Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Free home anyone? The Utah court ruled, and this cat just got himself a free casa

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 116 total)
1 2 3 … 6 7 8
  • Author
    Posts
  • January 17, 2011 at 12:27 PM #655960
    SK in CV
    Participant

    [quote=Doooh]Mish is a staunch libertarianism. He loves Ron Paul, voted for Obama, but now hates him along with Bush.

    Socially conservative, but liberal otherwise.

    Either way, diid I hear you say that California has similar Title laws to those of Utah?[/quote]

    With regards to economics, he’s on the conservative side, as compared to Yves Smith or the good folks at Angry Bear.

    California is similar to the extent that California also has a non-judicial foreclosure process. I haven’t even looked at any of the actual filings, and I have no idea if Utah and California have similar quiet title laws or recording regulations.

    I’ve seen opinions on issues like this in other states (specifically Florida, which is NOT a non-judicial foreclosure state), which would make quiet title actions problematic. The commentary was related to a dismissal of a foreclosure action, with prejudice. If I remember correctly, it is because Florida has a strict requirement of serving the actual owners of the note. If you don’t know who owns the note, that service is impossible. So the property owner now has a property without an enforceable mortgage, but can’t sell it without a lien release.

    January 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM #654946
    Eugene
    Participant

    This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)

    January 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM #655009
    Eugene
    Participant

    This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)

    January 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM #655606
    Eugene
    Participant

    This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)

    January 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM #655745
    Eugene
    Participant

    This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)

    January 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM #656075
    Eugene
    Participant

    This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)

    January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM #654951
    SK in CV
    Participant

    [quote=Eugene]This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)[/quote]

    According to the article, MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Which makes sense. I believe in most states, the be neficiary 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.

    January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM #655014
    SK in CV
    Participant

    [quote=Eugene]This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)[/quote]

    According to the article, MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Which makes sense. I believe in most states, the be neficiary 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.

    January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM #655611
    SK in CV
    Participant

    [quote=Eugene]This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)[/quote]

    According to the article, MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Which makes sense. I believe in most states, the be neficiary 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.

    January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM #655750
    SK in CV
    Participant

    [quote=Eugene]This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)[/quote]

    According to the article, MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Which makes sense. I believe in most states, the be neficiary 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.

    January 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM #656080
    SK in CV
    Participant

    [quote=Eugene]This seems to be a very low end decision by a very local court, with lots of room for appeals. It may yet be overturned. And it’s based on a legal trick. The title still exists, MERS knows where it is and who the current beneficiaries of the mortgage are, MERS is recorded as a beneficiary under the deed of trust, but the attorney managed to convince the judge that MERS does not have to be notified, because it’s not a “real” beneficiary. (A very similar argument was rejected by the U.S. District Court in Arizona, in Olga Cervantes et. al. vs. Countrywide Home Loans et. al.)[/quote]

    According to the article, MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Which makes sense. I believe in most states, the be neficiary 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.

    January 17, 2011 at 4:24 PM #654956
    Kingside
    Participant

    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.

    January 17, 2011 at 4:24 PM #655019
    Kingside
    Participant

    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.

    January 17, 2011 at 4:24 PM #655616
    Kingside
    Participant

    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.

    January 17, 2011 at 4:24 PM #655755
    Kingside
    Participant

    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.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 116 total)
1 2 3 … 6 7 8
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.