Clouded Titles Blog-

Now that I’ve gotten through the disclaimer … time to announce that a related Pennsylvania case has just been remanded back to state court in that state in federal cause number 2:13-CV-6517-CDJ. The case is Delaware County, Pennsylvania Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc. et al. The ruling just came out and U. S. District Court Judge Hon. C. Darnell Jones denied the collective MERSCORP defendants list motion to dismiss this case. There are 106 documents in the PACER case file in case anyone wants to have a gander at the goings-on.

Like most cases that county recorders are filing, they think that MERSCORP (in whatever form name they are litigating) owes them money. With the ruling against MERS and MERSCORP by Judge Curtis Joyner (E.D. PA), the Court determined that MERSCORP and MERS violated Pennsylvania recording statutes and that BOTH the parent and child (MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and MERS) acted as an agent for the principals (members) they set up an electronic registry for, to facilitate eNote transfers behind “the curtain” where no one could determine who actually owns their promissory note at any given moment. Many counties across America seem to be losing these cases, except in Pennsylvania, where Joyner’s decision may actually add some teeth to individual county cases being brought against the two and its collective rank and file membership (whoever’s members they are in reality).

In a 10-page memorandum, Judge Jones cited this remand ruling as (for all intents and purposes) procedural. It appears that every time a county wants to join a defendant, MERS and MERSCORP and its members remove the case to federal court in a “procedural move” in an attempt to get an FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. In this instance, that appears NOT to have worked for them.

[CLOUDED TITLES BLOG]

Comments

comments