Via: b.daviesmd6605

July 9, 2010
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California has issued a ruling dated May 20, 2010 in the matter of In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11 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.

The court found that MERS acted “only as a nominee” for Bayrock under the Deed of Trust and there was no evidence that the note was transferred. The opinion also provides that “several courts have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the underlying note and therefore could not transfer the note, the beneficial interest in the deed of trust, or foreclose on the property secured by the deed”, citing the well-known cases of In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court), Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas decision as to lack of authority of MERS), LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (New York), and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court).

Scribd

Related posts:

1. Is MERS About To Unravel? DinSFLA Here: In time everyone intertwined by this Straw Man...
2. IN RE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF TAX LIENS, 2010 NY Slip Op 30628 – NY: Supreme Court, Wayne 2010 MERS In the Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens by...
3. MERS DOUBLE ASSIGNMENT AMNESIA? Oh MS. BAILEY!! IN RE MORENO, Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Eastern Div. 2010 In re: SIMEON MORENO, Chapter 13, Debtor Case No. 08-17715-FJB....
4. A Call to Action| CALIFORNIA CLASS ACTION AGAINST MERS PREPARING A class action lawsuit is currently being prepared and we...
5. “indorsement” on a separate page ‘I DON’T THINK SO’! IndyMAC BANK FSB v. Garcia, 2010 NY Slip Op 51127 – NY: Supreme Court, Suffolk 2010 Don’t we love New York! This is another case for...