MERS has no standing

[bubba99]

On patrick.net I ran across the following article:

CALIFORNIA BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT MERS CANNOT TRANSFER NOTE FOR WANT OF OWNERSHIP; CITES BOYKO, LANDMARK (KANSAS), LAMY, AND VARGAS CASES

The gist is that many foreclosures in California are invalid if they used MERS to transfer the note at any time in their past. That under California law, MERS never had a real interest to transfer, and thus the final holder of the note cannot make a claim since the transfer was flawed.

If the lender cannot produce the note, no foreclosure. Sounds too good to be true.

[bearishgurl]

bubba, this is interesting. I’m going to get on PACER, perhaps next week and take a look at this and the other cases regarding the transfer of notes thru MERS.

This case will certainly cause more lending disclosures at closing, especially with mortgage banker/broker originated loans. I don’t see the lenders using direct transfers in the future – I still see them bundling acc. to quality and using “middlemen” to transfer – but I see them having to detail this process more to a prospective borrower at the time of origination.

Right now, the disclosure is minimal – a half sheet stating, “`XYZ Lender’ typically sells 50% – 70% – 90% of their loans after origination.”

I could see some lawyers in CA who will use this case to prolong the foreclosure process for their clients even more.

Remember, Chase/Citibank/Countrywide’s fleet of attorneys cost us all $$ (indirectly).

Obviously, any new legislation stemming from this case will not apply to portfolio loans, which are the only type I have recommended to my clients or I myself have used.

[bearishgurl]

bubba, this is interesting. I’m going to get on PACER, perhaps next week and take a look at this and the other cases regarding the transfer of notes thru MERS.

This case will certainly cause more lending disclosures at closing, especially with mortgage banker/broker originated loans. I don’t see the lenders using direct transfers in the future – I still see them bundling acc. to quality and using “middlemen” to transfer – but I see them having to detail this process more to a prospective borrower at the time of origination.

Right now, the disclosure is minimal – a half sheet stating, “`XYZ Lender’ typically sells 50% – 70% – 90% of their loans after origination.”

I could see some lawyers in CA who will use this case to prolong the foreclosure process for their clients even more.

Remember, Chase/Citibank/Countrywide’s fleet of attorneys cost us all $$ (indirectly).

Obviously, any new legislation stemming from this case will not apply to portfolio loans, which are the only type I have recommended to my clients or I myself have used.

[bearishgurl]

bubba, this is interesting. I’m going to get on PACER, perhaps next week and take a look at this and the other cases regarding the transfer of notes thru MERS.

This case will certainly cause more lending disclosures at closing, especially with mortgage banker/broker originated loans. I don’t see the lenders using direct transfers in the future – I still see them bundling acc. to quality and using “middlemen” to transfer – but I see them having to detail this process more to a prospective borrower at the time of origination.

Right now, the disclosure is minimal – a half sheet stating, “`XYZ Lender’ typically sells 50% – 70% – 90% of their loans after origination.”

I could see some lawyers in CA who will use this case to prolong the foreclosure process for their clients even more.

Remember, Chase/Citibank/Countrywide’s fleet of attorneys cost us all $$ (indirectly).

Obviously, any new legislation stemming from this case will not apply to portfolio loans, which are the only type I have recommended to my clients or I myself have used.

[bearishgurl]

bubba, this is interesting. I’m going to get on PACER, perhaps next week and take a look at this and the other cases regarding the transfer of notes thru MERS.

This case will certainly cause more lending disclosures at closing, especially with mortgage banker/broker originated loans. I don’t see the lenders using direct transfers in the future – I still see them bundling acc. to quality and using “middlemen” to transfer – but I see them having to detail this process more to a prospective borrower at the time of origination.

Right now, the disclosure is minimal – a half sheet stating, “`XYZ Lender’ typically sells 50% – 70% – 90% of their loans after origination.”

I could see some lawyers in CA who will use this case to prolong the foreclosure process for their clients even more.

Remember, Chase/Citibank/Countrywide’s fleet of attorneys cost us all $$ (indirectly).

Obviously, any new legislation stemming from this case will not apply to portfolio loans, which are the only type I have recommended to my clients or I myself have used.

[bearishgurl]

bubba, this is interesting. I’m going to get on PACER, perhaps next week and take a look at this and the other cases regarding the transfer of notes thru MERS.

This case will certainly cause more lending disclosures at closing, especially with mortgage banker/broker originated loans. I don’t see the lenders using direct transfers in the future – I still see them bundling acc. to quality and using “middlemen” to transfer – but I see them having to detail this process more to a prospective borrower at the time of origination.

Right now, the disclosure is minimal – a half sheet stating, “`XYZ Lender’ typically sells 50% – 70% – 90% of their loans after origination.”

I could see some lawyers in CA who will use this case to prolong the foreclosure process for their clients even more.

Remember, Chase/Citibank/Countrywide’s fleet of attorneys cost us all $$ (indirectly).

Obviously, any new legislation stemming from this case will not apply to portfolio loans, which are the only type I have recommended to my clients or I myself have used.

[UCGal]

This isn’t news… I’ve seen articles about the MERS defense against foreclosure since at least 2007.

Look at Sulak, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. for the California law. The MERS defense is pretty useless in CA.

[UCGal]

This isn’t news… I’ve seen articles about the MERS defense against foreclosure since at least 2007.

Look at Sulak, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. for the California law. The MERS defense is pretty useless in CA.

[UCGal]

This isn’t news… I’ve seen articles about the MERS defense against foreclosure since at least 2007.

Look at Sulak, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. for the California law. The MERS defense is pretty useless in CA.

[UCGal]

This isn’t news… I’ve seen articles about the MERS defense against foreclosure since at least 2007.

Look at Sulak, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. for the California law. The MERS defense is pretty useless in CA.

[UCGal]

This isn’t news… I’ve seen articles about the MERS defense against foreclosure since at least 2007.

Look at Sulak, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. for the California law. The MERS defense is pretty useless in CA.

[bubba99]

I agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”

Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”

It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.

[bubba99]

I agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”

Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”

It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.

[bubba99]

I agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”

Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”

It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.

[bubba99]

I agree that Sulak failed in their bid to contest MERS, but the recent bankruptcy court rulng seems to be just the opoosite. “which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.”

Further, “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.”

It maybe that this does not hold up under appeal, but for now, there is a hole in the damn. Here in California, and Kansas, New York, and Ohio.

[Author]

Posts