For legal representation in Florida Call 520-405-1688
MORE REASONS TO DENY AND DISCOVER
The usual stuff from MERS: We’re right and everyone else is wrong. Except that not so many people are taking them at their word. The MERS “Business Model” was simply a vehicle to hide a simple PONZI scheme. This class action lawsuit aims to show that you cannot pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other. If MERS wants to take the position that the transfers on their books are valid, which they must or there wouldn’t be any foreclosures, then they must pay the transfer taxes and recording fees required under Pennsylvania law. It is pretty simple, and the order allowing the class action to proceed is basically a final decision waiting to be made final.
The case also goes forward on unjust enrichment, declaratory and injunctive relief. Now comes the decision where the MERS entity must decide whether and when to assert that MERS shouldn’t be sued because it was only acting as agent of the members. If they do that then they are admitting they were acting for a undisclosed principal at the closing of the loan, a clear violation of the Truth in Lending Act. If they don’t do that they get a judgment that puts them out of business and which will be executed and enforced against those who organized MERS — Title companies, banks, servicers included — when it comes out that this is indeed the case during discovery.
It is difficult to conjure up a scenario where this case won’t be settled. The facts are devastating to the banks and servicers and title companies. They can’t go to trial. And THAT is the same strategy I am pushing lawyers to use in individual cases in DENY AND DISCOVER.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: Deny and Discover, MERS, Pennsylvania, Recording fees, recording office, transfer fees, UNJUST ENRICHMENT |