MERS is Not a Beneficiary

Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products


For more information please email us at or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located.

I am busier than a one-armed paper hanger this week. No offense to the personally challenged.
Fortunately a brief popped up in my email which goes all the way back to what I was saying in 2007-2008 regarding MERS.
First MERS is NOT a beneficiary under any statutory definition of any state, as far as I can tell. In an action in Arizona the judge asked the MERS lawyer point blank whether that was a true statement and the lawyer confirmed that MERS did not fit the legal definition of a beneficiary. Which brings us to the “Donald Duck” effect. If MERS is named as beneficiary or mortgagee in a deed of trust or mortgage, and MERS is not really the beneficiary under any legal foundation, then the designated beneficiary has essentially been left blank. They have in essence used a fictitious character that has no legal existence. Hence the Donald Duck analogy.
The Banks are painting themselves into a corner. They have been using assignments from MERS as the basis for showing the sale of the loan when in fact (a) no sale occurred and (b) MERS never owned the loan (c) MERS was never a creditor or payee on the note and (d) MERS was never a mortgagee or beneficiary. It was a cover for an illegal scheme the complexity of which has been revealed on this blog, piece by piece. Suffice it to say that the intermediary banks screwed both the borrowers and the investors whose money was used for the origination or acquisition of loans. It’s like a very old joke about lawyers. Here it was the the investment bankers who stole from the investors, lied to the borrowers and violated every law, rule and regulation concerning disclosure to both the investors and the borrowers — and then the banks kept most of the money.
Regardless of how the Judge in this particular case rules, the brief filed by counsel for the borrowers or debtors correctly states the facts and the law. MERS is already in trouble in multiple states. It should be completely disregarded as a legal entity in the chain of title. And the credibility and truthfulness of any document produced as a “business record” by MERS is at best of minimal value. It should not be allowed into evidence. The information on such documents are false and the authority to report it is absent, as is the personal knowledge of anyone who signed such a document.

48 Responses

  1. That is good news. Thanks for the update Louise.

  2. MERS is having problems in SC. They are being sued by several Clerks regarding real property aka the Register of Deeds in two counties.

  3. I do not know of any published cases in California where a Court has decided against MERS. I think MERS is taking a much lower profile now in California.

  4. See Garfield’s NO PRESUMPTIONS!

  5. Stan is CA accepting MERS as beneficiary when there is no valid transaction, fraud or are you talking about note/mortgage separation theory? That depends on state law as w MI. MERS should like anyone else abide by homeowner bill of rights and file valud docs. If CA judges are ignoring law there’s a bigger problem.

  6. Reblogged this on California Freelance Paralegal and commented:
    Blog post by Neil Garfield stating that MERS is not a beneficiary. I hate MERS as much as anyone. I just wish that the California Courts would accept this argument. So far they have not.

  7. I say We The People have NEVER TRULY held Great Britain Responsible for war reparations.

    I also say: release the very first issues of “Greenback US Dollars” to the modern-day example of what the first colony- Massachusettes- intended from the outset: a repudiation of the central bankers…

    Make Greece the recipient and repository of newly- minted wealth in Europe.

    Grexit Greenback Global Get-Eveners… has a nice ring to it.

  8. The foreclosures are a foregone conclusion.


    WAKE UP!

    682 Trillion is ten times the GDP of EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!


    They are fixing to pull the rug from under the US Dollar in order to create an alternative currency.

    Well… if the debt these central banks have created for the past
    100 years is based on fraud… why should the US pay it ???



    The center of the country is eviscerated financially and … once the intentionally mislabeled “Federal Reserve” jacks up the rates, even Wall Street morons will recognize US debt was designed to ruin US ALL.

    You can either wet yourself and cry “foul” or you can deny the debt, renounce the bankers and repudiate 100 years of fraud.

    An election is coming.

    Every True American already knows “Corporations are NOT people”.

    Every True American also knows We The People don’t surrender our democracy to central banking FRAUD!!!!

    Every True American knows a Corporatocracy was NEVER INTENDED TO CONTROL OUR COURT SYSTEM.

  9. ps – why two copies? One for the borrower to retain and one to give the lender if he decides on the 3 day “no thanks”.

  10. Well, A-man, I supposed this is what’s po’d you:

    “Scalia, J.: …[Y]ou are urging that the statute creates a system in which a creditor who has a secured interest, simply because somebody comes up almost 3 years later and says, “you didn’t give me two copies of this particular document, I got only one copy,” and even if that’s not true, immediately the secured interest is converted into an unsecured interest. That is a huge difference. And I find it difficult to believe that’s what Congress intended. Mr. Frederick: Well, the language of the statute actually makes that very clear, and so do the regulations. [Colloquy of Justice Scalia and Mr. Frederick, Official Transcript, pp. 5-6.]”

    So I have this to say about that. First of all, as I’ve said, it was prob “commerce” which started hollering about a tila-like law. Their big dog in the hunt was false advertizing to the detriment of those who didn’t engage in false advertizing about rates and so on. False advertizing is unfair competition. Sign says (or radio) 30 year fixed at 4%. Honest lender says 5%. Both must include the apr as a matter of law. The apr, the true cost of money, on a 4% loan may exceed that on a 5% loan on account of points, orig fee, other costs: tila was legislated at least in part to punish for false (and thus unfair) advertizing.

    The right of rescission, to my knowledge, is relevant to owner-occupied refinances (as to mtg loans). The 3 day is a form of relief for ‘sticker shock’, that is, once one has been give the initial HUD 1 Settlement Statement (close to real figures, but some still estimates) and the final reg z truth in lending disclosure based now on the REAL loan numbers, unlike the orig ones which were based on a proposed loan, maybe a fixed rate, but as it turned out, the borrower got an arm: the borrower may have gotten a totally diff loan then he applied for, and these are the numbers on the final Reg Z truth in lending disclosure. So one has three days to say “no thanks” based on real numbers from the final reg Z form (where the total of the payments, amt financed, late fee $, and are disclosed). In order for one to exercise that “no thanks” 3 day RoR, one MUST be apprised that one has that right. The failure, among other things, to give one that notice results in its extension to three years. Hence, I see no cause for incredulity that the law was written this way. Like I’ve also said, doing x,y, and z and doing it right (accurate numbers on that form) isn’t that large a burden, hardly a high bar as they go.

    There can be no doubt imo that whomever legislated tila meant it to have teeth. Sorry if it’s hard for Justice Scalia to believe. He among all men has the resources to research the committee notes, etc. on tila, and once he does (if), I can’t think he’d have the same stance. The law pretty much says to those extending credit “do this and do it right or pay dearly”.
    There isn’t, to my knowledge, a legislated anything against, say, “bait and switch”, a rote practice of some who extend credit, like offer a 30 year fixed at X% and sell one something else altogether (for WHATever reason, including the borrower wanting a lower payment, say). But what there is is a law which says if a lender does engage in bait and switch, he damm well better make the right disclosures about the ‘new’ product. Same “right disclosures” holds true even if one gets what one was after, like the 30 year fixed rate. Borrowers / consumers ARE to know the cost of the credit they’re getting (and to be apprised of their right to the 3 day right of rescission aka “no thanks”).

    If YOU played it straight as a provider of credit, would you be happy to lose business to liars? Rhetorical question, since no one would, but it happens. Nasty bit of business if cheating A$$ cheaters get caught and so the heck it should be.

  11. My theme has always been keep on suing them. I estimate that they have spent more than $400,000 fighting with me for an $88,000 loan. Wow, that is some really bad math. I am waiting for MERS to really bite the dust.

  12. DW yes A Man’s analogy to The Sting fits to the t. If that’s right. Bubbles don’t just happen like they want us to think. But what happened then and what’s happening now is warped beyond any logic. My property is higher than back then but they still manipulate offers and laws where only outcome is I lose. So we could be most brilliant or dumb as a rock on “bets” but outcome was never in doubt.

  13. Hammertime you said
    . “To them in their kangaroo courts all that matters is that we placed our bet and MUST lose”
    True sad but true,
    Thing is i placed my bet based on the homes purported worth
    That is what induced my signature i get that properties can fall in value but for the love of god to loose over 400 k in less than 18 months its a sure thing for the hedge funds and the bottom feeders.

  14. MERS has always been the proverbial fly in the ointment. Illegally created to facilitate fraud and theft by a so-called “white shoe” law firm wherein one of the partners became Atty General of the U.S. Beyond bad!

  15. Agreed AMan and thanks to you as well and everyone that keeps fighting.

  16. Not a bad joke. A sad Joke. A sad bad joke.

    The article I posted is beyond belief.

    Hammertime thanks for your comments and research.

  17. Like SC says fc is the “cleanup”. After the explosion of toxic bomb. Better to nip the wire before it went off. TILA should have allowed us to do that and now it can. That’s what they’re afraid no matter how arrogant or denial they are.

  18. Another bad joke from A Man’s post that the concern needs to be borrower’s “bad behavior “.

  19. Exactly SC we should have all laughed them out of the casino . We need to expose all the fools that continue to go along w the Great Scam. Avg foreclosure esp non judicial was what 3 months. We’ve been stuck for YEARS for the sake of MERS “technology” and bank efficiency? Biggest crock of them all.

  20. Oops….No beer…lol!
    But lots of whine…..

  21. Hammettime.. As a beer Benificary of derivites payments..I understand all to well.
    They need the FC to wash the asset….clear the title….against all unrecorded claims and fictitious claims.

    The 1st time I heard that FC can not be stopped only delayed.
    I laughed..are you kidding..they put and keep current loans in default and the property owners can only delay it. Huffed and Puffed I did.

    Then I tried to payoff his loan and take control of the asset myself.
    That’s when I got woke up…..

  22. Just getting through first part of A Man’s post they are using windfall to borrower argument. Claim no direction given on tender by borrower but statute says must be equitable from what I recall. More deception and trlckery.

  23. What if I can tender and the claimed Creditor is not the real Creditor. So I should sell my house or other assets only to find out that the claimed creditor is a pretender? Who cannot show proof of Claim without the Deed of Trust and/or Note?

    Oh yeah Judge I have a few hundred thousand dollars in cash lying around under my mattress or under the floor board in my house. Really? Beyond rediculous.


  24. Although settlement guidelines, homeowner bill of rights was supposed to stop robosigning, standing, invalid transactions but LAW IS BEING IGNORED. So we have to make derivatives, Wall St casino the issue with “our” elected officials.

  25. @ SC less than 1% I’d wager know about derivatives and unless you understand that you will keep chasing MERS around like they want you to. Point is courts, judges DON’T CARE about title, documents. To them in their kangaroo courts all that matters is that we placed our bet and MUST lose. The banks are arguing that filing rescission or date of note is consummation that’s BS as Garfield posted the other day. Unless Supreme Court is part of casino all bets are off.

  26. PPMs HAVE AN Indentured party.
    Who is it?

  27. They deposit assets into trusts to hide the identity of the trust owners.
    Pretty dam good job too….especially when you are the depositor.

    Mortgage lien my GRR.ass!

  28. SC – we dont know

  29. If MERS as my nominee to hold bare legal title dirtied it…
    They should clean it up. Simple!

    But lets talk about non borrowers warranting title …..
    And how its the buyers and sellers responsibility to file the deeds…
    And how buyers need to talk to the party thee paid those filing fees to..

    Cause KC not happy having to defend a title …
    Not happy hubby can not grant her warranty deed upon sale.

    Oh wait….KC not on Trustee deed recorded without trustee agreement.

    Seller and KC can not locate origional Warranty Deed granted to KC n Hubby.
    KC can not locate origional Warranty Deed she n hubby granted to pretender lenders capital asset funding llc.

    Not a mortgage. Sighs..
    Deceased sellers trust still open and conducting business years after the sale.

  30. Deb. .. MERS hold bare legal title for who?
    How Long?

    MERS was a nominee of the granters and nominee for the pretender lender and their successors and assigns.

    Conflict of Interest.

  31. Reblogged this on Deadly Clear.

  32. Here you go charles reed

  33. Re MERs authority
    As SC highlights in her comment
    If the loan is sold as private placement how did mers regain control of the asset to assign ALL interest ehen they hold no interest in the DEBT
    They hold bare legal title

  34. Im just referring to rescission in my last comment

  35. Sc you dont have to prove its not consummated or otherwise they do
    Do you have the evidence either way, they do
    They know.

  36. That Instrument is encumbering your propery.
    It protects the Granters from debts of other granters during the life of the estate held joint common tenancy with ROS.

    Its not the lien represented to induce my signature on that so called mortgage.

    Be warned… If you get caught with your hand in My Cookie Jars..

    I Bite Hard!

  37. WOW! And just to think this mess was going on heavy in Florida in 2007, yet here we are after talking about it all these years on Jul 20, 2015.

    Rolling Stone said it best that Eric Holder was a double agent! Holder present at the Non Justice Dept is the reason MERS has not been prosecuted!

  38. The trust is created in the Instrument that creates the Estate.

    MERS may be legal… But their scope of authority is limited.
    Nobody…and I mean Nobody acts on my behalf without my consent!

    Just say No Quietly….in a LOUD way.

    Many Blessings to All

  39. Ok..we all know about their derivative betting parlor.

    But lets talk about real benificaries under law..
    When a thing is transferred irrevocably…….
    One has rights……

    Did one person here read the case link Neil posted?

    State Laws Vary

    If its not consummated…..
    Enforce It.

    I still fail to see how you rescind something that has not been consummated. Recession starts at Consummation.

  40. Meant keystone kops but keystroke works! Lol

  41. …and casinos. It’s beyond bad loans it’s massive fraud in plain sight. And we’re back to naked emperors.

  42. MK what’s missing is that the sting was run by the keystroke kops! Anybody cod go in and change MERS data and banks manufactured counterfeit copies with their manuals and good ol cut and paste. That’s why it’s not just one note or pitcher passed around or bad race it’s multiple pitchers and c

  43. If only they ruled on the FACTS as they should.

  44. Yes they watched me upgrade my home whilst foaming at the mouth to get their hands on it frankly.

  45. Give em enough rope….

  46. The MERS is the phony gambling parlor from the movie, “The Sting”.

    In the movie, the criminals were “past-posting” races: due to a communications glitch, the criminals knew, before-hand, how the racehorse ALREADY FINISHED.

    In the MERS, the criminals also already knew how the racehorse was EXPECTED TO FINISH; except it wasn’t a “racehorse”, it was YOUR HOUSE!

    In order to participate, as a criminal, in the MERS, any given person simply paid $25.00 to receive a rubber stamp. The rubber stamp allowed them thereafter to access the MERS database.

    The CEO of the company was deposed years ago and he admitted he is the “sole employee” of his company.

    … And yet, thousands of people claim employment in the MERS.
    Typically, these people worked in the mortgage industry making loans.

    In “The Big Short”, by Michael Lewis, he explained the banks did MONTHLY REMMITANCE REPORTS. Those reports showed how the racehorses… er… ehem… your houses were performing.

    Michael Lewis (The Big Short) and Neil Barofsky (BAILOUT) have already explained multiple “BETS (derivatives)”, were placed by multiple parties on multiple revenue streams.

    Barofsky describes these bets as, “glasses and pitchers of beer”.

    Lewis describes these bets as, “floors in a tower” and “tranches”.

    Each of these bets had varying interest rates and, as a result, multiple variations on how the bet would “Payoff”.

    I also believe these multiple variations are existing as different MERS numbers. In other words, each bet is unique to whoever made it and each “Payoff’ is then, also unique to each gambler.

    This is why loans in default are being traded among servicers, after the default: the criminals are playing percentages.

    They have a good thing going: roughly 3% of people in foreclosure actually manage to defend themselves.

    As I have said: the shortfall to international derivatives “BETS” (“Notional Derivatives”) is estimated as in excess of 682 Trillion Dollars.
    The central bankers are currently listing these criminal bets as assets on their books in order to hoodwink the regulators.

    As such, the foreclosure on your house, in the absence of law enforcement is a foregone conclusion.

  47. And yet they dont get it enough to even allow discovery
    Heres what i have as is typical:
    MERS is listed as “nominee” and “beneficiary” in DOT, first lie
    Day prior to NOTs the servicer lists itself as ” beneficiary” curtesy of a mers signing officer which happened just 6 days prior to that purported assigned ” interest” with mers purporting to assign ” all beneficial interest innthe LOAN to SERVICER assigning both NOTE AND DOT
    The 1099a is stating the servicer is LENDER ( remember when warehouser sells the line its SERVICING RIGHTS TO THE LOAN)
    Now we have the purported trustee for Bank usa, na in AZ federal court getting themselves a quiet title and removing my lis pendens for ” wrongful encumbrance ( rich isnt it) and At the SAME material time theres a unlawful detainer action going on in az state court ( which i was never served summons and complaint finding out years after that there had been a hearing and a judgment against me and an order of default jusgement granted by a judge that was nit schedualed to hear it anyway AND a prior to my legally allowed time to answer – even if i had been served – i think thats called a ” traversty of justice” – well it used to be ) made by with plaintiff ( described as grantee in the trustee deed upon sale because they for sure were ” highest bidder” and all) but are now calling themselves trustee for a dalt series 2007 ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. You see both claim to be owner of the property.
    It all began with that vice pres for the day at MERS an infamous robo signer -well actually not true, the where it began part not the fabricating sob for MERS, i signed the deed – relying on the ” safe keeping” of my interest in the agreement.
    Oh and i rescinded the contract in 09 long before this mess.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: