CA BANKRUPTCY CT HOLDS THAT MERS CANNOT ASSIGN

“Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case.” Thus, any foreclosing party which is not the original lender which purports to claim payment due under the note and the right to foreclose in California on the basis of a MERS assignment does not have the right to do so under the principles of this opinion.

← The Bank Will Foreclose While Telling You They Will Modify
CALIFORNIA BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT MERS CANNOT TRANSFER NOTE FOR WANT OF OWNERSHIP
Posted on July 15, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
Editor’s Note…This is the key that unlocks the door, it bears repeating. http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/

CALIFORNIA BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT MERS CANNOT TRANSFER NOTE FOR WANT OF OWNERSHIP; CITES BOYKO, LANDMARK (KANSAS), LAMY, AND VARGAS CASES
JULY 9, 2010

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California has issued a ruling dated May 20, 2010 in the matter of In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11 which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.

The court found that MERS acted “only as a nominee” for Bayrock under the Deed of Trust and there was no evidence that the note was transferred. The opinion also provides that “several courts have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the underlying note and therefore could not transfer the note, the beneficial interest in the deed of trust, or foreclose on the property secured by the deed”, citing the well-known cases of In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court), Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas decision as to lack of authority of MERS), LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (New York), and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court).

The opinion states: “Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.”

Read that again: “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.” This conclusion was based upon California law cited in the opinion that the note and the mortgage are inseparable, with the former being essential while the latter is “an incident”, and that an assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, “while an assignment of the latter [the mortgage] alone is a nullity.” As MERS must own the note in order to assign the incident deed of trust, MERS is legally precluded from assigning the deed of trust for want of ownership of the note, and cannot assign the note in any event as it never owned it. MERS’ lack of ownership interest in promissory note is a matter of decided case law based on a record stipulation of MERS’ own lawyers in the MERS v. Nebraska Dept. of Finance decision.

This opinion thus serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to not only obtain a TRO against a Trustee’s Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment.

The Court concluded by stating: “Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case.” Thus, any foreclosing party which is not the original lender which purports to claim payment due under the note and the right to foreclose in California on the basis of a MERS assignment does not have the right to do so under the principles of this opinion.

This ruling is more than significant not only for California borrowers, but for borrowers nationwide, as this California court made it a point to cite non-bankruptcy cases as to the lack of authority of MERS in its opinion. Further, this opinion is consistent with the prior rulings of the Idaho and Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue, that being the lack of authority for MERS to transfer the note as it never owned it (and cannot, per MERS’ own contract which provides that MERS agrees not to assert any rights to mortgage loans or properties mortgaged thereby).

We thank one of our dedicated readers for providing this opinion to us.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.;, http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

38 Responses

  1. […] « A.I.G. to Pay $725 Million in Ohio Case CA BANKRUPTCY CT HOLDS THAT MERS CANNOT ASSIGN » […]

  2. Have you tried having a friend go to your foreclosure sale and bid $10,000 or $1,000? (The person has to have the money or a cashier’s check made out to them.) They will say, you can’t bid that; the opening bid is $250,000 or whatever, and you ask who bid that. They will say, the beneficiary. You say, who is the beneficiary. They will say, I don’t know. Tell them that person is not here and has no right to bid a credit bid. They will ignore you. Later sue to have quiet title as the high bidder. If they can’t produce the note, then they can’t show that they were entitled to do a credit bid and your friend was the highest bidder. See Civil Code § 2924h(b): “The present beneficiary of the deed of trust under foreclosure shall have the right to offset his or her bid or bids only to the extent of the total amount due the beneficiary including the trustee’s fees and expenses.” If MERS is the beneficiary, then no one has the right to do a credit bid, because MERS has no amount due to it.

  3. Date:

    From:

    Dear Attorney General of State,

    In regard to the following world wide web article noted below, I hereby file a complaint with your office against all mortgage lenders operating in this state. I ask for your support and assistance and wish to know your thoughts regarding the attached article related to fraudulent foreclosures. I demand a written personal response, not from your staff and not a form letter, as I will not be pacified until I have specific answers to the following questions;
    1. IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO STOP THE FORECLOSURE FRAUD AS OTHER ATTORNEY GENERALS ARE CURRENTLY DOING ?
    2. DO YOU PLAN TO STOP THE FORECLOSURES IMMEDIATELY ?
    3. HOW DO YOU PLAN ON STOPPING THE FORECLOSURES IMMEDIATELY ?
    4. AS THERE IS NO STATUE OF LIMITATIONS ON FRAUD, ARE YOU WORKING ON A PLAN TO GET RESTITUTION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR HOMES ?
    5. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THE COURTS FROM ASSISTING THE BANKS IN THEIR CRIMINAL ACTS OF FILING FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS WHICH DIVESTS ME OR OTHERS OF OUR PROPERTY?
    6. HOW WILL YOU SEE THAT LEGISLATION IS INTRODUCED TO STOP THE MADNESS OF FRAUDULENT LOANS BEING ISSUED ?
    7. WILL ABIDE BY YOUR OATH OF OFFICE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL?

    Regards,

    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/ca-bankruptcy-ct-holds-that-mers-cannot-assign/

    http://usawatchdog.com/fear-desperation-and-doom-describe-the-housing-market/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39582228#39582228

  4. The basic flaw of MERS: back in the ‘old’ days, there was a’ mortgage’,which was an agreement between
    the borrower and the lender, by any other names. A mortgage generally requires judicial foreclosure, which meant ABC lender had to take you to court to foreclose on your home and it also usually involves the borrower’s right of redemption, which was 90 days to a year. Lenders didn’t like this, so someone invented the deed of trust, which is essentially a three party document: the lender, the borrower (again, by any other names) and the trustee. It is NOT legislatively a FOUR party instrument. The trustee is empowered by the deed of trust provisions to conduct a ‘non-judiicial’ foreclosure, following certain rules and conditions, but a process which does not involve taking a defaulted borrower to court. The trustee has a fiduciary to both the lender and the borrower and his job is to enforce the provisions of the deed of trust. Somewhere along the road, trustees started to forget their fiduciary to the borrower and started acting de facto as the agents of the lenders – wrong! wrong! wrong! -although a few bad-kid courts (in my opionion) have held that a trustee is or can be an agent, depending on the amount of control over him). In order to be a substitute trustee, in most states, what makes the substitution effective is the act of recordation of that substitution, although, like everything else, some bad-kid courts have allowed what I’ll call bogus ex-post facto assignments recorded after that substituted trustee began foreclosure (Most courts are putting the kabosh on these now, though) . There are things which the lender must do and give the trustee to demonstrate its own standing when the loan has been sold as well as the alleged default, and I am 100 percent certain this is not being done, although I have yet to see it challenged in discovery. Unfortunately, discovery is generally off the record, so one doesnt know for sure if anyone is going after trustees to see if they actually had the requisite documents and info to institute foreclosure. One should find out!
    What does this have to do with MERS? There are only two ‘estates’ in real property: legal title and equitable title. In some states called title theory states, the trustee has legal title to the home while the homeowner has equitable title; in other states called ‘lien theory’ states, the borrower has legal title and the trustee has equitable title more or less by lien- retention. There are no other estates in real property. So when MERS says it has title to an interest in your home, it alleges an interest which does not exist as a matter of law , despite all its beneficiary or nominee baloney. There are only two estates that exist: legal and equitable, and Mers’ alleged interest is and can be neither unless by some fluke Mers actually owns your note, but Mers doesn’t own notes. Mers’ relationship to the lender is not an agent, either. There is certainly no expressed agency and there is no implied agency , either, and this is established by
    a review of Mers’ membership agreement. If MERS had wanted to be an agent, it could have used the word. It didn’t because it didn’t want that relationship with its members or the liabiltiy that comes with
    “agency”. (The few court decisions which have referred to Mers as anyone’s agent in my opinion are hugely errant.)
    Which all makes Mers exactly no one. Plus they essentially take from our local recorder’s office a lot of money which would otherwise benefit our communities.
    Speaking of which, most states’ statutes provide that any interest in real property must be recorded or it is only binding on the parties to the agreement establishing that interest. I say t at means these
    purported unrecorded assignments of the deed of trust (which as demonstrated in Walker is baloney in the first place) have no application to the homeowner.

  5. David Wood, as I understand it, that’s how MERS
    operates: they appoint a member’s (say B of A or
    Cit) employee(s) as a straw “officer” of Mers so that
    B of A, or Citi, say can actually sign an assignment. I think it’s collusion. No one has argued this yet that I know of. I mean, what a joke! If someone’s standing is challenged, they just come up with a self-exectued assignment to themselves! Wonder where I can get some of this…. It’s like the one guy here said – his neighbor might as well try to take his home. They are never made to even prove MERS’ membership, i.e., that MERS is acting for one of its members. How would one know? It’s like Judge Boyko essentially said: It ain’t true cause you said so!” It’s my understanding that most state law provides that if the wrong party gets your home, i.e., (in) satisfaction of a debt, that its no defense for you when the real guy comes along wanting his money! I call that double jeopardy!

  6. Something which is troubling to me is that many of these judges are sustaining objections to bogus proofs of claim and motions for relief from stay and foreclosure, essentially without, or specifically without, prejudice. There are laws, and they are not new, about who can file a proof of claim or try to take your home.
    When the wrong party tries, the judges say no, but the
    judges also say they’ll give the first company another shot pending buffing up its act, or else allow another company to come in saying oh, we’re the real party / lender. More judges should follow
    “Nozek” and “Vargas”, impose sanctions for abuse of process ,and further vindicate the homeowner who has been forced to litigate against a “stranger” (as I understand it a legal term for a party who has no real interest in the litigation, i.e., your home ) by imposing estoppel on the whole lot of them, holding the
    real owner of your note responsible for the actions of
    its minions or those purporting to be minions for trying to take your home with no right to do so. Did you know that Wikipedia has some really good basic information, like defining basic legalese?

  7. To access the actual Walker case, you must first
    create an account at” Pacer”, the court’s docket system. Costs 8 cents per page to read documents.
    This takes a credit (debit?) card. Then you can access the actual pleadings in cases, which you will likely find very interesting. The attorney , Mitchell A. Abdallah, who penned the objection in “Walker” has read all the cases I have and he has added his own insightful and well-researched tenets. If you are interested in reading actual cases and language, you can get a one-month subscription to Loislaw for 184.00. Then, for specific pleadings in those cases (and ones you find on this website), go to Pacer and look them up on the docket. The objection in Walker filed on May 21, 2010 is very well written in my humble opinion and it is public. Or , skip Loislaw, search this site for cases, and go to Pacer to read the documents. Many of us will lose our homes, but we should only lose them
    to the proper party with evidence of its interest.
    Your friend in the proper application of the law.

  8. In my case, the original note to the “Lender” was allegedly endorsed to Citibank by the Assistant Vice President of the local mortgage co. (Lender). The endorsement stamp is on a blank page and cannot be verified since Citi has not surrendered the original note for verification.

    MERS substituted the trustee to Cal Western by recorded form signed by Yvonne Wheeler “Assistant Secretary of MERS” who also sits on the Board of Directors of Cal Western.

    Anything funny going on here?

    Then in Jan 2010 an assignment of the deed of trust is made to Citi and recorded signed again by Yvonne Wheeler.

    Any comments? I’m preparing my objection to motion for relief from stay and the facts of my case are a little different than those of Walker.

    davidwood100@yahoo.com

  9. Diana

    California Court Rules: MERS Can’t Foreclose, Citibank Can’t Collect
    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2010/07/california-court-rules-mers-can%E2%80%99t-foreclose-citibank-can%E2%80%99t-collect/

    Case Title: Rickie Walker
    Case no. 10-21656 – E – 11
    Date: 5-20-10

  10. The TRO/Preliminary Injunction route these judges seem to only rely on the provisions of 2924 & as long as the procedures are followed, it’s all good. It doesn’t matter if I’m your next door neighbor. If I follow 2924, I can take your house.

    The BK route, however, affords the homeowner a chance to challenge standing. As your next door neighbor, I can’t take your house without proof.

    CA is the wild, wild west indeed.

  11. Read the Deed of Trust.
    There is no uniform decision because the Deed of Trust(s) aren’t uniform.

    I see questions asking for answers as if people have read ‘your’ DOT. The answers are there, right there, in there.

    It will tell you what can and can’t be done. Whether an assignment can or cannot be made, and by whom it can be made if allowed.

    Read it.

    draw pictures, and point to what “whoever is named’ can do.

    Then see what was done.

    Was it written in ‘your’ DOT?
    No?
    Then that is a breach of the provisions of the trust.
    Breach of Trust
    Breach of Contract

    Was it done by someone (whoever) is named in the DOT, or was it done by someone assigned to the DOT (if the DOT mentions assigning the beneficiary or trustee – two separate assignments).

    If what was done by an assignee or trustee, are they allowed to be assigned? Was what they did allowed?

    This appears to go to the ‘beginning’.
    In the beginning…created the heaven and earth.

    In the beginning parties created a Deed of Trust

    What is in that ‘creation’?
    Know what you created and whether it was followed to the T. All i’s dotted and all t’s crossed, or did someone do something assuming they could.

    In my situation, the DOT was specific, even definitions were specific.

    Then someone posted a “notice of acceleration” in all CAPS

    They started calling people
    Original Mortgagee and Current Mortgagee

    WHAT ON EARTH? Mortgagee isn’t defined in my DOT!
    Lender is, but Mortgagee isn’t.

    From that point on, there was flaw after flaw.

    The Notice, which is not filed in the Real Property Records, will disappear in two years (destroyed), and the only think left will be a Deed of Trust that is filed (forever).

    How can a temporary document establish a permanent relationship so easily? It can’t!

    Light and Love,

  12. Does any one have a list of cases in California against MERS and how many were in favor of the homeowner?

  13. Deby – can you please email me the chapter 7 and 11 cases. dperparos@sbcglobal.net
    Also if any one has ANYTHING on Aurora Loan Services LLC, please let me know. I am a victim of their corruption.

  14. ANOTHER THANK YOU! 🙂

  15. Thank you SF_Dan for digging these docs up and Atty Mitchell Abdalluh of Sacramento for the good work especially the points and authorities.
    I’ll give it a try in another Ca Bk district.

  16. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO PROOF OF CLAIM

    http://chasechase.org/doxcc/WalkerObjectionP&A.pdf

  17. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO PROOF OF CLAIM

    http://chasechase.org/doxcc/WalkerObjectionDeclar.pdf

  18. DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO CLAIMS of CITIBANK

    http://www.zoneshift.net/chasechase.org/doxcc/WalkerObjectionCitiClaim.pdf

  19. Here is the link to the ruling:

    http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/mers-citibank-not-real-parties.pdf

  20. 10-21656-E-11 RICKIE WALKER HEARING – DEBTOR’S OBJECTION TO CLAIMS OF BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, L.P.

    5-21-10 [68]

    Local Rule 3007-1(c)(1) Motion – No Opposition Filed.

    Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on May 21, 2010, states that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on other parties in interest and Office of the United States Trustee. By the court’s calculation, 48 days’ notice was provided.

    Final Ruling: This Objection to a Proof of Claim has been set for hearing on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1). The failure of the Trustee and the respondent creditor to file written opposition at least 14 days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1)(i) is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, because the court will not materially
    alter the relief requested by the moving party, an actual hearing is unnecessary. See Boone v. Burk (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the defaults of the Trustee and the respondent creditor are entered, the matter will be resolved without oral argument and the court shall issue its ruling from the parties’ pleadings.

    The Objection to Proof of Claim number 9 of BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP is sustained and the claim is disallowed in its entirety with leave for the owner of the promissory note to file a claim by August 8, 2010. No appearance required.

    The Proof of Claim at issue, listed as claim number 9 on the court’s official claims registry, asserts $75,128.22 claim. The Debtor objects to the Claim on the basis that BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP has not offered any evidence that it is the beneficiary of the note and deed of trust or other wise legally able to assert the claim. The Deed of Trust and Note attached to the Proof of Claim
    list PMAC Lending Services, Inc. as the mortgagee. The note is not endorsed and no evidence is offered to show that the Deed of Trust has been assigned to another.

    11 U.S.C. §502(a) provides that a claim supported by a Proof of Claim is allowed unless a party in interest objects. Once an objection has been filed, the court may determine the amount of the claim after a noticed hearing. 11 U.S.C. §502(b). Based on the evidence before the court, the creditor’s claim is disallowed in its entirety. The Objection to the Proof of Claim is sustained. The court will grant leave for the owner of the note to file a Proof of Claim by August 8, 2010.

    The court shall issue a minute order substantially in the following form holding that:
    Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are stated in the
    Civil Minutes for the hearing.

    The Objection to the Proof of Claim filed by the Debtor
    having been presented to the court, and upon review of the
    pleadings, evidence, arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing,

    IT IS ORDERED that Objection to Proof of Claim number
    9 of BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP is sustained and the claim is disallowed in its entirety, without prejudice to the filing of a proof of claim by the party entitled to assert a claim in this case.

    http://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/0708_1030_746S.pdf

  21. I’m in Calif Bk and facing a motion to remove automatic stay soon.
    I would like to make something of this in an opposition brief or appearance.
    Looking for help
    davidwood100@yahoo.com

  22. In Re Rickie Walker, the case Neil is citing:

    Just posted on SCRIBD:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34507156/In-Re-Walker-Decision-MERS

    For California it is WELCOME. But believe we are still DEEP in a **hostile** forest with many predators happy just to eat our bones.

    As “Concerned” said, Appellate Decisions are urgently needed to back up the Sargis Court and the Buford Court. “In Re Mitchell” in Nevada was one such Appellate event. Alas the BK Districts are still ruling “willy nilly” and State Courts are happy still feeding us to those forest predators.

    This case is also on another helpful site:

    How to chase Chase
    http://www.chasechase.org/cases.html

  23. IF you get one of the CA judges that have already ruled against MERS, then you have a likelihood of also getting a ruling that is in your favor.

    If you get a different JUDGE or are in a different district, you are less likely to have a decision is your favor. I’m in CA and my attorney is WELL aware of the CA cases that have gone against MERS and how those same rulings would work in my favor. However, since I’m in a DIFFERENT DISTRICT there is NO rule that the other judges have to follow what their fellow judges have done. EVEN IN THE SAME DISTRICT, different judges are ruling differently on this issue. Some CA district BK judges will not even acknowledge the argument.

  24. My question is: if MERS cannot assign, can MERS discharge? Because I discovered that MERS was involved with the mortgage that was ostensibly discharged by the mortgage I took out that was eventually foreclosed (by Deutsche Bank, but that opens an entirely different can of worms).

  25. Do we have anything like this for Wells Fargo ? They typically owned all the intermediary parties (depositor, servicer, trust, trustee etc.) but followed the same formula in regards to bifurcation and assignments as MERS… It’d be SWEET if in addition to “depositing” my note into a trust that was never legally formed if all the intermediate steps were void also…

  26. Kickboxer: If you are going to file BK 7 – let me know I’ll send you the Walker docs from both Ch 7 and Ch 11 – read them to get a good idea of how to proceed!!

  27. This gives me hope. I am in Cali and headed for Bk.

  28. Woot woot!

  29. Neil: Do we possibly have a case – I was thinking about a common factor we homeowners may use against the unknown parties involved with these mortgage backed securities lies with the Patriot Act; lenders are required to provide Notice of Privacy Rights as with almost every entity in our country today especially if they have or will have access to a borrower’s proprietary information, i.e., social security, addresses, DOB, etc., well we never received these legally mandated notices from anyone beyond the 1st lender – so maybe we have actions against a bevvy of parties violating provisions under notices of privacy rights – the 1st lender is covered if they provided the Notice of Privacy Rights, but not by anyone else involved – everyone involved with a loan should be required to provide notice of privacy rights; another area we may be able to legally claim. Even these mortgage servicers should be and probably are required to disclose our rights to privacy under the Patriot Act; I never received any notices – and my last thought is as a former CA notary, I had a $1M E&O insurance; we should start going after these notary’s bonds/insurance to pay the legal bills. Just a thought. .

  30. Walker BK case – as a matter of fact I have .pdf copies of almost the entire case – back to the CH 7 filing where the Court granted relief from stay to Citi initially; this court holding came about after Walker filed a CH 11; his attorney was persistent!!

  31. I have a .pdf of the Walker case discussed email me if you want me to send you a copy – papergate@aol.com

  32. DIANA PERPAROS……….me too! case number and court please- Thanks!

  33. Kevin- you just described what we are all seeing as far as assignments of mortgage. Originating “lender” to MERS, MERS to trust or trustee. (A to D to E). But in every securitized loan, the mortgage must first be assigned to the sponsor, and then to the depositor, who THEN deposits the loan into the trust. This is the legally required (under IRS REMIC guidelines) process whereby the loan pool becomes a bankrupt-remote-entity.(BRE), by putting a number of entities between the originators and the investors, so that the investors cannot be held liable for predatory lending claims,among other things. So A>B>C>D>E is what you should see. Your loan should have been sold (true sale) 4 times before it was placed in the trust or pool. But the too-big-to-fail banks, aware perhaps that things would at some point go bad, never documented the sales,characterizing them instead as borrowings, so that they wouldn’t have to take a hit against earnings, and boost their loan-loss reserves(Tier 1 capital) at a time when investors were demanding double digit returns due to risk. And now they can’t get the necessary assignments,signatures,seals,notarizations in order because,well, they can’t. Except by fabrication, forgery, impersonation of a notary, photoshop creation of documents, and the who gutwrenching nauseating fraud which we now have. Plus, their “losses” were covered by the Fed and Treasury,AIG,PMI,MBIA,AMBAC and numerous others. Now they are collecting again. I hope this helps,keep digging.

  34. I TRIED TO FIND THE CASE REFERENCED I N THE ARTICLE. COULD NOT FIND IT. CAN YOU PLEASE FORWARD ME THE LINK SO THAT I CAN READ THE OPINION? I AM IN A SIMILAR BIND AND ANY SUCH INFO WILL BE OF GREAT HELP TO ME. THANKS

  35. If MERS can not assign anything since the don’t own anything, would it be reasonable to go back to when MERS “assigned” the note and DOT to a new lender when I first bought the house and then again when I refinanced and claim that the whole string of transactions beginning in 2003 are void? In other words, MERS had no right to assign the note and mortgage from the original lender to Novastar, to Wells Fargo, to MILA, Inc, to Countrywide and Citi Mortgage?

  36. WE MUST EXPOSE THE JUDGES THAT TO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. TREAT THEM LIKE YOU WOULD TREAT SADAM HUSSEIN.

    NEVER AGAIN

  37. The PROBLEM is that even with this being a CA BK court decision, the courts here in CA are NOT uniform in considering these rulings from the other courts. Even other judges in the SAME district can rule without regard to the reasoning found in other cases in the same district. Until there is a finding at an appellate level above these US district BK courts, there is not going to be uniformity of the outcome.

    If this was uniform, I doubt that I would still be encountering a fight, not with also having a BREACHED permanent mod, plus MERS on the DOT but not on the note and Litton’s employee doing the substitution of the Trustee, claiming to be a MERS employee. Since this loan names “America’s Wholesale Lender” as the lender (a fake CountryWide name), and CWABS has been determined to be the ‘investor’, I have to believe that MERS has been used to try to make these assignments.

    Also, if MERS does not have rights to do any assignment, then it also should not have the right to do the substitution of Trustee. That upends the entire notice of default. It even means that the company that filed the NOD/NOS should face penalties for further damaging my credit.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: