LOOK CAREFULLY AT EXHIBITS CONTAINING MERS ADVERTISING TO LENDERS LOOKING TO TRANSFER NOTES AND MORTGAGES
From the attached amended complaint.
That Deed of Trust (“DOT”) contained a false representation on its face when it represented that Defendant MERS was a beneficiary under the DOT. Paragraph (E) States that “MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a Nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.” As will be demonstrated below, MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the DOT, it never had ownership or possession of the Promissory Note which is the obligation which is secured by the DOT, and MERS has never been entitled to receive one cent of remuneration from Mr. Buse’s loan proceeds.The statement that MERS is the nominee is nonsensical language which means nothing in a real estate transaction and most certainly, MERS has never been nor is it now the beneficiary under the DOT. The language is a sham.
From MERS explained by Aurora Lawyers, Bold emphasis are my highlights.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, education, Eviction, foreclosure, foreign relations, GTC | Honor, Investor, securities fraud | Tagged: borrower, disclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, Lender Liability, MERS, Mortgage, predatory lending, quiet title, rescission, securitization, trustee |