Yes, it is a legal trick, but I think it is a clever one. The attorney seems to be seeking out defunct lenders who he can default. His argument probably is an extension of the Supreme Court decision in Landmark National Bank v. Kesler which basically held that MERS as nominee for a junior lienholder was not entitled to notice from a senior foreclosing lender under Kansas law. Hey, why not push it one step further to a borrower quiet title suit?
I think the problem is that the same logic does not apply to quiet title suits as there is a policy in those suits to encourage anyone with a claimed interest to be named and to appear to assert their interests to the property. Technical arguments to preclude a party in interest from appearing in a quiet title suit probably won’t fly, especially when the plaintiff is probably avoiding involving the servicer who is currently sending the borrower loan statements.
