“If the Supreme Court starts to question MERS, and its business structure, it is going to have an effect on every MERS case in the country.”
HW-
A controversial case challenging the ability of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to foreclose on a California man was filed with the Supreme Court Monday, making it the first major MERS case to reach the nation’s highest court.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Gomes v. Countrywide, Gomes’ attorney, Ehud Gersten, says the court will have to decide whether a lower court stripped his client, Jose Gomes, of due process by allowing MERS to foreclose without ensuring the registry had the noteholder’s authority to foreclose.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
This case is going nowhere. The lawyer should not boast about filing what is only a petition. First, less than 3% of petitions are granted by the U.S. Suprme Court, and even less when they come from a private person from a state court. This is a case of a private citizen from the California state court AND, from what I understand, the lawyer never raised constitutional issues for the State Court to decide upon. He can’t now just raise it in a petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court and publicize that the Supreme Court is considering it. It is not considering it AT ALL. It is a filing that has not been accepted yet. It is unfair to give this false hope against MERS as this lawyer did. Filing in the U.S. Supreme Court has certain requirements and NOT raising a constitutional argument in the state court does not give you a FIRST bite to do it before the Supreme Court. It’s a court of review, not a court of first impression. I of all people don’t agree with MERS from what I learned about it in my class action; but taking them on has to be done properly. If the Supreme Court denies the writ, and i’m pretty certain they will, then what is this lawyer going to say? He should have said nothing unless and until the court grants it…otherwise, this is just a filing, and in my opinion one that won’t be granted because the issue was not raised before the lower court.
This is NOT the case we want SCOTUS to consider. If I was a betting man, I’d wager the Court will deny the writ of certiorari. I agree with Susan on this one. If you’re going to trash MERS, you need more than pittly ammunition. You have to attack the entire business model, especially when you consider that the language in deed of trust acts specifically delegates the “holding of title” to the Trustee AND NOT MERS. MERS writes itself in by contract, which further confuses the issue because then they circumvent county land records and create title issues. If anything, the proper action will involve several states’ Attorneys General filing amici briefs attesting to the mess that has been made of their land records because of this entity. The constitutional issues will address states’ rights to quiet title and whether or not MERS can substitute itself as a Trustee, which is literally what it has been doing up until policy directive 2011-5. All of the toothpaste is out of the tube. Chains of titles to over 70-million properties are at risk of uninsurability and title companies would be foolish to underwrite any title history involving MERS. I don’t think I’m alone in my thinking on this one.