Posted on July 21, 2015 by Neil Garfield
Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products
For more information please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
Filed under: foreclosure |