LESSONS: Interesting Maryland Decision Goes Both Ways

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

Azzam v Brunson Opinion

“Because the Defendants’ Petition does not comply with the requirements of Rule 14- 209(b)( 1), the court will grant the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the order issued on October 16, 2008 and vacate the stay on the foreclosure action. The court’s decision in this regard, however, should not be read as a blanket approval of the foreclosure proceedings against the Defendants. Several documents required under section 7-105.1 of the Real Property Article and Rule 14-207 are not present in the case file. The Plaintiffs should review the requirements of those sections and submit the required documents accordingly.”

Editor’s Notes: This case is a lesson in not reading the bullet points without reading the opinion. On its face, the opinion goes against the homeowners straight down the line, even granting MERS the right to “initiate” foreclosure proceedings. The fact that MERS is not a creditor is not really addressed, and what would happen at an auction of the house after foreclosure is anyone’s guess. Would MERS submit a “bid” as a creditor (i.e., no money changes hands)? Probably, and it will be accepted because it LOOKS like they are the creditor from the court file. Would title be issued to MERS? Probably not as MERS cannot accept title pursuant to its agreement with members. These points were clearly missed by the court and I have no way of knowing all the points raised by the homeowners.

But one thing stands out to me — admissions by the homeowner that pretty much settled the matter in the mind of the Judge from the outset. —

  • It appears as though the homeowners rolled over on whether the note and deed of trust were transferred. We all know that they were not and any attempt to do so now would neither be supported by facts or law — the securitization documents preventing such a transfer, the REMIC statute creating a giant tax problem, and the delivery of the documents being non-existent until the litigation came along — which is why the caveat at the end of the opinion is so important. The Judge saw that the documentation chain was incomplete and instructed the would-be foreclosers to submit the documentation before they go forward with any sale of the property.
  • It appears that the homeowners rolled over on the question of whether payment was due, although they raised the question of to whom the payment might be due. As Katherine Porter has pointed out, the Judges seem to be taking the position that if the homeowner is liable, it doesn’t much matter to whom — that is a matter for the various parties in the securitization chain to work out. The owners of the mortgage bonds beg to differ of course as do several other parties not present in these proceedings and so any argument by the would-be foreclosers is pure sophistry — which the court seemed to have accepted. This is the method by which MERS and other parties finesse what would be requirements under rules of evidence; these are all parties who have absolutely no interest in the financial transaction and in fact are contractually and legally bound not to assert such an interest in the transaction or the ownership of the property, obligation, note or mortgage.
  • “The Brunsons apparently do not dispute the fact that they owe the Plaintiffs over $400,000.00.” If in fact the homeowners made that admission either by pleading it in their case or through other means, the case is over and why shouldn’t it be? They admit they owe money, they admit the amount, they admit they owe it to MERS and they admit they owe it to the transferees, which is an admission that the transfer occurred and that it was done properly. So the court says after that, quite understandably, “Instead, they contest various aspects of the foreclosure procedure pending against them. The Brunsons’ allegations are at times difficult to understand. As best the court can determine, the Brunsons assert that the Plaintiffs have no standing to bring the action, that certain documents filed with the court are improper, that the Plaintiffs failed to file an Affidavit of Ownership, that it was defamatory and emotionally distressing to see their names and their property in the local newspaper foreclosure section and that they were never properly served.” So the Judge is left with the impression that the homeowner admits they owe the money but doesn’t want to pay it because they think they can use legal technicalities to get out of the obligation.

So the moral of the story for homeowners and their lawyers, is get your facts straight, get to know what the essential arguments are that you wish to present to the court and make damn sure you don’t first admit something that you later wish to make an issue of fact. No Judge has very much discretion on the facts if both sides are saying the same thing.

The moral of the story for Judges is that attorneys AND pro se litigants are fallible and your obligation to the state supersedes the rules of court if the laws of the state are about to be broken in ways that will corrupt the legal system and recorded title chains indefinitely. As dozens of Judges in many states have already concluded, the ineffectiveness of the presentation on behalf of the homeowner does not make recorded documents valid. Each time you allow these foreclosures to proceed you are creating the appearance that the parties are properly aligned even if your order says otherwise. This leads to auction sales and “credit bids” that are made by non-creditors, corrupting the title chain. Your question to those that wish to foreclose should be very simple and straightforward: what is the identity of the creditor(s) and how are we protecting both the interests of the creditor and the rights of the borrowers? Or, if you like it phrased another way, will my order be used to corrupt or clear title on this property?

13 Responses

  1. I’m a regular layman, my question for any lawyer in the state of Maryland. How do I contest the foreclosure of my hoiuse. It seems that the original loan note which was signed w/ Bank of Annapolis. How do I find out if that note is still in thier holdings or elsewhere?

  2. Neil … I think that you need to put a legal argument bouncer at the front door of your blog. Some of the stuff being advanced here is downright dangerous.

  3. With all due respect … I believe this post to be very dangerous.

    First, Article 9 of the UCC does not apply to negotiable instruments. So all the cites of the author to Article 9 will be unavailing. I’m almost thinking the poster is a bank attorney trying to get pro se litigants to go into court with nonsensical legal theories, theories that will get such litigants’ asses drop kicked clean out of the court house.

    It is hard enough to get judges to rule in our favor when we go in with rock solid facts, well settled case law or black letter law. Go in with crap like this (no lawful money, UCC Article 9, etc.) and not only will you get booted, you also risk sanctions for filing frivolous papers, and having to pay the bank’s costs and attorneys’ fees.

    More importantly, what happens is that judges then tend to tar all pro se litigants with the same disdain that they have for the loons, even if the cases are meritorious.

    Banks don’t respond to this crap because they don’t have to as a matter of law. The bank’s lawyers, the law clerks and the judges roll on the floor laughing their asses off when they see crap like this come through the door. And these kinds of arguments from home owner defendants are exactly the kinds of arguments the foreclosure mills want to see submitted.

  4. The Azzam v Brunson Opinion is a horrible decision, a pro MERS decision. However, the key is not to admit the alleged debt, for there is NO DEBT. I state that there is no default and there is no debt. I prove this on the private side via a proper administrative process, primarily relying on UCC 9-210 (they never answer) as the basis, which is enforceable with UCC 9-625. Now when you go to court, you claim a wrongful foreclosure (among other relevant issues) and the tables turn.

    Now the other side can be compelled to prove form (original note & DOT or mortgage) and substance (the accounting to show and prove the alleged debt, to show that the original “lender” gave you legal tender [which they are requiring of you] from its net worth account, which they will not be able to prove based on info Neil has shared with us over the years). In judicial states, it can be even easier because the “lender” must prove its case, and all you have to do is compel it to prove its claim by substance and not allow them to rely ONLY on “form.”

    Counsel: “Your Honor, we have here the original note which evidences a debt.” So what!

    Your Reply: “Your Honor, as the alleged defendant I object. I state for the record that there is no debt in this matter. If counsel for the plaintiff is to prove there is a debt, one, he needs to get a witness. Secondly, we need to see the accounting in this matter. The plaintiff must prove the original “lender” gave me money, that is, legal tender that requires a repayment. According to the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement given at closing, the alleged original lender did not provide money, but “credit.” I never got a loan of money. Now if the plaintiff can show this honorable court that the alleged original lender gave me money from its own net worth account via authenticated evidence, then the plaintiff will have a claim. However, when I put the plaintiff to the test privately pursuant to UCC 9-210, plaintiff was not able to refute my statement of account of Zero. The plaintiff, who is not the original “lender” does not have a valid claim. I therefore move the court to extinguish the alleged debt pursuant to UCC 9-625, release the lien on the subject property and sign my order to convey all rights, title and interests in the subject property to my trust. Lastly, I put the court on judicial notice that counsel for the plaintiff cannot testify for his client, and counsel cannot authenticate any evidence in this matter since he is not a competent fact witness with personal knowledge.”



  5. Neil makes some excellent points. And, want to add – many – judges included — are falsely assuming the collection rights remain in the securitization process (which was faulty to begin with). As Neil writes (reference to Katherine Porter) – judges assume that if a homeowner is liable it does not matter much to whom — as it “is a matter for the various parties in the securitization chain to work out” . This is completely false because non-performing loans have long LEFT the securitization chain — if they were ever even there to begin with!!!!

    And, once they have left the securitization chain — the loan is now unsecured (nothing but a default debt left). And, what remains is the question of the real party who claims foreclosure collection rights – and who has likely denied a modification on a mortgage loan that no longer exists.. (loan mods are simply modifications of default debt – and THAT is why they are being done in the servicer name — because the mortgage contract itself is gone!)

    In addition, what price did that party pay for the collection rights?? What is the actual value of the default debt — now unsecured — that is the subject of the fraudulent foreclosure??? And, what counter-claims do the homeowners have for violation of the law, fraudulent foreclosure, violation of rights — all before the real party shows itself to the court???

    Have said many times before — securitization is only for current receivables. Nothing more — this is mandated by Regulation AB. Any securities created for non-performing debt does not comply with Reg AB – and are, therefore, not securities.
    Collection rights and property cannot be passed on by securities — which, AGAIN, are for CURRENT receivables only. (for those that are not accounting students – receivables is a current asset on asset side of accounting balance sheet – current asset means quickly and easily converted into cash — liquid).

    This is why Fed Res and OCC do not want regulation of mortgage servicers (debt collectors) because the sale of collection rights serves a purpose to them — to clear the market of the “undesirables.” The very purpose of the Fed Res purchase of securities and whole loans — was to dispose ot the collection rights to distressed debt buyers. THAT WAS THE INTENT. Once these rights are sold — what will the government then say to the distressed debt “investors” (investors DO NOT have to be investors in securities) —NO!!! — You cannot have the collection rights anymore!!!??? They are stuck. But, we are not stuck with fraud in the courts. We did not agree to the strategy — and will not accept fraud as a means of anyone’s agenda.

  6. I will have a comment on this post in the next few days, and provide an update on my guy’s BAC litigation, Part 2.

  7. To Joyce, I urge everyone that get’s a adversed slam dunk ruling should consider appealing it. If someone want’s to file lawsuit must be ready for this!

  8. I would wish to respectfully disagree with Neil in the observation that, if the parties agree, then there is little the Judge can do. Just because the parties “agree” or seem or agree on incorrect facts does not relieve the Court of the obligation to ferret out the truth; to do otherwise is administratively convenient, and speeds the handling of the dockets, but does nothing to advance the proposition that the Court shall maintain the integrity of the process.
    There is precisely one judge that does not go this route, and that is Judge Schack over in Kings County, Brooklyn, NY, who absolutely insists that all the facts are correct and all the proper parties are before the Court and truthful to the Court. He will even refuse to enter a default judgement against a non-appearing party, which is unheard of in our machine-processed court system. In short: just because the unsophisticated defendant admits that he owes the money to MERS, does not mean he really does, and the Court should know this by now, and thus should know better than to just hand out a Judgment to the servicer. Unfortunately, in what is defined as an “adversarial system,” this snippet is ignored. The result: an undermining in the faith in the integrity of the Courts.

  9. Yes, I have been warned by experienced attorneys that Judges frequently do not read the briefs or documents submitted, You had better be able to state your case verbally with the really pertinent facts in a simple, straight-forward manner. The judge will frequently use that to determine the outcome of the case. http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com.

  10. Deny everything ! Tell Judge you had signed a note, but the obligation has been paid off and transferred around with no chain of title. A TRUE statement! Make them prove otherwise.

    MD 7-105.1 of the Real Property Article
    and Rule 14-207 are the keys. The Judge even gives the homeowner a hint at the end! These rules were recently changed in an emergency session (2 months ago) to prevent robo-signing.

    See Maryland Class Action suit.

    Civil No. 09-2904 RWT -Maryland District Court.
    Jones vs HSBC

  11. Neil … I concur with your opinion of this case …


    Let this be a lesson to those of you in your pleadings that admit to everything and then expect the court to understand. Someone didn’t do their homework, obviously. And someone signed the Deed of Trust before they fully read and understood what they were signing; especially the part about MERS.

    I recently contributed my two cents into the drafting of a new bill that has been introduced into the Virginia House, which I will share with you:

    2011 SESSION
    1 HOUSE BILL NO. 1506
    2 Offered January 12, 2011
    3 Prefiled December 17, 2010
    4 A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 26-15, 55-59.1, and 55-66.01 of the Code of Virginia and to amend
    5 the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 55-59.5 and 55-59.6, relating to foreclosure
    6 procedures; assignment of deed of trust.
    7 ––––––––––
    Patron––Marshall, R.G.
    8 ––––––––––
    9 Committee Referral Pending
    10 ––––––––––
    11 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
    12 1. That §§ 26-15, 55-59.1, and 55-66.01 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted and
    13 that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 55-59.5 and 55-59.6 as follows:
    14 § 26-15. Accounts of sales under deeds of trust, etc.
    15 Within six months after the date of a sale made under any recorded deed of trust, mortgage or
    16 assignment for benefit of creditors, otherwise than under a decree, the trustee shall return an account of
    17 sale to the commissioner of accounts of the court wherein the instrument was first recorded. Promptly
    18 after recording any trustee’s deed, the trustee shall deliver to the commissioner of accounts a copy of the
    19 deed. The date of sale is the date specified in the notice of sale, or any postponement thereof, as
    20 required by subsection A B of § 55-59.1. The commissioner shall state, settle and report to the court an
    21 account of the transactions of such trustee, and it shall be recorded as other fiduciary reports. Any
    22 trustee failing to comply with this section shall forfeit his commissions on such sale, unless such
    23 commissions are allowed by the court.
    24 If the commissioner of accounts of the court wherein an instrument was first recorded becomes
    25 aware that an account as required by this section has not been filed, the commissioner and the court
    26 shall proceed against the trustee in like manner and impose like penalties as set forth in § 26-13, unless
    27 such trustee is excused for sufficient reason. If after a deed of trust is given on land lying in a county,
    28 and before sale thereunder, the land is taken within the limits of the incorporated city, the returns of the
    29 trustee and settlement of his accounts shall be before the commissioner of accounts of such city.
    30 Whenever the commissioner reports to the court that a fiduciary, who is an attorney-at-law licensed
    31 to practice in the Commonwealth, has failed to make the required return within 30 days after the date of
    32 service of a summons, the commissioner shall also mail a copy of his report to the Virginia State Bar.
    33 § 55-59.1. Notices required before sale by trustee to owners, lienors, etc.; if note lost.
    34 A. At least 45 days before any proposed sale in execution of a deed of trust, the party secured or
    35 mortgage servicer shall provide written notice to the present owner of the property to be sold of the
    36 intent of the party secured to foreclose upon the property. The notice shall contain the name, address,
    37 and telephone number of the party secured, the trustee, and any employee or department of the
    38 mortgage servicer, the party secured, or any agent of the party secured that can be contacted for
    39 inquiries regarding alternatives to foreclosure, including loan modifications. The notice shall be sent by
    40 certified or registered mail to the present owner’s last known address as such owner and address
    41 appear in the records of the party secured.
    42 B. In addition to the advertisement required by § 55-59.2, the trustee or the party secured shall give
    43 written notice of the time, date and place of any proposed sale in execution of a deed of trust, which
    44 notice shall include either (i) the instrument number or deed book and page numbers of the instrument
    45 of appointment filed pursuant to § 55-59, or (ii) said notice shall include a copy of the executed and
    46 notarized appointment of substitute trustee by personal delivery or by mail to (i) (a) the present owner
    47 of the property to be sold at his last known address as such owner and address appear in the records of
    48 the party secured, (ii) (b) any subordinate lienholder who holds a note against the property secured by a
    49 deed of trust recorded at least 30 days prior to the proposed sale and whose address is recorded with the
    50 deed of trust, (iii) (c) any assignee of such a note secured by a deed of trust provided the assignment
    51 and address of assignee are likewise recorded at least 30 days prior to the proposed sale, (iv) (d) any
    52 condominium unit owners’ association which has filed a lien pursuant to § 55-79.84, (v) (e) any property
    53 owners’ association which has filed a lien pursuant to § 55-516, and (vi) (f) any proprietary lessees’
    54 association which has filed a lien pursuant to § 55-472. Written notice shall be given pursuant to clauses
    55 (iv) (d), (v) (e) and (vi) (f), only if the lien is recorded at least 30 days prior to the proposed sale.
    56 Mailing of a copy of the advertisement or a notice containing the same information to the owner by
    57 certified or registered mail no less than 14 days prior to such sale and to lienholders, the property
    58 owners’ association or proprietary lessees’ association, their assigns and the condominium unit owners’
    12/17/10 14:56
    HB1506 2 of 4
    59 association, at the address noted in the memorandum of lien, by ordinary mail no less than 14 days prior
    60 to such sale shall be a sufficient compliance with the requirement of notice. The written notice of
    61 proposed sale when given as provided herein shall be deemed an effective exercise of any right of
    62 acceleration contained in such deed of trust or otherwise possessed by the party secured relative to the
    63 indebtedness secured. The inadvertent failure to give notice as required by this subsection shall not
    64 impose liability on either the trustee or the secured party.
    65 BC. If a note or other evidence of indebtedness secured by a deed of trust is lost or for any reason
    66 cannot be produced and the beneficiary submits to the trustee an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, to
    67 that effect, the trustee may nonetheless proceed to sale, provided the beneficiary has given written notice
    68 to the person required to pay the instrument that the instrument is unavailable and a request for sale will
    69 be made of the trustee upon expiration of 14 days from the date of mailing of the notice. The notice
    70 shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of the person required
    71 to pay the instrument as reflected in the records of the beneficiary and shall include the name and
    72 mailing address of the trustee. The notice shall further advise the person required to pay the instrument
    73 that if he believes he may be subject to a claim by a person other than the beneficiary to enforce the
    74 instrument, he may petition the circuit court of the county or city where the property or some part
    75 thereof lies for an order requiring the beneficiary to provide adequate protection against any such claim.
    76 If deemed appropriate by the court such a petition is made, the court may condition shall not permit the
    77 sale on a finding unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected
    78 against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument.
    79 Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means. If the trustee proceeds to sale, the fact
    80 that the instrument is lost or cannot be produced shall not affect the authority of the trustee to sell or
    81 the validity of the sale.
    82 CD. When the written notice of proposed sale is given as provided herein, there shall be a rebuttable
    83 presumption that the lienholder has complied with any requirement to provide notice of default
    84 contained in a deed of trust. Failure to comply with the requirements of notice contained in this section
    85 shall not affect the validity of the sale, and a purchaser for value at such sale shall be under no duty to
    86 ascertain whether such notice was validly given.
    87 DE. In the event of postponement of sale, which may be done in the discretion of the trustee, no
    88 new or additional notice need be given pursuant to this section.
    89 § 55-59.5. Sale by trustee; additional requirements; nominee cannot request sale.
    90 A. On or after July 1, 2011, if a deed of trust or mortgage has been assigned by the original grantee
    91 or mortgagee, the trustee, or any substitute trustee, under any deed of trust or mortgage shall not
    92 proceed with any sale of the property unless (i) all assignments of the deed of trust or mortgage have
    93 been duly recorded with the land records of the locality in which the property is located and (ii) the
    94 person who asserts that he is the holder of the obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage can
    95 directly trace his interest through the duly recorded assignments to the original grantee or mortgagee.
    96 B. If all assignments of the deed of trust or mortgage have not been duly recorded with the land
    97 records of the locality in which the property is located, the trustee, or any substitute trustee, may
    98 proceed with the sale of the property conveyed to him by the deed of trust or mortgage upon (i) the
    99 recordation of any assignments necessary to trace the interest of the person who asserts that he is the
    100 holder of the obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage to the original grantee or mortgagee
    101 or, if an intervening assignment cannot be recorded because the assignee no longer exists, the provision
    102 of an affidavit by the party secured to the trustee, or any substitute trustee, attesting under penalty of
    103 perjury that the person is the party secured under the deed of trust, and (ii) the payment of all fees,
    104 taxes, and other costs applicable to the recording of the assignments. The person who asserts that he is
    105 the holder of the obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage is solely responsible for paying all
    106 fees, taxes, and other costs required in clause (ii).
    107 C. A nominee of a grantee, mortgagee, or beneficiary for a deed of trust or mortgage has no
    108 authority to request that the trustee, or any substitute trustee, proceed with any sale of the property and
    109 the trustee, or any substitute trustee, shall not proceed with any such sale upon the request of the
    110 nominee. As used in this section, “nominee” means a person who is designated in the deed of trust or
    111 mortgage, or who is subsequently designated to act on behalf of the grantee, mortgagee, or beneficiary.
    112 The term “nominee” does not include an agent or other fiduciary.
    113 § 55-59.6. Foreclosure; civil penalty for fraud; civil action.
    114 A. Any person who (i) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false or fraudulent
    115 record, document, or statement or (ii) knowingly swears or affirms falsely to any matter, in support of
    116 any foreclosure upon property under this chapter shall be liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 for each
    117 violation.
    118 B. Any attorney for the Commonwealth for the county or city or any attorney for the county, city, or
    119 town in which an alleged violation occurred may bring an action to recover the civil penalty, which
    120 shall be paid into the local treasury. A person violating this section shall be liable for reasonable
    3 of 4
    121 attorney fees and costs of a civil action brought to recover any such penalty.
    122 C. The owner of the property subject to foreclosure has a civil cause action against a person who
    123 has violated this section, and shall be entitled to recover from such person compensatory damages in
    124 the amount of three times the damages incurred by the owner as a result of the violation in addition to
    125 reasonable attorney fees and costs.
    126 D. The civil penalty provisions of this section shall apply in addition to any applicable criminal
    127 penalties for forgery set forth in §§ 18.2-168 and 18.2-172 and perjury set forth in § 18.2-434 or any
    128 other applicable criminal penalty.
    129 § 55-66.01. Protection of assignees or transferees of debts secured by real estate; form of certificate
    130 of transfer.
    131 A. Whenever a debt or other obligation secured by a deed of trust, mortgage or vendor’s lien on real
    132 estate has been assigned, the assignor or the assignee, at its option, may cause the instrument of
    133 assignment to be recorded in the clerk’s office of the circuit court where such deed of trust, mortgage or
    134 vendor’s lien is recorded provided such instrument is otherwise in recordable form, or may cause a
    135 certificate of transfer signed by the assignor to be recorded in such clerk’s office, and such instrument of
    136 assignment or certificate of transfer, upon recordation, shall operate as a notice of such assignment. The
    137 instrument of assignment or certificate of transfer shall be indexed in the name of the assignor and in
    138 the names of the obligor or maker, and the trustees, as applicable, all of whose names shall be set forth
    139 in such instrument or certificate. The certificate of transfer shall conform substantially to the following:
    141 Place of Record: Clerk’s Office of the Circuit
    142 Court of the ………… of
    143 …………, Virginia
    144 Date of [Deed of Trust/
    145 Mortgage/Vendor’s Lien]: …………….,
    146 Deed Book
    147 …….., Page ……..
    148 Name of Obligor or Maker: ……………………………………
    149 Names(s) of Trustee(s)
    150 [if a Deed of Trust]: ……………………………………
    151 ……………………………………
    152 Name of Original
    153 Payee or Obligee: ……………………………………
    154 Original Amount Secured
    155 [if applicable]:
    156 $ ……………………………………………………….
    157 The undersigned, the original payee or obligee [or the subsequent assignee]
    158 of the obligation secured by the above-mentioned [Deed of Trust/Mortgage/
    159 Vendor’s Lien], hereby certifies that the obligations secured thereby have
    160 been assigned to …………………………………………….
    161 ……………………………………………………………
    162 [If a credit line deed of trust, the name and address to which notice may
    163 be mailed or delivered to the Noteholder as provided by § 55-58.2 is as
    164 follows:
    165 ……………………………………………………………..
    166 …………………………………………………………….]
    167 Given under [my/our] hand(s) as of the …………………………..
    168 day of ……………., ……….
    169 …………………………………
    170 (Assignor)
    171 ……………… of ………….
    172 County/City of ……………….., to wit:
    173 Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by ………………..
    174 this ……………….. day of ………… 20……….
    175 My Commission Expires: …………
    176 …………………………………..
    177 Notary Public
    178 For purposes of this statute, the word “assigned” shall include endorsed, pledged, hypothecated or
    HB1506 4 of 4
    179 otherwise transferred. Nothing in this statute shall be deemed to invalidate any other form or notice of
    180 assignment that may have been heretofore recorded. Nothing in this statute shall imply that recordation
    181 of the instrument of assignment or a certificate of transfer is necessary in order to transfer to an assignee
    182 the benefit of the security provided by the deed of trust, mortgage or vendor’s lien.
    183 B. On or after July 1, 2011, all assignments of a debt or other obligation secured by a deed of trust
    184 or mortgage shall be recorded in the clerk’s office of the circuit court where such deed of trust or
    185 mortgage is recorded. The trustee, or any substitute trustee, under any deed of trust or mortgage shall
    186 not proceed with any sale of the property conveyed to him by the deed of trust or mortgage at the
    187 request of a person who asserts that he is the holder of the obligation secured thereby unless the land
    188 records of the locality in which the property is located contain a duly recorded instrument evidencing
    189 the assignment of the secured obligation to such person.

    It is obvious to me that MERS will be lobbying to keep this from getting passed. I guess the county recorders like John O’Brien and others are tired of getting ripped off while our counties suffer at the hands of MERS and its subscribers, while they play games with our chains of title.

    Dave Krieger

  12. This is a great post. In a case that is in the appeals court right now is there for the simple reason that the JUdge did not read the briefs. He asked the question as to whether or not you made the loan? Do you owe the money? and the homeowner said “Yes” to both. Then the Judge said, well you took the money, you owe it to somebody, so you have to pay it. He completely ignored the fact that the lender/servicer had breached the contract, committed fraud and that it was the homeowner who brought the suit in the first place. The banks were the defendants. The Judge said, I have not read all of the briefs but some of it or he would have known that it was the Homeowner bringing the suit. He was so used to reubberstamping for the Plaintiffs as the banks, that he did not even realize that he had a homeowner who was the Plaintiff. In the middle of the sentence he was saying, well, I will have to grant the motion to the Plaintiff, right after he said, well you owe it to someone. Both the Homeowner and the lender spoke up and said, but Judge, the Plaintiff is the homeowner, are you sure. Well, you know how that went, the homeowner was not awarded the motion, but the service was. He was so of touch with what was going on. The cause was filed by the Plaintiff (homeowner) because of the wrongful increase in the monthly payment which made it impossible for the homeowenr to make the payment and a violation of a state law which he ignored completetly. Here again as on the other post, the servicer virtually maneuvered this default and it was headed straight for foreclosure because they knew the homeowner could not pay the new amount. The homeowner had always made his payments on time but refused to make them based on the wrong doing by the servicer. Even when provided with false affidavits, no assignments, and no proof of standing, etc., he awarded to the servicer. This case is in appeals.

  13. Any “good” lawyers in MD?

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: