Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › DC Attorney General May have Just Banned MERS Mortgages
- This topic has 65 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
bearishgurl.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 1, 2010 at 9:41 PM #625455November 1, 2010 at 9:56 PM #626444
patb
Participant[quote=Kingside]I really don’t follow DC politics, but this attorney general guy Nichols does not seem to be above the political fray.
Does anyone know what specific law this guy claims the MERS mortgages violate? I could not find any reference to it in his announcement/press release.[/quote]
apparently DC Law requires notes to be registered within 30 days
November 1, 2010 at 9:56 PM #625460Participant[quote=Kingside]I really don’t follow DC politics, but this attorney general guy Nichols does not seem to be above the political fray.
Does anyone know what specific law this guy claims the MERS mortgages violate? I could not find any reference to it in his announcement/press release.[/quote]
apparently DC Law requires notes to be registered within 30 days
November 1, 2010 at 9:56 PM #626135Participant[quote=Kingside]I really don’t follow DC politics, but this attorney general guy Nichols does not seem to be above the political fray.
Does anyone know what specific law this guy claims the MERS mortgages violate? I could not find any reference to it in his announcement/press release.[/quote]
apparently DC Law requires notes to be registered within 30 days
November 1, 2010 at 9:56 PM #626011Participant[quote=Kingside]I really don’t follow DC politics, but this attorney general guy Nichols does not seem to be above the political fray.
Does anyone know what specific law this guy claims the MERS mortgages violate? I could not find any reference to it in his announcement/press release.[/quote]
apparently DC Law requires notes to be registered within 30 days
November 1, 2010 at 9:56 PM #625380Participant[quote=Kingside]I really don’t follow DC politics, but this attorney general guy Nichols does not seem to be above the political fray.
Does anyone know what specific law this guy claims the MERS mortgages violate? I could not find any reference to it in his announcement/press release.[/quote]
apparently DC Law requires notes to be registered within 30 days
November 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM #626152Anonymous
GuestMERS Fatal Flaws in California
The First Fatal Flaw – MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, Voiding the Deed of Trust.
Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note.Why MERS doesn’t have ownership of the Note:
1. MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don’t own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.
2. A Nominee in California cannot own the Note, Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.
3. In California, the Note is not Bearer paper, the original lender must indorse or assign the Note to MERS See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204. and Rickie Walker case attached below
4. MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a “Note-Owner” MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below
5. MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes, MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached belowDeed of Trust is void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:
1. MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below
2. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent. RICKIE WALKER CASE, see attached below
Therefore, MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”;
California Civil Code section 2924 for foreclosure only applies if MERS owned the note.The Second Fatal Flaw – MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.
When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.Again, Under California Law the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code §3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes §§3201, 3203, 3204. see attached Rickie Walker Order.
“A mortgage note holder can sell a mortgage note to another in what has become a gigantic secondary market. . . . For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were BIFURCATED.” MERSCORP President and CEO, R.K. Arnold, Yes, There is Life on MERS, Prob.& Prop., Aug. 1997, at p.16 (EMPHASIS MY AUTHOR)
Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain: “Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.”This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated: “It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.”
Therefore, any attempt to collect by other than the original lender may be impossible without a legal chain of title, because MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title.
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/MERS-Fatal-Flaws
November 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM #627140GuestMERS Fatal Flaws in California
The First Fatal Flaw – MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, Voiding the Deed of Trust.
Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note.Why MERS doesn’t have ownership of the Note:
1. MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don’t own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.
2. A Nominee in California cannot own the Note, Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.
3. In California, the Note is not Bearer paper, the original lender must indorse or assign the Note to MERS See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204. and Rickie Walker case attached below
4. MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a “Note-Owner” MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below
5. MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes, MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached belowDeed of Trust is void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:
1. MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below
2. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent. RICKIE WALKER CASE, see attached below
Therefore, MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”;
California Civil Code section 2924 for foreclosure only applies if MERS owned the note.The Second Fatal Flaw – MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.
When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.Again, Under California Law the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code §3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes §§3201, 3203, 3204. see attached Rickie Walker Order.
“A mortgage note holder can sell a mortgage note to another in what has become a gigantic secondary market. . . . For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were BIFURCATED.” MERSCORP President and CEO, R.K. Arnold, Yes, There is Life on MERS, Prob.& Prop., Aug. 1997, at p.16 (EMPHASIS MY AUTHOR)
Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain: “Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.”This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated: “It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.”
Therefore, any attempt to collect by other than the original lender may be impossible without a legal chain of title, because MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title.
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/MERS-Fatal-Flaws
November 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM #626072GuestMERS Fatal Flaws in California
The First Fatal Flaw – MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, Voiding the Deed of Trust.
Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note.Why MERS doesn’t have ownership of the Note:
1. MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don’t own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.
2. A Nominee in California cannot own the Note, Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.
3. In California, the Note is not Bearer paper, the original lender must indorse or assign the Note to MERS See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204. and Rickie Walker case attached below
4. MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a “Note-Owner” MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below
5. MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes, MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached belowDeed of Trust is void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:
1. MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below
2. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent. RICKIE WALKER CASE, see attached below
Therefore, MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”;
California Civil Code section 2924 for foreclosure only applies if MERS owned the note.The Second Fatal Flaw – MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.
When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.Again, Under California Law the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code §3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes §§3201, 3203, 3204. see attached Rickie Walker Order.
“A mortgage note holder can sell a mortgage note to another in what has become a gigantic secondary market. . . . For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were BIFURCATED.” MERSCORP President and CEO, R.K. Arnold, Yes, There is Life on MERS, Prob.& Prop., Aug. 1997, at p.16 (EMPHASIS MY AUTHOR)
Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain: “Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.”This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated: “It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.”
Therefore, any attempt to collect by other than the original lender may be impossible without a legal chain of title, because MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title.
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/MERS-Fatal-Flaws
November 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM #626702GuestMERS Fatal Flaws in California
The First Fatal Flaw – MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, Voiding the Deed of Trust.
Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note.Why MERS doesn’t have ownership of the Note:
1. MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don’t own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.
2. A Nominee in California cannot own the Note, Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.
3. In California, the Note is not Bearer paper, the original lender must indorse or assign the Note to MERS See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204. and Rickie Walker case attached below
4. MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a “Note-Owner” MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below
5. MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes, MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached belowDeed of Trust is void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:
1. MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below
2. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent. RICKIE WALKER CASE, see attached below
Therefore, MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”;
California Civil Code section 2924 for foreclosure only applies if MERS owned the note.The Second Fatal Flaw – MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.
When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.Again, Under California Law the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code §3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes §§3201, 3203, 3204. see attached Rickie Walker Order.
“A mortgage note holder can sell a mortgage note to another in what has become a gigantic secondary market. . . . For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were BIFURCATED.” MERSCORP President and CEO, R.K. Arnold, Yes, There is Life on MERS, Prob.& Prop., Aug. 1997, at p.16 (EMPHASIS MY AUTHOR)
Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain: “Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.”This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated: “It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.”
Therefore, any attempt to collect by other than the original lender may be impossible without a legal chain of title, because MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title.
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/MERS-Fatal-Flaws
November 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM #626828GuestMERS Fatal Flaws in California
The First Fatal Flaw – MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, Voiding the Deed of Trust.
Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note.Why MERS doesn’t have ownership of the Note:
1. MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don’t own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.
2. A Nominee in California cannot own the Note, Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.
3. In California, the Note is not Bearer paper, the original lender must indorse or assign the Note to MERS See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204. and Rickie Walker case attached below
4. MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a “Note-Owner” MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below
5. MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes, MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached belowDeed of Trust is void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:
1. MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below
2. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent. RICKIE WALKER CASE, see attached below
Therefore, MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”;
California Civil Code section 2924 for foreclosure only applies if MERS owned the note.The Second Fatal Flaw – MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.
When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.Again, Under California Law the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code §3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes §§3201, 3203, 3204. see attached Rickie Walker Order.
“A mortgage note holder can sell a mortgage note to another in what has become a gigantic secondary market. . . . For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were BIFURCATED.” MERSCORP President and CEO, R.K. Arnold, Yes, There is Life on MERS, Prob.& Prop., Aug. 1997, at p.16 (EMPHASIS MY AUTHOR)
Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain: “Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.”This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated: “It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.”
Therefore, any attempt to collect by other than the original lender may be impossible without a legal chain of title, because MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title.
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/MERS-Fatal-Flaws
November 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM #626177Zeitgeist
ParticipantNegligence-“(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. [Citations.]” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 732, p. 60.)
And possibly unfair business practices through the Commerce clause.
Just my two cents.
November 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM #627165ParticipantNegligence-“(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. [Citations.]” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 732, p. 60.)
And possibly unfair business practices through the Commerce clause.
Just my two cents.
November 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM #626853ParticipantNegligence-“(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. [Citations.]” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 732, p. 60.)
And possibly unfair business practices through the Commerce clause.
Just my two cents.
November 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM #626727ParticipantNegligence-“(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. [Citations.]” (6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 732, p. 60.)
And possibly unfair business practices through the Commerce clause.
Just my two cents.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.