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

[Eugene]

[quote=SK in CV] But the article pretty clearly states that in these cases that MERS was not listed as the beneficiary, only that MERS was “another entity listed on the trust deed”.[/quote]

Here’s a sample MERS trust deed

http://www.mersinc.org/filedownload.aspx?id=215&table=ProductFile

MERS is explicitly named as one of the beneficiaries.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene][quote=SK in CV] But the article pretty clearly states that in these cases that MERS was not listed as the beneficiary, only that MERS was “another entity listed on the trust deed”.[/quote]

Here’s a sample MERS trust deed

http://www.mersinc.org/filedownload.aspx?id=215&table=ProductFile

MERS is explicitly named as one of the beneficiaries.[/quote]

Yeah. Except that only an example of…

And a california example.

The article specifically states that in these cases MERS is NOT the bene.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene][quote=SK in CV] But the article pretty clearly states that in these cases that MERS was not listed as the beneficiary, only that MERS was “another entity listed on the trust deed”.[/quote]

Here’s a sample MERS trust deed

http://www.mersinc.org/filedownload.aspx?id=215&table=ProductFile

MERS is explicitly named as one of the beneficiaries.[/quote]

Yeah. Except that only an example of…

And a california example.

The article specifically states that in these cases MERS is NOT the bene.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene][quote=SK in CV] But the article pretty clearly states that in these cases that MERS was not listed as the beneficiary, only that MERS was “another entity listed on the trust deed”.[/quote]

Here’s a sample MERS trust deed

http://www.mersinc.org/filedownload.aspx?id=215&table=ProductFile

MERS is explicitly named as one of the beneficiaries.[/quote]

Yeah. Except that only an example of…

And a california example.

The article specifically states that in these cases MERS is NOT the bene.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene][quote=SK in CV] But the article pretty clearly states that in these cases that MERS was not listed as the beneficiary, only that MERS was “another entity listed on the trust deed”.[/quote]

Here’s a sample MERS trust deed

http://www.mersinc.org/filedownload.aspx?id=215&table=ProductFile

MERS is explicitly named as one of the beneficiaries.[/quote]

Yeah. Except that only an example of…

And a california example.

The article specifically states that in these cases MERS is NOT the bene.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene][quote=SK in CV] But the article pretty clearly states that in these cases that MERS was not listed as the beneficiary, only that MERS was “another entity listed on the trust deed”.[/quote]

Here’s a sample MERS trust deed

http://www.mersinc.org/filedownload.aspx?id=215&table=ProductFile

MERS is explicitly named as one of the beneficiaries.[/quote]

Yeah. Except that only an example of…

And a california example.

The article specifically states that in these cases MERS is NOT the bene.

[ltokuda]

The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.

[ltokuda]

The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.

[ltokuda]

The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.

[ltokuda]

The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.

[ltokuda]

The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltokuda]The article states that MERS is listed as a beneficiary of the promissory note. However, the lawyers have argued, successfully, that MERS is not a “real” beneficiary because it has no financial interest in the promissory note. So MERS wasn’t notified of the case because it was not a “real” beneficiary.[/quote]

It doesn’t exactly say that.

Here’s what it does say:

Trust deed tag-along » But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.

MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.

So MERS is listed. As something. And in general, MERS is listed at the county recorder as the “beneficiary”. But we don’t know that’s the case here. We know the original lenders are listed as the beneficiaries. It says so. And later the article says:

Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.

“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed ,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.

So it may be that the general procedure that MERS uses wasn’t followed in these cases. Maybe there is some reason that it’s done differently in Utah than in California. Without seeing a copy of the original TD as filed, we have no way of knowing other than what was reported.

[Author]

Posts