Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Free home anyone? The Utah court ruled, and this cat just got himself a free casa › SK in CV wrote: According to

January 17, 2011 at 5:10 PM #655024
Eugene
Participant

[quote=SK in CV]
According to the article, MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Which makes sense. I believe in most states, the beneficiary of a TD and the note owner must be the same party. And MERS has pretty consistently argued that they have no ownership interests in the notes or TD’s.[/quote]

MERS is “a mortgagee of record as nominee” for the real noteholder.

So the trick is that the noteholder does not have to be notified because he’s not recorded directly on the deed, and MERS does not have to be notified because it does not have an ownership interest.

What’s wrong with this picture?

[quote]Yes, it is a legal trick, but I think it is a clever one.[/quote]

I agree. The validity of the trick would depend on wording of the law in each state. In California specifically, it would seem to me that CCP 764.045(b) would prevent the court from voiding the mortgage under this approach.

And since this is all about notice rather than validity of the mortgage itself, either the lienholder, or MERS as its agent, can still appeal and get the mortgage reinstated.