From Eric Mesi
MERs has a manual and I included some of it below regarding foreclosures. But who would know if their manual is correct? Of course they will write it to protect their selves.
Section 2: (a) If a Member chooses to conduct foreclosures in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., the note must be endorsed in blank and in possession of one of the Member’s MERS certifying officers. If the investor so allows, then MERS can be designated as the note-holder.
—————————————————————————–
Section 1. MERS shall within two (2) business days forward to the appropriate
Member or Members, in the form prescribed by and otherwise in accordance with the
Procedures, all properly identified notices, payments, and other correspondence received by MERS with respect to mortgage loans registered on the MERS® System for which Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. serves as mortgagee of record.
—————————————————————————–
Section 2. MERS shall provide to Members certain standard reports concerning
information contained on the MERS® System, as specified in the Procedures, and such other reports as MERS may determine from time to time.
—————————————————————————–
(b) In non-judicial foreclosure states, if the Member chooses to foreclose in MERS name under the power of sale provision in the security instrument and is not seeking a deficiency judgment, then the note does not need to be in the possession of the Member’s MERS Certifying Officer when commencing the foreclosure action; provided, however, that under no circumstances may the Member allege that the note is in their possession unless it so possesses.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: endorsed in blank, foreclosure, HERS, Inc., Investor, Member’s MERS Certifying Officer, MERS, MERS certifying officers, MERS Manual, MERS Members, MERS standard reports, MERS® System, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, note, possession, security instrument |
how can i fight MEARS in court
how can i get a court action case
Yeah good work Ian,
Neil, I propose a Conspiracy Class Action on behalf of Individual Borrowers, Investors and States of the Union against MERS. We couldn’t Lose, their hands are soaked in blood, they keep changing their policies to keep them out of court, they can’t ignore that they’ve obviously violated RICO, hell their the criminal enterprise, then there’s deprivation of State’s Revenue and disruption of continuity in the chain of Title making them guilty of Tax statutes and ultimately Treason.
A realtor who read my posts below contacted me and gave me some info…below is from an email I sent to this realtor, thanking the realtor for the info–the document referred to in the email is svc1005DOTpdf…you can find it at efanniemaeDOTcom…apparently Fannie Mae was beta testing what has now become its new policy in states like mine (MS) in which they figured no one would challenge them…
“I’m glad you attached that servicer manual change from Fannie Mae–being a realtor, do you have a copy of it?…
At any rate, the procedure for foreclosure they described in the manual is exactly what they did to me–had the servicer “prepare a mortgage assignment from MERS to the servicer, and then bring the foreclosure in its [i.e., the servicer’s] own name.” That section of the policy change is invaluable to me, since it very succinctly and in no uncertain terms makes a big part of my argument for me, to wit:
a. Fannie establishes that they’re outlining this procedure to be used for mortgages “owned or securitized by Fannie Mae.”
b. As I understand it, assigning such mortgages would necessarily mean that only Fannie Mae or investors in Fannie Mae-issued securities could be the proper party to legally assign the mortgages, because of the well-worn legal truism that “the mortgage follows the note,” and not the other way around.
c. So by instructing servicers–who don’t own the notes, which is explicitly spelled out in point “a” above–to prepare assignments from MERS (who also doesn’t own the notes per point “a”) to themselves, Fannie is essentially inducing servicers to commit fraud, knowingly and openly. Fannie is saying to servicers, “we own these notes, but we want you to act like MERS does and that MERS is then assigning the mortgage to you–and it won’t be any actual employee of MERS that does this, it will be one of your employees [that does it].”
This fits what they did to me EXACTLY! BoA even admitted in its answer to my complaint that Fannie Mae held the note even though in the notice of sale a few days earlier, BoA said it was the legal holder of the note…”
PJ- thanks for the compliment- additionally, I forgot to mention that if a borrower requests from their servicer a copy of the title insurance policy which originated? with the “loan”, you may find a different and heretofore unheard-of lender/mortgagee/middleman listed as the beneficiary. In my case, 2 weeks ago, it was BNC mortgage. co, Never heard of them. Nowhere in the courthouse docs. Didn’t sign anything with their name on it. Nothing. Yet, there they are. What they (BNC) submitted as a payoff amount during my last refinancing was 13k lower than the number I was given. Anyway, another dark hole to pursue.
Ian, very astute!
Another item to look out for with respect to the certifying officers. If the assignment is dated before 2009, then according to MERS rules, the certifying officer had to be an officer of the member.
Anyone looking for an additional weapon when lambasting MERS, keep this in mind: as the mortgage lenders/banks/servicers/etc. went under,(check mortgage implodometer for dates), at some point PREVIOUS to their out-of-business date, they were cut off from MERS due to nonpayment of their outstanding balance. So if ABC lender went ch11 on June 1st 2007, they probably hadn’t paid their bill for May, or April. So any assignments during that period, they WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MEMBER, and the assignment or other docs would be VOID. You all know what I mean. See Ocwen v.Mers, also in this suit is stated that Scott Anderson (of Judge Schack fame)is the only person at Ocwen authorized to sign ANYTHING for Ocwen. Bizarre.