H/T K. McCarthy
You can listen to the Oregon Supreme Court oral arguments Live on Jan.8th @3pm PST
Go here for replay:
http://oregoncourts.mediasite.com/Mediasite/Catalog/catalogs/default.aspx
For information on this case involving MERS please go to:
https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/?s=niday&x=0&y=0
.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
I watched video argument at Oregon Supreme Court.
As the best of I understand, MERS only hold legal title and only nominee agent. I could not find any evidence from Oregon Deed of Trust Act to support agent hold legal title can be beneficiary and trustee who hold legal title can not be beneficiary as definition from OTDA.
I could not find any evidence from Oregon Deed of Trust Act support any assignment transfer ok tracking at MERS company instead I knew that any assignment transfer according OTDA must be recording at Public County where property address location.
According Oregon Deed of Trust Act beneficiary is a name of a person who has whose interest or beneficial secured deed of trust but in this case I could not find any evidence to support MERS is beneficiary who has whose interest or beneficial secured by deed of trust act. MERS is not name on the promissory note, MERS admitted it has no right to collect borrower payment or non right from claiming borrower’s default or non right from promissory note, MERS does not make loan or mortgage. Therefore, MERS is not beneficiary from definition Oregon Deed of Trust Act.
Why I have to say that because if MERS is beneficiary as definition from OTDA, MERS is only legal title and not has right on the note? everytime MERS has to use on behalf of lender???????
According OTDA any assignment transfer must be recording at public county that means legal title and equitable title must be recording at public county. Therefore MERS can not claim because MERS is beneficiary on behalf of lender, MERS still be beneficiary so non assignment transfer must be recording at county that means to me it is violation law and conflict public recording county from Oregon Deed of Trust Act.
MERS said if nessarry MERS has right comply to law and custom to foreclosure property but in this case the court argued related Oregon status not private contract, Oregon law required when borrower buy a property has two paper documents to sign, one is promissory note and deed of trust, promissory note cannot be separated by deed of trust because deed of trust secured interested or obligation payment of promissory note. Unfortunately since created MERS banks and original lender sold and transferred all right collect payments and right foreclosure property from promissory note to several investors but they still claim MERS as beneficiary? if promissory note or equitable title have been transferred or sold several times and what MERS is beneficiary for? and deed of trust secures for? we don’t know? and I believe non one know who is real beneficiary or who is real owner or who is owner of note or who is authorized collect payment or claim default or right to foreclosure? I am not sure?
MERS’S lawyer indicated at court MERS sometimes is trustee, sometime is agent, and sometimes is beneficiary that means lenders is using MERS as sustitution for anything they want and they do not care very much about the law what law makers did or do? I understand from MERS’s lawyer words.
he made for example cake everyone could pass to other or several people but MERS candle still belong to cake but unfortunately in real cake has been passed to others and not as the same original because when you cut the cake you passed to others and they ate cake and how can candle belong to the cake if the cake not anymore. in real if right collect payment and right foreclosure transferred and sold to several others as cake has been passed to several others and they ate whole the cake and how could MERS beneficiary belong to the cake if it has been eaten from several others?
court only care about the status not private contract therefore MERS can not use private contract agreement because if private contract criminal law or conflict law then law status control private contract.
All I argued because I hope it is fair to everyone. If MERS or lender or service made errors or mistakes and did not follow law then MERS is not beneficiary in Oregon. Anytime we has taught everytime we do we should follow law because if you don’t you are going to jail and destroy your credit or your future or you loose at court and this case MERS is not follow law, not recording any assignment transfer at public county and conflict beneficiary from Oregon Deed of Trust Act. I hope I will get result and fair from Oregon Supreme Court.
s the best of I understand, MERS only hold legal title and only nominee agent. I could not find any evidence from Oregon Deed of Trust Act to support agent hold legal title can be beneficiary and trustee who hold legal title can be beneficiary as definition from OTDA.
I could not find any evidence from Oregon Deed of Trust Act support any assignment transfer ok tracking at MERS company instead I knew that any assignment transfer according OTDA must be recording at Public County where property address location.
According Oregon Deed of Trust Act beneficiary is a name of a person who has whose interest or beneficial secured deed of trust but in this case I could not find any evidence to support MERS is beneficiary who has whose interest or beneficial secured by deed of trust act. MERS is not name on the promissory note, MERS admitted it has no right to collect borrower payment or non right from claiming borrower’s default or non right from promissory note, MERS does not make loan or mortgage. Therefore, MERS is not beneficiary from definition Oregon Deed of Trust Act.
Why I have to say that because if MERS is beneficiary as definition from OTDA, MERS is only legal title and not has right on the note? everytime MERS has to use on behalf of lender???????
According OTDA any assignment transfer must be recording at public county that means legal title and equitable title must be recording at public county. Therefore MERS can not claim because MERS is beneficiary on behalf of lender, MERS still be beneficiary so non assignment transfer must be recording at county that means to me it is violation law and conflict public recording county from Oregon Deed of Trust Act.
MERS said if nessarry MERS has right comply to law and custom to foreclosure property but in this case the court argued related Oregon status not private contract, Oregon law required when borrower buy a property has two paper documents to sign, one is promissory note and deed of trust, promissory note cannot be separated by deed of trust because deed of trust secured interested or obligation payment of promissory note. Unfortunately since created MERS banks and original lender sold and transferred all right collect payments and right foreclosure property from promissory note to several investors but they still claim MERS as beneficiary? if promissory note or equitable title have been transferred or sold several times and what MERS is beneficiary for? and deed of trust secures for? we don’t know? and I believe non one know who is real beneficiary or who is real owner or who is owner of note or who is authorized collect payment or claim default or right to foreclosure? I am not sure?
MERS’S lawyer indicated at court MERS sometimes is trustee, sometime is agent, and sometimes is beneficiary that means lenders is using MERS as sustitution for anything they want and they do not care very much about the law what law makers did or do? I understand from MERS’s lawyer words.
he made for example cake everyone could pass to other or several people but MERS candle still belong to cake but unfortunately in real cake has been passed to others and not as the same original because when you cut the cake you passed to others and they ate cake and how can candle belong to the cake if the cake not anymore. in real if right collect payment and right foreclosure transferred and sold to several others as cake has been passed to several others and they ate whole the cake and how could MERS beneficiary belong to the cake if it has been eaten from several others?
court only care about the status not private contract therefore MERS can not use private contract agreement because if private contract criminal law or conflict law then law status control private contract.
All I argued because I hope it is fair to everyone. If MERS or lender or service made errors or mistakes and did not follow law then MERS is not beneficiary in Oregon. Anytime we has taught everytime we do we should follow law because if you don’t you are going to jail and destroy your credit or your future or you loose at court and this case MERS is not follow law, not recording any assignment transfer at public county and conflict beneficiary from Oregon Deed of Trust Act. I hope I will get result and fair from Oregon Supreme Court.