How to Use MERS on Deed of Trust or Mortgage

Many Thanks to Sal for pointing out the statute from California.

It is time to use the presence of MERS on the originating loan paperwork as an OFFENSIVE TACTIC. Most states have some version of the statute below. It is simply common sense. A creditor is not a creditor unless they are owed something. A beneficiary is not a beneficiary unless they are a creditor. In the case of a mortgage note, a beneficiary is not a creditor unless it is the obligee on the note (i.e., the one to whom the note directs payment). There is no escaping this logic.

The point is that designating MERS as beneficiary or mortgagee is the same as designating nobody at all. The range of options for the Judge include several possibilities. But the one I think we should concentrate on is that an ambiguity has been raised on the face of every Deed of Trust or Mortgage Deed naming MERS as the beneficiary or mortgagee.  That being the case, it MUST BE JUDICIALLY DETERMINED by a trier of fact (Judge or Jury). Without having a benficiary or mortgagee identified, there obviously can be no enforcement.

So the strategy here would be to force the would-be forecloser (pretender lender) to file a lawsuit establishing the note and mortgage (or deed of trust) by identifying the beneficiary or mortgagee. It would also enable you, in the face of a reluctant judge, to press for expedited discovery for information that the would-be foreclosing trustee or attorney should have had before they started. And this leads to a request for an evidentiary hearing — the kiss of death for pretender lenders unless you don’t know your rules fo evidence (a subject covered in depth in our courses currently in development).

California Mortgage and Deed of Trust Practice § 1.39 (3d ed Cal CEB 2008)

§ 1.39 (1) Must Be Obligee

The beneficiary must be an obligee of the secured obligation (usually the payee of a note), because otherwise the deed of trust in its favor is meaningless. Watkins v Bryant (1891) 91 C 492, 27 P 775; Nagle v Macy (1858) 9 C 426. See §§ 1.8-1.19 on the need for an obligation. The deed of trust is merely an incident of the obligation and has no existence apart from it. Goodfellow v Goodfellow (1933) 219 C 548, 27 P2d 898; Adler v Sargent (1895) 109 C 42, 41
P 799; Turner v Gosden (1932) 121 CA 20, 8 P2d 505. The holder of the note, however, can enforce the deed of trust
whether or not named as beneficiary or mortgagee. CC § 2936; see § 1.23.

28 Responses

  1. I have a question for you all. I have been helping people with federal filings concerning the mortgage issue. It seems with MERS we have missed something very obvious. As I understand, a mortgage or deed of trust is a grant of privilege from the borrower to the lender. With the addition of MERS the borrower purports to transfer beneficial interest from the lender to MERS and to appoint an agent to represent the lender.

    While the borrower can grant certain privileges, the borrower cannot grant what the borrower does not hold. The borrower has no power to grant beneficial status to anyone. Neither does the borrower have the power to determine who represents the lender as an agent or nominee or whatever they want to call the agent.

    A look at the mortgage or deed of trust will show that the lender did not affirm the concessions that can only be granted by the lender.

    Did I miss something or is all this huffing and puffing about MERS off point as MERS never entered the contract in the first place.

  2. I have entered in to a short sale (FHA pre-foreclosure) and I have just seen a MERS “Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust. My loan was refinanced in 3/2009 and this document was dated 2/2012. It sent red flags off. Wonder if mt re-finance was not recorded correctly.

  3. HI ALVIE C.

    I also am in california with similar problem. Bankruptcy courts delayed sale for two years and I am ready to start that again or possibly in California court and then to BR court. also PROSE
    and MERS and service by Carrington Mortgage.

    Durring this period I have now gone underwater and even though the property value is way down, Carrington refuses to do a short sale to my daughter to present market, and they refuse to do the HAMP Obama program. Either way they are shooting themselves in the foot.

    Since we are both in Cal, I would like to make contact. fax 510-742-6686.

    Ron

  4. I have an issue in the state of Florida that noone seems to give me a straight answer on. I purchased a property out of foreclosure and paid cash (borrowed from my grandmother) I did get a mortgage but did not add my spouses name because we were living together and engaged but not married yet. We both moved into the property at the same time. However I did received a Special warranty deed at closing and had it sent to my parents home.. Six months later I refinanced and added my spouse to the mortgage and note, the bank tells me the mortgage is recorded as the deed. Both parties were on the homested so I did not check title. I have since paid the mortgage off and now the spouse that I am no longer married to says the bank says that I should sue the title company because both names were not placed on the deed when the property was refinanced for the same amount as the original mortgage for a lower intrest rate.Can anyone give me a straight answer. I do not understand why or how this could be legal that both names were not placed on the deed as ownership of the property or a quit claim deed signed or something. The title company is avoiding all of my questions and will not furnish a copy of the closing package. Please Help!

  5. MERS Cases: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
    in From The Orb
    By T. Robert Finlay & Nicholas G. Hood on Friday 22 January 2010

    comments: 0

    REQUIRED READING: There is little doubt that America is infatuated with convenience and efficiency. The assembly line, the microwave, the Internet, speed dating and drive-thrus are just a few examples.

    Another example, not as publicly well known or understood as the foregoing, is the MERS system of registering and tracking transfer of interests in deeds of trust. Incorporated in 1997, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) revolutionized mortgage banking. By acting as the designated “holder” of a loan’s security instrument – albeit, as a nominee for the holder of the loan – MERS circumvents the administrative hurdle of publicly recording documents that reflect each sale or transfer of a secured home loan. As a result, the common burdens, inefficiencies and expenses associated with selling or transferring secured home loans were greatly minimized.

    Unfortunately, with convenience and efficiency, come negative side-effects. The assembly line, the microwave, the Internet, speed dating and drive-thrus arguably brought on poor quality, obesity and antisocial behavior. Similarly, with the ease of transfer of loans under MERS, some argue, came a substantial factor in the exploitation of the subprime lending market by unscrupulous lenders. In fact, many defaulted borrowers continue to allege that the MERS system permitted numerous lenders and investors to play “hot potato” with their subprime loans, which they naively believe caused the nation’s current housing crisis.

    Finding MERS’ nominee relationship incomprehensible, many defaulted borrowers filing lawsuits today, in an attempt to thwart, or at least delay, foreclosure, allege that MERS’ role as nominee illegally splits the loan from its security instrument, rendering the loan unsecured. Although it is true, with exception, that the law requires a loan and its security instrument to be owned by one entity, these defaulted borrowers attempt to stretch the law beyond its intent.

    Nevertheless, courts across the country are having trouble reconciling MERS’ relationship loans and its security instruments. Using a title from one of Clint Eastwood’s best movies, here is the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the recent MERS debate in the courts.

    The good
    The first recent noteworthy judicial decision favoring MERS is the case of Ramos v. MERS. There, the Federal District Court of Nevada rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that MERS, as nominee beneficiary, “has no rights or powers to confer upon the [foreclosure] trustee the power to sell” in a deed of trust. The Ramos court held that since Nevada law permits a deed of trust’s beneficiary to foreclose, and because the deed of trust expressly named MERS as its beneficiary, MERS was legally empowered and contractually authorized by the borrower to foreclose and appoint a substitute foreclosure trustee.

    Several months after the Ramos case, came the Supreme Court of Minnesota’s decision in Jackson v. MERS. In Jackson, the plaintiffs argued that MERS could not commence foreclosure proceedings because the numerous assignments of the underlying promissory note had not been publicly recorded, in violation of Minnesota law.

    Although Minnesota does require the recording of all mortgage assignments before initiating foreclosure, the court in this case distinguished an assignment of the mortgage from an assignment of only the promissory note.

    The court articulated that “…an assignment of only the promissory note, which carries with it an equitable assignment of the security instrument, is not an assignment of legal title that must be recorded….” In rendering its decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that nominee mortgagees, like MERS, can “hold legal title of the security instrument without holding an interest in the promissory note” since the equitable beneficiary interest – or “real ownership” – in the security is held by the noteholder, which keeps the note and mortgage intertwined.

    Bucci v. Lehman Bros. Bank FSB, from the Superior Court of Rhode Island, is another recent judicial decision in favor of MERS. Similar to the court in Ramos v. MERS, the Bucci court held that MERS had both a contractual and statutory right to commence foreclosure proceedings. First, the Bucci court recognized that the language in the mortgage expressly granted “MERS as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns” the “Statutory Power of Sale” and right to foreclose.

    Second, the Bucci court reasoned that even though MERS is acting as nominee and does not have a beneficial interest in the note, the express designation in the mortgage that MERS is the “mortgagee” permitted MERS to initiate foreclosure proceedings as a mortgagee pursuant to the Rhode Island law.

    A final notable decision in favor of MERS is Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. In this case, the Federal District Court of Arizona dismissed MERS from the action, holding that: (1) MERS, by acting as a nominee beneficiary and never owning or acquiring a beneficial interest in the promissory note, is not a “sham” beneficiary, and (2) the MERS system of tracking assignments of promissory notes, as opposed to public recordings, is not fraudulent.

    While MERS was given a legal boost in 2009, MERS also received a few interesting defeats.

    The bad
    The bad starts in the Midwest, with the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision in Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC. There, the court held that because “MERS never held the promissory note…its assignment of the deed of trust to [the assignee] separate from the note had no force,” and, thus, the assignee was without any legal interest in the deed of trust. The Bellistri court relied on the general legal premise that if the note and its deed of trust are separated and not held by the same person, then the note becomes unsecured.

    However, the Bellistri decision may have relied more on counsel’s failure to explain MERS’ agency relationship with its principal noteholders, rather than a finding that the note and deed of trust were actually separated. In fact, the court acknowledged that when the holder of the deed of trust is the agent for the holder of the note, a separation or “splitting” does not occur, leaving the deed of trust unaffected and valid.

    Relying, in part, on the holding of Bellistri, the Supreme Court of Kansas recently stunned the industry with its decision of Landmark National Bank v. Kesler. In Landmark, MERS was acting as the nominee mortgagee for a second mortgage. When the first lienholder filed a petition to foreclose, neither MERS nor its principal noteholder were named parties or given notice of the litigation.

    As a result, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the first lienholder. MERS unsuccessfully challenged the ruling. The Supreme Court found that since MERS did not have any tangible interest in the mortgage (i.e., it was not a beneficiary, did not issue the loan and was not entitled to collect on the debt), it was not entitled to notice.

    Fortunately, the Landmark Court seemed to imply that it was merely deciding whether the lower trial court acted appropriately, not whether MERS was technically entitled to notice. However, the case could be interpreted both ways, and you can be sure which way the borrowers will read it: If MERS does not have an interest in the mortgage to entitle it to notice, it does not have the right to foreclose.

    Another recent negative MERS decision is In Re Hawkins. In Hawkins, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada held that MERS did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was entitled to lift a bankruptcy stay on foreclosure. The Hawkins court did acknowledge that Nevada only permits enforcement of a note by its holder (i.e., the person to whom the instrument is made payable) or a nonholder in possession with the rights of the holder, but the court found MERS did not prove it was either.

    As was the case with the Bellistri court, the Hawkins court recognized that a note cannot be split from its deed of trust, but it also noted the exception of when the holder of the deed of trust is the agent for the holder of the note. As such, the Hawkins court indicated that had MERS proven it was the actual agent for the holder of the note, then MERS would have likely been able to lift the bankruptcy stay, albeit, only in the name of its principal.

    The ugly
    While extremely limited in scope, the holdings of Bellistri, Landmark and Hawkins have opened the door for numerous class action lawsuits in Arizona, Nevada and California. These class action plaintiffs claim that MERS’ designation as beneficiary under their deeds of trust impermissibly splits the promissory note from its deed of trust, rendering the note unsecured.

    On this basis, the class action plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin all foreclosures in Arizona, Nevada and California. Fortunately, there have not been any broad injunctions issued as of yet. The cases are currently awaiting a decision from the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) panel on whether to centralize the cases before one judge. Co-author Robert Finlay had the privilege of sitting in on the MDL hearing in early November at Harvard Law School. Interestingly, half of the lender defendants argued for centralization, while Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, other lenders and the plaintiffs argued to keep the cases in their respective courts.

    A ruling could have been reached by the time this article lands in print. Centralization could be a great result, if the case gets the judge who decided the Cervantes case discussed above. But, centralization with the wrong judge could turn these class actions even uglier.

    In addition to the troublesome class actions, numerous homeowners across the country are filing individual lawsuits also challenging MERS’ role as nominee beneficiary/mortgagee. Not only do these lawsuits greatly delay pending foreclosures and require a substantial amount of money in litigation expenses, but they also create more opportunities for the courts to make decisions like Bellistri, Landmark and Hawkins. This will only cause further trouble for MERS and its principal noteholders.

    Although Bellistri, Landmark and Hawkins provide fodder for the seemingly nationwide attack on MERS, these cases appear to supply the answer for MERS’ plight: demonstrating, elaborating and explaining to the court MERS’ agency relationship with its note-holders.

    Both Bellistri and Hawkins recognized the exception to the rule: When the holder of the security instrument is an agent for the holder of the promissory note, the instruments are not split. Unfortunately, the courts in Bellistri and Hawkins were provided insufficient explanations and evidence to demonstrate that MERS’ agency relationship falls within the exception. Consequently, while such litigation will continue – for the short run, anyway – the net result may be favorable for MERS, with changes in the law that finally recognize and incorporate the utility of the MERS system.

  6. Hello to all,

    I am confused as to the assignments of the deed of trust?
    When I looked at the alleged assignments on my county website, I see two documents filed by Wells Fargo and MERS- Assistance Secretary. I did some research and found that both the people who signed these two documents work for Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP in Addison Texas.
    The assignment of note and deed of trust are signed by a David Seybold – MERS – Assistant Secretary.
    http://www.martindale.com/David-Seybold/1618754-lawyer.htm

    The Appointment of Substitute Trustee is signed by a Stephen C. Porter – VICE PRESIDENT LOAN DOCUMENTATION of Wells Fargo. http://www.martindale.com/Stephen-C-Porter/1618742-lawyer.htm

    From what I’ve found, these guys have been employed by BDFTE as far back as 2005.

    I don’t know what to look for in regards to what should be recorded in Texas. Some stuff I’ve seen appears to have a some type of verbage like this example, “AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2005-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPT2”
    Maybe I’m wrong in my approach? I am trying desperately to defend my home Pro Se. Any information to look for would be appreciated. I have my hearing to compel the defendant to produce the note and I am up against a judge who appears to be friend with the enemy. In fact, as I have dealt with this mess, I find it very difficult to get anywhere in Williamson County, Texas. They appear to dislike Pro Se persons.
    God bless all,

  7. Thank you for pointing these SCAMMERS out. MERS Inc. is the BIGGEST SCAM in American history. It is being perpetuated by the BANKERS and being protected by their croanies in the FBI. It was the brainchild of a guy named Alan Shapiro- who is “counsel” for JP Morgan Chase, B of A, and Wells Fargo (look who’s left in the banking industry). He was also “Private Counsel” to the Bush White House and “Private Counsel” to the US Supreme Court. Mr. Shapiro also was the “Ethics Board Chairman” of the SEC when the ENRON scandal came down (that’s how all of the thousands of complaint letters were destroyed). He owns a company called TAG Inc. that developed all of the “Fraud Tracking” software that the banks use and has access to literally EVERYBODY’S bank accounts. It is because of this reason alone that the DOJ pays him $117,000 annually to be their “Expert Witness on Forensic Economic Crimes”. Why obtain a warrant for somebody’s banking information when all you need to do is call Alan Shapiro? Truth be told, this Alan Shapiro is an “expert” in only one thing- FRAUD!!!!! Here is the SOURCE of the problem folks! I brought my extensive research into the FBI in San Diego about this jerk and all they could say was- “I’m sorry, we can’t help you.” And so, if S#%t really does roll downhill, a great place to stop it from rolling would be for We the People to put this Alan Shapiro FRAUD in the electric chair. And remember folks, this would be outright and blatant SLANDER, if it were not TRUTH!!!!!

  8. In California there is legislation being proposed that would require mandatory mediation before a foreclosure can be initiated. The provisions the California Foreclosure prevention act of 2008 are just not working. Judges don’t uphold what the law says civil code 2023.6 and 2923.6 when the attorneys for the publicly funded Banks (our tax dollars 17.1 Trillion before it all over) oppose individual debtors and claim federal preemption. Our legal system is a rigged game favoring the capital of a capitalist system. In California a nonjudicial state a foreclosure can occur on the mere word of a lender without the original note or assignment of the original deed of trust. A then former homeowner can then be evicted by giving notice to vacate constructively (without notice) have a summons “Posted and Mailed” (again no actual notice) a default judgment taken (no trial) and a writ issued and the Sheriff’s instruction to evict issued and enforced.

    In Non Judicial states like Cal. an action should be filed for declaratory relief that the foreclosure is invalid and void this is the problem in the non Judicial states. See state bar president article No Lawyer No Law Without having a beneficiary or mortgagee identified, there obviously can be no enforcement. The power off sale is contained in Civil 2932 and in California there must be a valid assignment civil code 2932.5 to have the power to foreclose.

  9. No problem.

  10. Mortgage Auditor:

    Thanks very much! You rock! I’m on my way to do some research on this firm!

  11. Ball v. Argent Mortgage Company

    For Erica Ball, Plaintiff: Precious Tyrone Martin, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRECIOUS MARTIN, SR. AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Jackson, MS, US.

  12. Mortgage Auditor,

    There is a case in my state of Mississippi: Ball v. Argent Mortgage Company. If you have the time, resources, or inclination, I’d like to know the name of the plaintiff’s attorney(s) so I can contact them about a fraud/quiet title suit. All I can find online is the judge’s denial of removal and it doesn’t name the attorney(s).

    Thanks!

  13. Mortgage Auditor – Thank you.

    I will look for Florida cases and if you happen to see any that stand out – please post them.

    Thanks again,

    TNL

  14. TNL,

    If you want to read case summaries in general, you should visit Foreclosure Combatant – http://loanaudit.wordpress.com/.
    There you will find opinions and summaries from different jurisdictions in relation to TILA and other foreclosure defense tactics.

    I can look up a specific case for you, if you have the case title.

  15. I am also in a foreclosure process with these people, I have already did discovery and interagoritories, they are now wanting a diposition with me. Their attorney’s are really arrogant and even though I showed them the NOTE they are going on the lost note affidivant and allonges not attached to the note nor were they even dated or signed, notorized. Any suggestions how to proceed.

  16. I’ve gone down to the county courthouse and made copies of my original loan documents. There is nothing on any of the loan documents that mentions my current lender—-anyway. If my mortgage is listed in MERS (which I can’t access) how do I find out who “owns” my mortgage? It’s so confusing.

  17. It sounds like you need to Quiet Title.

    If no one can come forward with a proper claim and best evidence then you get Fee Simple title.

    Question:

    I have been fortunate enough to have survived Summary Judgment, Judge Denied SJ for Plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence it was the Holder of the Note.
    Essentially, Countrywide tried to purport that MERS assigned both the Mortgage and the Note to Countrywide from MERS/America’s Wholesale Lender via an Assignment of Mortgage recorded at the ROD. I caught them in a fraudulent assignment.

    It is my statement of Fact, before a Notary, that the Affidavit used to purport that Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, was the holder of the note and that I was in default, was a Fraud on the Court because the Affiant claimed to be an AVP for both the Assignor and Assignee, all the while the Note was not endorsed and payable to a different entity.

    It is my Statement of Fact, that another entity is the Holder of the Note, this entity is a MBS Trust, and the Plaintiff is merely a Servicer for this trust, and they knowingly committed Fraud on the Court using their Attorneys signed Pleadings.

    I have moved for Rule 11 Sanctions, and to Compel discovery, I will have a phone conference on Discovery Issues in the coming weeks.

    My question is this: Should I file a Motion to Strike the Affidavit as Hearsay? I am not sure if it is necessary because this Complaint cannot continue as the Plaintiff does not have Standing as holder of the Note. Also, if I strike the Affidavit then I could possibly remove evidence of Fraud on the Court from a hearing on this Motion for Sanctions? I dont want that.

    At this point I am gearing up for a Discovery conference. This is not an evidentiary hearing as I understand it, but a “conference” between parties. So I will use the Rules of Evidence that requires parties to at least describe the document that they claim is protected by Privilege, not to revel the info but to determine whether it falls under such relief. I want the PSA, the E-Note Chain of title, and everything else under the moon, and I’ll get it.

    This must be the precursor to the Court compeling them to cooperate.

    I think the Plaintiff would have withdrawn and refiled under the Trustee’s name had I not have moved for Sanctions.

    What do you think Livinglies readers?

  18. Upon futher investigation it seems that the Bank of New York Mellon is successor trustee for JP Morgan Chase as trustee for certificates holders of bear stearns asset backed securties,Inc. Asset backed certificates series2003-2,c/o EMC Mortgage corp it’s successors and assigns , all it’s rights, title interest in and to a certain mortgage, together with the note executed by……… to MERS acting solely as a nominee for RBMG. witnessed and signed by the famous scribble looking like a big U. By one and I believe I’ve seen that name on here before LIQUENDA ALLOTEY as VP !!!!! of MERS. He is also a forclosure specialist for fidility. HMMMM. Let’s see according to the Prospectus of the 2003-2 series we have some major fraud going on. Securities exchange commission needs to start a formal federal investigation. ALOT of BIG companies in volved in this. Can you Believe this anyone wanting to Bust all these people need to contact me. Criminal , fraud, Federal Agency I have it all. Any comments ????

    i

    tony brown, on December 10th, 2009 at 9:57 am Said:
    Please read. Mortage Notes are worthless (not my opinion) FDIC not protecting the public. Here goes long story, I have the note stamped fully paid and satisfied properly endorsed with the signature stamp of the VP of RBMG dated March 18,2002 along with a letter from RBMG stating that the loan is paid in full. RBMG was aquired by NETBANK, The FDIC shut down NETbank September 28,2007.ROD office will not satisfy the mortgage because they say they don’t make copies of the note, only the mortgage go to RBMG for satisfaction of lien. AS stated RBMG/Netbank are in fdic receivership.Now according to the FDIC as long as the loan was paid off prior to the receivership and that the failed corporation is in receivership they can satisfy the lien. proof of payment to include such things as a copy of the “PAID” note, cancelled check , HUd -1 or anything else that would indicate payment in full. I sent the paid note, a letter stating that the loan is paid in full, and a copy of the envelope stamped lien release on the outside. The FDIC refuses to issue the lien release saying the paid in full NOTE is not PROOF that the mortgage has been satisfied!!! The letter is not proof of payment. This is where it get’s even better the FDIC said they went to a public website that shows their has been an assignment from RBMG/MERS to the Bank of New York Mellon on March 19th 2009. RBMG IS DEFUNT has been since the take over by the FDIC in 2007. Mers said the MIN # has been deactivated since 2002 and that the servicer is The FDIC as receiver for NETBANK/ RMBG. I ask 3 supervisors at the FDIC for a formal investigation, I have reported to this to the inspector generals office, the office of omsbudman.I will not stop till I get answers. Media outlets, senators my state attorney general as there is some questionable activity surrounding this. SO forget produce the note cause I can and nobody cares. It is funny that these so-called mortgage companies can sell a non- existent NOTE to in vestors, Take your home by Forclosure on a Lost note / non existent note. But when I have the real thing original in ink paid in full it is not worth the paper it is written on, FDIC, Mers, Morgtage compaines are all crooked!!!

  19. Please read. Mortage Notes are worthless (not my opinion) FDIC not protecting the public. Here goes long story, I have the note stamped fully paid and satisfied properly endorsed with the signature stamp of the VP of RBMG dated March 18,2002 along with a letter from RBMG stating that the loan is paid in full. RBMG was aquired by NETBANK, The FDIC shut down NETbank September 28,2007.ROD office will not satisfy the mortgage because they say they don’t make copies of the note, only the mortgage go to RBMG for satisfaction of lien. AS stated RBMG/Netbank are in fdic receivership.Now according to the FDIC as long as the loan was paid off prior to the receivership and that the failed corporation is in receivership they can satisfy the lien. proof of payment to include such things as a copy of the “PAID” note, cancelled check , HUd -1 or anything else that would indicate payment in full. I sent the paid note, a letter stating that the loan is paid in full, and a copy of the envelope stamped lien release on the outside. The FDIC refuses to issue the lien release saying the paid in full NOTE is not PROOF that the mortgage has been satisfied!!! The letter is not proof of payment. This is where it get’s even better the FDIC said they went to a public website that shows their has been an assignment from RBMG/MERS to the Bank of New York Mellon on March 19th 2009. RBMG IS DEFUNT has been since the take over by the FDIC in 2007. Mers said the MIN # has been deactivated since 2002 and that the servicer is The FDIC as receiver for NETBANK/ RMBG. I ask 3 supervisors at the FDIC for a formal investigation, I have reported to this to the inspector generals office, the office of omsbudman.I will not stop till I get answers. Media outlets, senators my state attorney general as there is some questionable activity surrounding this. SO forget produce the note cause I can and nobody cares. It is funny that these so-called mortgage companies can sell a non- existent NOTE to in vestors, Take your home by Forclosure on a Lost note / non existent note. But when I have the real thing original in ink paid in full it is not worth the paper it is written on, FDIC, Mers, Morgtage compaines are all crooked!!!

  20. Thanks Mortgage Auditor for offering to post a few cases.

    I am interested in Florida cases that you may have knowledge of.

    Thanks again … TNL

  21. If you guys need specific case summaries, I will be happy to look them up for you as long as the requests are reasonable and not too time consuming. You should always consult an attorney, so this will be merely information for your own research and education and not intended to substitute legal advice from a competent attorney.

    It is tough enough going up against these crooks when you have competent representation, so acting pro se is extremely dangerous. 99.9999% of pro se litigants get crushed not because they don’t have a case, but because they don’t know how to play the game. You can’t learn this game overnight.

    Read, read, read ……… every pleading, motion, opinion and case summary you can get your hands on and listen to audio recordings of court hearings so you can learn how to structure and articulate your arguments and how to interact with a judge.

  22. You can purchase daily, weekly or monthly subscriptions to Lexis for case law searches. Although not cheap, it is worth every penny if you know how to use it.

    You can also access it through a law library.

  23. What about attacking MERS’s ability to “assign” a mortgage?

    In my case, I googled the “AVP Carrie Hoover” and found that she was a 20 year Countrywide Home Loans employee, and called this into question. The Plaintiff was forced to admit she was a Countrywide Employee, however, they relied on MERS corporate resolution allowing signing authority.

    How is this not a conflict of interest thus resulting in a Void assignment?!

    Further, based on the unfolding case decisions, where MERS has no standing to foreclose because they have no pecuniary interest……..this theory must also be applied to test ALL ASSIGNMENTS from MERS “as nominee” to any other party.

    Set the trap, assume the assignment is Fraud on the Court until the Plaitiff proves otherwise.

    The Judge has requested the Clerk to set up a 20 min phone conference for the us to discuss “discovery matters that exist” ie the Plaintiff has refused to provide any document requested, failed to answer or respond to Interogatorries and Admissions, therefore I filed a Motion to Compel.

    I plan on being calm, and succinct, and I want an accounting from MERS as well, especially the E-Note Chain of Title from MERS’ E-Registry. This will prove that the chain of title was long ago broken, and possibly show another entity currently holding the Note, in addition to Fannie Mae.

  24. Does the naming of MERS as the nominee on a deed of trust create a cloud or legal issue if not used to enforce or foreclose?

    They do not use MERS to foreclose here but the universal deeds are used thus making the issue of a cloud if it has no purpose except to hide the subsequent lenders.

    I would think this would be an argument and at least require that MERS be listed as a defendant in the foreclosure action to clear title. But then again what do they care about clear title?

  25. Martin,

    I think you can access LexisOne and search for cases. The regular lexis is wicked expensive. I use a few different ways to find cases like findacase.com and findlaw.com which work for alot of the ones I have found so far.

  26. Hi Guys,

    Question: Where would you find this version of the Statute in your particular state?

    Is there a version of Lexis Nexix available to the public? In other words, how can we research case decisions and cite them in our pleadings?

  27. Can anyone state the Florida statute for this matter

  28. Good job Sal !!

    Steve
    99Libra@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: