[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.

[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.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene]
MERS is “a mortgagee of record as nominee” for the real noteholder.

[/quote]

I’ve seen that “nominee” designation in quite a few cases. And I’ve seen some court decisions that refuse to acknowledge that the “nominee” has any standing to prosecute a foreclosure. But this isn’t that kind of standing case. I can’t find any actual pleadings posted anywhere on these particular cases which refer to the actual recorded documents. 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”. I’m not sure what that means. Trustee? (I don’t think so.) Trustor? Maybe. But apparently in these recorded documents, not the beneficiary.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene]
MERS is “a mortgagee of record as nominee” for the real noteholder.

[/quote]

I’ve seen that “nominee” designation in quite a few cases. And I’ve seen some court decisions that refuse to acknowledge that the “nominee” has any standing to prosecute a foreclosure. But this isn’t that kind of standing case. I can’t find any actual pleadings posted anywhere on these particular cases which refer to the actual recorded documents. 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”. I’m not sure what that means. Trustee? (I don’t think so.) Trustor? Maybe. But apparently in these recorded documents, not the beneficiary.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene]
MERS is “a mortgagee of record as nominee” for the real noteholder.

[/quote]

I’ve seen that “nominee” designation in quite a few cases. And I’ve seen some court decisions that refuse to acknowledge that the “nominee” has any standing to prosecute a foreclosure. But this isn’t that kind of standing case. I can’t find any actual pleadings posted anywhere on these particular cases which refer to the actual recorded documents. 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”. I’m not sure what that means. Trustee? (I don’t think so.) Trustor? Maybe. But apparently in these recorded documents, not the beneficiary.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene]
MERS is “a mortgagee of record as nominee” for the real noteholder.

[/quote]

I’ve seen that “nominee” designation in quite a few cases. And I’ve seen some court decisions that refuse to acknowledge that the “nominee” has any standing to prosecute a foreclosure. But this isn’t that kind of standing case. I can’t find any actual pleadings posted anywhere on these particular cases which refer to the actual recorded documents. 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”. I’m not sure what that means. Trustee? (I don’t think so.) Trustor? Maybe. But apparently in these recorded documents, not the beneficiary.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Eugene]
MERS is “a mortgagee of record as nominee” for the real noteholder.

[/quote]

I’ve seen that “nominee” designation in quite a few cases. And I’ve seen some court decisions that refuse to acknowledge that the “nominee” has any standing to prosecute a foreclosure. But this isn’t that kind of standing case. I can’t find any actual pleadings posted anywhere on these particular cases which refer to the actual recorded documents. 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”. I’m not sure what that means. Trustee? (I don’t think so.) Trustor? Maybe. But apparently in these recorded documents, not the beneficiary.

[SK in CV]

[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.

[Author]

Posts