30 Responses

  1. Below under “Fighting MERs in CA” someone stated.
    3) Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
    I live in Maryland and I have a Deed of Trust that MER’s assigned to successor. Can someone tell me if this is a true statement.? Do I now have a fraudulent document. Would someone be willing to send me their email address so I could scan and send to them, so they can let me know in fact this is a fraudulent document. My email address is jsmith5915@msn.com 443 677 2799. James

  2. Diana,

    Yes, I did buy the book. I believe I did benefit from the information presented. It depends on how much you possibly have already done in researching this area yourself. If you think you have done as much research as Dave has done, maybe it won’t help you. I doubt that many have had the time to do the work.

    I would suggest that Dave possibly should put the book on Clickbank where there is a 60 day guarantee/refund policy. The drawback is that the price of the book would likely go UP since the pricing thru Clickbank is set up to allow a secondary seller such as me, (just for example), to also profit by promoting his book. I am NOT in any deal to promote his book by the way.

  3. http://www.scribd.com/doc/45722777/Wells-Fargo-Making-Mortgage-Changes-in-California-WSJ

    WELLS FARGO TO SETTLE 2.4 BILLIONS OF PICK A PAY LOANS.

  4. NOTICE TO THE BAR
    RE: Emergent Amendments to Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2
    In light of irregularities in the residential foreclosure practice as reported in sworn
    deposition testimony in New Jersey and other states, the Court has adopted, on an emergent
    basis, amendments to Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2. These amendments are effective
    December 20, 2010. The new rule and the amendments, along with the Order adopting them,
    appear with this notice. The Court’s Order also contains directions for counsel in pending
    uncontested residential foreclosure cases.
    The rule amendments require plaintiff’s counsel in all residential foreclosure actions to
    file with the court (1) an affidavit or certification executed by the attorney that the attorney has
    communicated with an employee or employees of the plaintiff who (a) personally reviewed
    documents for accuracy and (b) confirmed the accuracy of all court filings in the case to date; (2)
    the name(s), title(s), and responsibilities of the employee(s) of the plaintiff who provided this
    information to the attorney; and (3) an affidavit or certification executed by the attorney that all
    the filings in the case comport with all requirements of Rule 1:4-8(a).
    Plaintiff’s counsel shall file such documents (1) immediately upon the commencement of
    any new residential foreclosure action filed after the effective date of the new rule and
    amendments, as to the accuracy of the information contained in the complaint, as set forth in
    Rule 4:64-1(b)(1) through (13); (2) within 60 days in any residential foreclosure action today
    pending and awaiting judgment, as to the accuracy of the complaint and of any proofs submitted;
    (3) within 45 days in any residential foreclosure action in which judgment was entered but no
    sale of the property has yet occurred; and (4) with the motion to enter judgment in all future
    foreclosure actions in which judgment is sought, as to the accuracy of any proofs submitted
    pursuant to Rule 4:64-2.
    Finally, all counsel are reminded of their obligations under the New Jersey Rules of
    Professional Conduct and that, pursuant to Rule 1:4-8(a)(3), an attorney’s signature on any paper
    filed with a court “certifies that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief,
    formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,” all “factual allegations have
    evidentiary support, or, as to specifically identified allegations, they are either likely to have
    evidentiary support or they will be withdrawn or corrected if reasonable opportunity for further
    investigation or discovery indicates insufficient evidentiary support.”
    Questions concerning these amendments should be directed to Kevin M. Wolfe, Esq., in
    the AOC’s Civil Practice Division, at (609) 292-8470 or kevin.wolfe@judiciary.state.nj.us.
    /s/ Glenn A. Grant
    _________________________________
    Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D.
    Acting Administrative Director of the Courts
    Dated: December 20, 2010 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    It is ORDERED that the attached amendments to Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2
    are adopted effective immediately. And,
    It is FURTHER ORDERED that in all uncontested residential foreclosure cases
    pending entry of judgment as of December 20, 2010, (1) within 60 (sixty) days, plaintiff’s
    counsel shall file a certification, which shall be served on all defendants, stating (a) that the
    attorney has communicated with an employee or employees of the plaintiff who (i) personally
    reviewed the documents submitted to the court thus far and (ii) confirmed their accuracy; and (b)
    the name(s), title(s) and responsibilities in those titles of the plaintiff’s employee(s) with whom
    the attorney communicated; (2) plaintiff’s attorney shall also file a certification attesting that the
    complaint and all documents subsequently filed with the court comport with the requirements of
    Rule 1:4-8(a). And
    It is FURTHER ORDERED that in all uncontested residential foreclosure cases in
    which judgment has been entered but no sale of the property has occurred as of December 20,
    2010, (1) within 45 (forty-five) days, plaintiff’s counsel shall file a certification, which shall be
    served on all defendants, stating (a) that the attorney has communicated with an employee or
    employees of the plaintiff who (i) personally reviewed the documents submitted to the court thus
    far and (ii) confirmed their accuracy; and (b) the name(s), title(s) and responsibilities in those
    titles of the plaintiff’s employee(s) with whom the attorney communicated; (2) plaintiff’s
    attorney shall also file a certification attesting that the complaint and all documents subsequently
    filed with the court comport with the requirements of Rule 1:4-8(a).
    For the Court,
    /s/ Stuart Rabner
    Chief Justice
    Dated: December 20, 2010 1:5-6. Filing
    (a) …no change.
    (b) …no change.
    (c) Nonconforming Papers. The clerk shall file all papers presented for filing and
    may notify the person filing if such papers do not conform to these rules, except that
    (1) the paper shall be returned stamped “Received but not Filed (date)” if it is
    presented for filing unaccompanied by any of the following:
    (A) the required filing fee; or
    (B) a completed Case Information Statement as required by R. 4:5-1 in the form set
    forth in Appendices XII-B1 or XII-B2 to these rules; or
    (C) in Family Part actions, the affidavit of insurance coverage required by R. 5:4-2(f),
    the Parents Education Program registration fee required by N.J.S.A. 2A:34-12.2, the Confidential
    Litigant Information Sheet as required by R. 5:4-2(g) in the form prescribed in Appendix XXIV,
    or the Affidavit or Certification of Notification of Complementary Dispute Resolution
    Alternatives as required by R. 5:4-2 (h) in the form prescribed in Appendix XXVII-A or XXVIIB of these rules;
    (D) the signature of an attorney permitted to practice law in this State pursuant to
    R. 1:21-1 or the signature of a party appearing pro se, provided, however, that a pro se
    appearance is provided for by these rules; or
    (E) a certification of title search as required by R. 4:64-1(a)(1) and the certifications
    of diligent inquiry and of accuracy as required by R. 4:64-1(a)(2) and (3).
    If a paper is returned under this rule, it shall be accompanied by a notice advising that if
    the paper is retransmitted together with the required signature, document or fee, as appropriate,
    within ten days after the date of the clerk’s notice, filing will be deemed to have been made on
    the stamped receipt date. (2) if an answer is presented by a defendant against whom default has been entered
    other than in a mortgage or tax foreclosure action, the clerk shall return the same stamped
    “Received but not Filed (date)” with notice that the defendant may move to vacate the default.
    (3) a demand for trial de novo may be rejected and returned if not filed within the
    time prescribed in R. 4:21A-6 or if it is submitted for filing by a party in default or whose answer
    has been suppressed.
    (4) a paper shall be returned stamped “Received but not Filed (date)” if it does not
    conform to the requirements of R. 1:4-9 with notice that if the document is retransmitted on
    conforming paper within 10 days after the date of the clerk’s notice, filing will be deemed to
    have been made on the stamped receipt date.
    (d) …no change.
    (e) …no change.
    Note: Source — R.R. 1:7-11, 1:12-3(b), 2:10, 3:11-4(d), 4:5-5(a), 4:5-6(a) (first and
    second sentence), 4:5-7 (first sentence), 5:5-1(a). Paragraphs (b) and (c) amended July 14, 1972
    to be effective September 5, 1972; paragraph (c) amended November 27, 1974 to be effective
    April 1, 1975; paragraph (b) amended November 7, 1988 to be effective January 2, 1989;
    paragraph (b) amended June 29, 1990 to be effective September 4, 1990; paragraph (c) amended
    November 26, 1990 to be effective April 1, 1991; paragraphs (b) and (c) amended, new text
    substituted for paragraph (d) and former paragraph (d) redesignated paragraph (e) July 13, 1994
    to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (b)(1) amended, new paragraph (b)(2) adopted,
    paragraphs (b)(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) redesignated paragraphs (b)(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), and
    newly designated paragraph (b)(4) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective January 1, 1995;
    paragraphs (b)(1),(3) and (4) amended June 28, 1996 to be effective September 1, 1996;
    paragraph (b)(4) amended July 10, 1998 to be effective September 1, 1998; paragraph (c)
    amended July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) amended
    July 28, 2004 to be effective September 1, 2004; subparagraph (c)(1)(E) adopted, paragraphs
    (c)(2) and (c)(3) amended, and paragraph (c)(4) adopted July 27, 2006 to be effective September
    1, 2006; paragraph (b) amended June 15, 2007 to be effective September 1, 2007; subparagraph
    (c)(1)(C) amended July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009; subparagraph (c)(1)(E)
    amended December 20, 2010 to be effective immediately. 4:64-1. [Uncontested Judgment: Foreclosures] Foreclosure Complaint, Uncontested Judgment
    Other Than In Rem Tax Foreclosures
    (a) Title Search; Certifications.
    (1) Prior to filing an action to foreclose a mortgage, a condominium lien, or a tax lien
    to which R. 4:64-7 does not apply, the plaintiff shall receive and review a title search of the
    public record for the purpose of identifying any lienholder or other persons and entities with an
    interest in the property that is subject to foreclosure and shall annex to the complaint a
    certification of compliance with the title search requirements of this rule.
    (2) In all residential foreclosure actions, plaintiff’s attorney shall annex to the
    complaint a certification of diligent inquiry stating
    (A) that the attorney has communicated with an employee or employees of the
    plaintiff who (a) personally reviewed the documents being submitted and (b) confirmed their
    accuracy; and
    (B) the name(s), title(s) and responsibilities in those titles of the plaintiff’s
    employee(s) with whom the attorney communicated pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) of this rule.
    (3) Plaintiff’s attorney shall also annex to the complaint a certification, executed by
    the attorney, attesting that the complaint and all documents annexed thereto comport with the
    requirements of Rule 1:4-8(a)
    (b) …no change.
    (c) …no change.
    (d) …no change.
    (e) …no change.
    (f) …no change.
    (g) …no change.
    (h) …no change. (i) …no change.
    Note: Source — R.R. 4:82-1, 4:82-2. Paragraph (b) amended July 14, 1972 to be effective
    September 5, 1972; paragraphs (a) and (b) amended November 27, 1974 to be effective April 1,
    1975; paragraph (a) amended July 16, 1979 to be effective September 10, 1979; paragraph (c)
    adopted November 1, 1985 to be effective January 2, 1986; caption amended, paragraphs (a) and
    (b) caption and text amended, former paragraph (c) redesignated paragraph (e), and paragraphs
    (c), (d) and (f) adopted November 7, 1988 to be effective January 2, 1989; paragraphs (b) and (c)
    amended and paragraph (g) adopted July 14, 1992 to be effective September 1, 1992; paragraphs
    (e) and (f) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (b) amended
    July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; paragraph (f) caption and text amended July 12,
    2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; new paragraphs (a) and (b) adopted, and former
    paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) redesignated as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h),
    and (i) July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006; paragraph (b) caption and text amended
    September 11, 2006 to be effective immediately; paragraphs (d) and (f) amended October 10,
    2006 to be effective immediately; paragraph (d) amended July 9, 2008 to be effective September
    1, 2008; text of paragraph (d) deleted, new subparagraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) captions and text
    adopted, and paragraph (f) amended July 23, 2010 to be effective September 1, 2010; caption
    amended, paragraph (a) caption amended, text of former paragraph (a) renumbered as
    subparagraph (a)(1), and new subparagraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) added December 20, 2010 to be
    effective immediately. 4:64-2. Proof; Affidavit
    (a) …no change.
    (b) …no change.
    (c) …no change.
    (d) Affidavit. Plaintiff’s counsel shall annex to every motion to enter judgment in a
    residential mortgage foreclosure action an affidavit of diligent inquiry stating (1) that the
    attorney has communicated with an employee or employees of the plaintiff who (A) personally
    reviewed the documents being submitted and (B) confirmed their accuracy; (2) the name(s),
    title(s) and responsibilities in those titles of the plaintiff’s employee(s) with whom the attorney
    communicated pursuant to this rule; and (3) that the documents comport with the requirements of
    Rule 1:4-8(a).
    Note: Source — R.R. 4:82-3. Caption amended and paragraph (b) deleted July 7, 1971
    to be effective September 13, 1971; amended November 27, 1974 to be effective April 1, 1975;
    amended November 7, 1988 to be effective January 2, 1989; amended July 13, 1994 to be
    effective September 1, 1994; text amended and designated as paragraph (a), paragraph (a)
    caption adopted, new paragraphs (b) and (c) adopted July 9, 2008 to be effective September 1,
    2008; caption amended and new paragraph (d)(1) and (2) added December 20, 2010 to be
    effective immediately.

  5. CONSIDER JUDICIAL NOTICE FOR YOUR CASE. ESPECIALLY ONEWEST BANK , WELLS FARGO, GMAC, BAC

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/45722313/New-Jersey-Juciciary-Notice-Regarding-Foreclosureswww-judiciary-state-nj-Us-notices-2010-n101220b

    This Administrative Order regarding uncontested residential mortgage
    foreclosure matters is issued by the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts in the
    performance of his supervisory responsibilities over the Office of Foreclosure in the
    Administrative Office of the Courts as provided by the Rules of Court (as set forth
    below), in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Order of December 20, 2010, adopting
    emergent amendments to the Rules of Court, and the accompanying Notice to the Bar,
    in coordination with the December 20, 2010 order to show cause issued by Superior
    Court Judge Mary Jacobson regarding certain uncontested residential mortgage
    1foreclosures. The Administrative Order is in response to the request by the Chief
    Justice for an examination into the foreclosure document preparation and filing
    practices.
    This order addresses several steps taken by the Judiciary today in an effort to
    ensure the integrity of the residential mortgage foreclosure process: (1) Judge
    Jacobson’s order directing six lenders and service providers who have been implicated
    in irregularities in connection with their foreclosure practices to show cause why the
    processing of uncontested residential mortgage foreclosure actions they have filed
    should not be suspended; (2) administrative action directing twenty-four lenders and
    service providers who have filed more than 200 residential foreclosure actions in 2010
    to demonstrate affirmatively that there are no irregularities in their handling of
    foreclosure proceedings, via submissions to retired Superior Court Judge Walter R.
    Barisonek, who has been recalled to temporary judicial service and assigned as a
    Special Master; and (3) the adoption of amendments to the Rules of Court and a Notice
    to the Bar which require plaintiff’s counsel in all residential foreclosure actions to file
    certifications confirming that they have communicated with plaintiff’s employees who
    have (a) personally reviewed documents and (b) confirmed the accuracy of all court
    filings, and which remind all counsel of their obligations under the New Jersey Rules of
    Professional Conduct.

  6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/45722227/Order-to-Show-Cause-Onewest-Bank-Et-Al-Why-They-Should-Not-Be-Suspended-in-New-Jersey-Foreclosures-10-20-10

    New Jersey State Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner entered an order To Show Cause “In The Matter of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Pleadings and Document Irregularities” in Civil Action No. F-059553-10, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Mercer County on December 20, 2010. Six mortgage servicing companies and their bank-owners were ordered to show cause why the Court should not suspend their rights to foreclose.

    First on the list was Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC. Ally/GMAC is the employer of Jeffrey Stephan who was exposed as one of many “robo-signers” – a phrase indicating that an employee signed thousands of documents used in foreclosure cases with no idea of the truth of the matters asserted in the documents, and more often than not, without even having read what was signed.

    Stephan signed thousands of Affidavits, but he signed tens of thousands of Mortgage Assignments – the documents used by mortgage-backed trusts to show that the trusts acquired the mortgages at issue and have the right to foreclose.

    Stephan signed these Mortgage Assignments for many different mortgage-backed trusts. Over 50 RALI (Residential Accredit Loans, Inc.) Trusts relied almost exclusively on Mortgage Assignments signed by Stephan. Over 44 RAMP (Residential Asset Mortgage Products) Trusts also used Assignments churned out by Stephan. At least 20 RASC (Residential Asset Securities Corp.) Trusts used Stephan assignments almost exclusively in foreclosures. At least 40 other mortgage-backed trusts, including certain Aames Mortgage Investment Trusts, certain Bear Stearns Trusts and certain Harborview Trusts all relied on Ally/GMAC’s Stephan for proof of their right to foreclose.

    These trusts needed the Stephan-made assignments because the trusts’ depositors, sponsors, trustees and document custodians failed to obtain the critical documents, including notes and assignments, at the inception of the trust – despite promises to investors and regulators that these documents had been obtained and were being safeguarded.

    In Florida, Stephan’s name appears on thousands of Mortgage Assignments, most often on documents prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern, who is under investigation by the Florida Attorney General. In almost every case, Stephans signed as a Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.

    According to the Stephan documents, the trusts almost always acquired these mortgages AFTER they were already in default, and often AFTER foreclosure proceedings had been initiated.

  7. http://www.scribd.com/doc/44983636/MERS-AUDIT-TRAIL-BY-JAMES-MCGUIRE-FOR-B-DAVIES-Mers-Audit-Trail

    MERS AUDIT SIMPLIFIED BY JAMES MCGUIRE. TOS IS TRANSFER OF SERVICING RIGHTS. TOB IS TRANSFER OF BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP.

  8. http://www.scribd.com/Supoena-Records-From-From-Mers-12-08-2010/d/44917907

    READ THE MERS RESPONSE TO SUPOENA. IT HAS THE MERS AUDIT TRAIL..

  9. Just curious, has anyone purchased the book “Clouded Titles” and if so, would you reccommend it for someone going through foreclosure. I don’t need someone to explain “How” this happened. I already understand the depth of fraud behind this mess I’m in. I just want to know if this book is worth buying for value of informational help in foreclosure defense.

    Thanks in advance for any replies.

  10. Dave Krieger
    wanna sell your book… great, if you reveal the big mystery you want to bait us with then it is helpful, otherwise what , did you think we were here reading for entertainment? Maybe you missed the part about people fighting for survival here in this mess of a country & why ??? wtf …soooo many people always with their own selfish agenda & their handout. Give a little ,the return is not tangible but so much greater then the chump change you chase in the quest for a buck. THINK ABOUT IT. If you help 1 person NOT drown in this “banking nonsense” that would have otherwise missed the info in your book, do you not see the the value in this effort & result? compassion & understanding would render this half-assed dog eat dog world a ugly memory.
    light&love!

  11. Fighting MERS:

    I am also in CA. The MERS handbook entry for our state tells them to put the wording in to transfer the NOTE but MERS is NOT on the NOTE.

  12. There are 3 MERS’s and NOT just one … or didn’t you know.

    Better grab a copy of CLOUDED TITLES at
    http://www.cloudedtitles.com and find out whether they are using out of date stamps on your assignments.

    Then find out what people are doing to gear up for quiet title actions!

    Coming soon … CLOUDED TITLES TOUR! News forthcoming.

  13. The foreclosure handbook is out of date for California. I personally know that MERS has assigned the Deed of Trust with the Note.

    Other current facts in California, MERS has a few a couple of fatal flaws.

    The FIRST FATAL FLAW – MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”. Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note. MERS consistently claims to be only “Holding the Note” as a Nominee for the original lender, never stating “Owning the Note”.

    WHY MERS DOESN’T HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE NOTE:
    1) MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don’t own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.

    2) A Nominee in California can not own the Note,
    Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.

    3) The original lender never indorses or assigns the Note to MERS
    See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204

    4) MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a “Note-Owner”
    MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26

    6) MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes,
    MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786

    THE PROBLEM WITH MERS NOT HAVING OWNERSHIP:
    1) If the Beneficiary doesn’t own the underlying note, the Deed of Trust is Void.

    2) If the Deed of Trust is Void, then a lien against the home never existed and a foreclosure is not legally possible.

    3) Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
    RICKIE WALKER, CASE NO. 10-21656-E-11, 5/20/2010 U. S. BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CA

    THEREFORE, MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”

    You can find the rest of the flaws and supporting docs at: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/home

  14. Bank Of America resuming Foreclosures in 23 states

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303496104575560432631814848.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLETopStories#articleTabs%3Darticle

    City of Bell case study is the only way.

  15. Concerned; what if at the time of transfer the servicer was not a member of MERS, and the loan was transfered out of MERS and the MIN # deactivated…But later on say six years later there appeared an assignment of the note and mortgage at the ROD office by MERS acting on behalf of a company that is defunct signing everything to the TRUST and to top it all off, the sevicer was not a member of MERS , and LPS is not an employee of the servicer. I n case it just goes to show how far they will go to get what they want…

  16. This is old, there is a more updated one on the site, go to http://www.mersinc.org/Foreclosures/index.aspx look under foreclosures and click on legal primer.

  17. wrongful liens, sorry

  18. every city, county and state should use this document to sue Mers and its stock holders for tax evasion.

    and wrongful leans

  19. the mers minions are working on web maintenance

  20. I had previously seen references to a ‘MOM’ loan remaining in MERS until the LOAN was transferred to a NON-MES member.

    THIS clearly shows that as long as the SERVICER is a MERS member, they can continue to reek their havoc, using MERS.

    I would think there SHOULD be a need for an agency relationship with MERS on the part of the mortgage HOLDER, not just the servicer!

    Has ANY ONE looked at that introductory section of this manual?

  21. This is a .pdf file for download, check your download file.

  22. It works..just follow the “See” link above

  23. I cannot believe what I am reading pertaining to California. MERS flat out states the fraud they will perpetrate in the foreclosure. How can this be happening? It goes against every single foreclosure law in the books. Are any JUDGES reading this? Is there any sanity left?

    If we take care of the middle class-the homeOWNERS first, then the rest will take care of itself.
    Forget about the investors, focus on the individuals who live in the homes.

    Unless the law is followed, then we might as well abandon the constitution.

    There is much more then meets the eye to this.
    The underlying motive is much more frightening. Its not about money. It’s about religion. Its about starting the Armegeddon.

  24. MERS Manual says:

    How is this made possible? Its members appoint MERS as the mortgagee of record on all loans that they register on the MERS System. This appointment eliminates the need for any future assignments when servicing rights are sold from one MERS Member to another. Instead of preparing a paper assignment to track the change in the county land records, all subsequent transfers are tracked electronically on the MERS System.

    MERS does not create or transfer beneficial interests in mortgage loans or create electronic assignments of the mortgage.

    What MERS does do is eliminate the need for subsequent recorded assignments altogether. The transfer process of the beneficial ownership of mortgage loans does not change with the arrival of MERS.

    Promissory notes still require an endorsement and delivery from the current owner to the next owner in order to change the beneficial ownership of a mortgage loan.

    What an admission by legal council….BAM!

    Forensic Mortgage Audits and Foreclosure Defense
    Quiet Title Actions
    oliver@ipa.net
    john

  25. MERS LINK NOT WORKING. PLEASE REPOST

  26. MERS link NOT working. Please repost. Thanks.

  27. Mers link is not working and would love to view it.

  28. MERS link not working please repost.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: