[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[SK in CV]

I have advice. Send me a great big check and then buy term. You’ll end up in the same place. And I’ll be happier.

(On a more serious note, buy term and invest the rest.)

[SK in CV]

I have advice. Send me a great big check and then buy term. You’ll end up in the same place. And I’ll be happier.

(On a more serious note, buy term and invest the rest.)

[SK in CV]

I have advice. Send me a great big check and then buy term. You’ll end up in the same place. And I’ll be happier.

(On a more serious note, buy term and invest the rest.)

[SK in CV]

I have advice. Send me a great big check and then buy term. You’ll end up in the same place. And I’ll be happier.

(On a more serious note, buy term and invest the rest.)

[SK in CV]

I have advice. Send me a great big check and then buy term. You’ll end up in the same place. And I’ll be happier.

(On a more serious note, buy term and invest the rest.)

[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[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.

[SK in CV]

[quote=LarryTheRenter]Is issuing a 1099 something you can do yourself with a simple form or does it require getting (and paying) an accountant to do it for you???? thanks[/quote]

You can do it yourself, by hand would be a pain in the ass if you don’t know what you’re doing. If you do know what you’re doing, its gonna take maybe 1/2 hour for a few 1099’s. I just looked for low cost services online and Intuit will prepare all the forms for you for $39, $25 if done before Jan 23.

[Author]

Posts