QUI TAM: Tennessee vs. MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems April 20. 2010, RECORDING FRAUD

QUI TAM: Tennessee vs. MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems April 20. 2010, RECORDING FRAUD

QUI TAM: Tennessee vs. MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems April 20. 2010, RECORDING FRAUD

From: b.daviesmd6605

COMPLAINT:

COMES the State of Tennessee ex rel. Barrett Bates, on behalf of real parties in interest, the counties of the State of Tennessee, above-named and hereby complains of Defendants as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Barrett Bates seeks recovery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-103, the False Claims Act, because Defendants made false representations in order to avoid payment in full of all recording fees reflecting the establishment and/or transfer of secured interests in real property in the State. After having recorded false, fraudulent, misleading and untruthful documents with the land records of the counties of this State, Defendants intentionally failed to cure/correct said false, misleading and untruthful documents and further failed to record subsequent assignments, deeds and other documents evidencing accurate changes in ownership interests in real property and, thereby, avoided, decreased and/or diminished their obligation to pay fees or monies to the counties of the State of Tennessee, the above-named real parties in interest.

PARTIES
1. Barrett Bates, relator, is a resident of the State of Nevada and an original source of information and authorized to bring this action pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-101, et seq., and as the qui tam Plaintiff because Bates has worked in the secondary mortgage market business and, during the course of his work in June 2009, became aware Defendants were concealing and avoiding the payment of recording fees or other monies to the above-named counties in this and other states and brings this action under Tenn. Code Ann. G 4-18-103 against Defendants for violations of these sections.

[ipaper docId=31137181 access_key=key-19q0ufo3vs69pn8pqxlf height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED:

.

MERS 101

© 2010-18 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 9122 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

2 Responses to “QUI TAM: Tennessee vs. MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems April 20. 2010, RECORDING FRAUD”

  1. kevin haney says:

    What was the resolution of this case?
    COMES the State of Tennessee ex rel. Barrett Bates, on behalf of real parties in interest, the counties of the State of Tennessee, above-named and hereby complains of Defendants as follows:

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    Plaintiff Barrett Bates seeks recovery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-103, the False Claims Act, because Defendants made false representations in order to avoid payment in full of all recording fees reflecting the establishment and/or transfer of secured interests in real property in the State. After having recorded false, fraudulent, misleading and untruthful documents with the land records of the counties of this State, Defendants intentionally failed to cure/correct said false, misleading and untruthful documents and further failed to record subsequent assignments, deeds and other documents evidencing accurate changes in ownership interests in real property and, thereby, avoided, decreased and/or diminished their obligation to pay fees or monies to the counties of the State of Tennessee, the above-named real parties in interest.

  2. kevin haney says:

    Greetings: Another quick question if we may;
    We keep finding cases where FNMA is involved in foreclosure cases, with lenders and servicers and courts from 2009-2011. But none after this time interval.
    What has happened? Why no recent cases? We are involved in a f/c case here on Tenn and the fraud, deceit, lies, and falsely created & recorded documents done to defraud the county courts is appalling. The assignment of deed of trust, the appointment of substitute trustee, & the substitute trustee deed are all shameful shams perpetrated upon the court. In our situation, as many read about, MERS is acting as nominee for loan originator, hereby assign and transfer the deed of trust when MERS really does not have this right.
    But in the criminal county courts nothing seems to matter. Where can we get some help to defeat thihs crooks as we are not schooled in law? Am 68 y.o. and not a great time to attempt to start over. ty kevin

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives