENALTY IS NATURALLY BUILT IN TO YOUR FAILURE IN THAT YOU DO NOT GET PRIORITY AGAINST RECORDED LIENS IF YOU FAIL TO FILE YOUR MORTGAGE... It's not that complicated...
If you want to pay the recording fees and partake in the state's recording acts and get priority over other prospective lienholders, then you pay... If not, then you go to the back of the bus. It's a simple business decision...
The proper penalty for these unrecorded assignments should be to dump them to the back of the line... and let the fly by night third mortgages take the lead.
I'm not an attorney like you and I read your posts regularly and think you are pretty sharp, but please be patient here: Couldn't MERS still claim to be in senior position with the first mortgage (in your scenario with a possible third mortgage) if there is no law to record, as you say? Also, how can a database "own" anything? And how can non-employees of MERS really have the authority to "transfer" anything?
MERS can still claim anything... as can any downstream assignee... all of the rights given to MERS (and its employees) are contractual. If the contracts don't give MERS the authority to act as it does, then its acts are likely invalid... there are many versions of MERS contracts and each rests upon its own language...
I think that MERS (whomever it purports to be the holder) actually is first in priority under the law (presuming its upstream assignor filed first). Most states have allowed the assignment of mortgages without the need to record... As a result, the recording acts expressly allow and protect the assingees.
However, given the "loss" of transfer documents combined with the refusal to record (making determination of the true holder a futile effort), I think the proper equitable remedy/sanction is to shove the first mortgages to the back of the line... if there is no one else in line, then the mortgage gets first priority... In the end, it should be good as against the mortgagee no matter what (the mortgagee can't in good conscience sign the mortgage and pretend it doesn't exist... this is what the law imposes).
When I say "there is no law to record," I mean that no one is under any affirmative duty to record... (and, thus, no one has an affirmative duty to pay recording fees if they have a mortgage). The trick is whether you want to partake in your jurisdiction's recording acts. Sometimes, as in the case of many jurisdictions, even under the recording acts you don't have to record to receive their protection (the best laws money can buy, right?). Apparently the recorders' offices didn't get the memo.
thanks for the clarification.
Beau is Joe's son.
It was designed to facilitate a once liquid MBS market. It had an added benefit of avoding recording fees.
It's such a mess that it's a Too Big To Address problem.
The suit seeks a civil penalty against MERS of up to $10,000 for each willful violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as restitution to borrowers who were harmed by these violations. The exact amount will be determined during trial.
Is anything criminal anymore?
Isn't it possible that MERS aided and abetted in the selling of mortgages multiple times (i.e., putting them into different trusts)? Did they destroy paperwork (evidence)? Is this a fishing expedition that could lead to criminal indictments? I have to believe that there is more to MERS than a "shadowy registry that is unreliable and inaccurate."
Will the County Recorders of Deeds be made whole by this action?
Taylor Bean and Whitaker manufactured lots of fake mortgages to sustain cash flow. This guy was part of the no Criminal Left Behind Initiative.
The owner of what was one of the nation’s largest privately held mortgage companies was convicted in federal court Tuesday of masterminding a nearly $3 billion mortgage fraud scheme.
Lee Bentley Farkas, 58, of Ocala, Fla., the owner and chairman of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, was found guilty of all 14 charges against him for his role in defrauding investors and banks. The jury deliberated for a day and a half before returning its verdict.
If you're going to get recovery for a circumvention of recording rules (which I believe has been made expressly legal in the vast majority of jurisdictions), then you're going to have to pay back any increased tax revenues from the increase in property values caused by MERS... can't eat your cake and have it too.
PS, if you don't want to record, you don't have to... however, if you violate a state's recording statute, then you can't partake in the state's protection...
Hmm, please to explain how trashing a Real Estate title via MERS increases property values.
It doesn't in the long run, but it certainly aids in the short term real estate machine and the distribution of massive amounts of loans to the american populace and... thus helps keep an unnatural bid under the properties. Essentially, it is just another mechanism or method from which cheap credit flows. (it's not the genesis of the nominal increases in property values, but it does aid the creator).
In short, it helps in temporarily increasing/sustaining property values and, thus, the taxes collected on the properties...
The point is that while property prices were going through the roof (and creating a tax bubble as well), the recorders didn't say shit... counties didn't say shit... because they were racking up the dough as a middle man for cheap credit (tax revenue). If they want to now go back and put the parties where they should have been had there not been a bubble, by requiring MERS to pay recording fees, then that's fine... these counties can give back all of the tax receipts marginally created from MERS. [aside from the fact that the lion's share of states, by virtue of model recording acts, exempted assignments from any recording requirement AND still gave assignments priority so long as the first mortgage was recorded].
NO ONE. NO ONE is sincerely attempting to tackle this issue... this is political grandstanding from jackoff county political wannabes... or, in this case, the same with an AG (which itself is just a figure head role to fill the governor's seat). Cash in on some popular sentiment while you can I guess.
At best you get a crybaby that's whining over sour grapes...
As this spreads, and it will, it will have at least 100 X the impact of the ongoing Greek Tragedy.
The banks take it from both ends on this.
Need name to pursue this in texas - Attorney. Found one but he oddly doesn't want more work on a case he already won... Please advise.
DO NOT LEAVE YOUR HOUSES !!!.......YOU ALREADY OWN THEM !!!......FIGHT BACK
How about going after JPM, BAC, WF & Citi for the shit they have been and are still doing, bitchez!
Those are MERS banks - so it stops them. All the big Wall Street banks ARE MERS!
MERS never received permission from any of the states to set up their scheme. Drive this bastardized quasilegal bankster-profiteering database out of business permanetly.
Nobody gave a damn as long as the housing bubble was inflating. Crony capitalism works that way.
yes, I don't remember county recorders voicing any concern (with the exception of a couple of them in NY state who were told to accept MERS and mind their own business).
We are no longer a society ruled by law, we no longer have a free and independent press and we do not have honest money; this is not going to end well but it will end. The rodeo is near.
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.