Lien | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "lien"

The Magic of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System: It Is and It Isn’t

The Magic of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System: It Is and It Isn’t


“Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.”1

Excerpt:

While MERS may be named as the actual mortgagee
or its equivalent on the security instrument, in
substance its role is that of a nominee or agent.23
The language in the mortgage generally states:
“‘MERS’ is Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that
is acting solely as nominee for Lender and
Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the
mortgagee under this Security Instrument.”24 Here
then begins the magic that is MERS—the dual claim
that it is both a principal (mortgagee) and
nominee/agent of the lender/factual mortgagee.25
MERS undertakes these roles but never lends
money and never gives value for the mortgage, nor
does it benefit from the proceeds of foreclosure
and/or collection actions.26 Were MERS’s
involvement in the mortgage market insignificant,
it might not pose much of a legal problem;however,
MERS appears to be involved in sixty
million loans—roughly half of all U.S. home
mortgages.27 The legal role MERS attempts to fill
and MERS’s argument as to standing is: 1) provide
a mortgage clearinghouse and eliminate recording
obligations by having MERS itself act as mortgagee
of record;28 2) allow the promissory note
evidencing the debt to be transferred freely among
MERS members ad infinitum; and 3) when default
occurs, act as the nominee of the current note
holder and mortgagee of record (rejoining the two
interests) even though the current “lender” did
not appoint MERS as mortgagee and may never have
had the right to do so. Ultimately, the argument
is something akin to a merger argument where MERS
claims that the severed interests, that of
security interest and note, are recombined in MERS
at a later date even though it received those
interests from separate entities. As others have
pointed out, MERS is attempting to derive powers
as an agent greater than the sum of the powers of
its principals.29

[ipaper docId=86987723 access_key=key-2k44k0z1xng0exhlu51n height=600 width=600 /]

 

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

COMPLAINT + EXHIBITS | American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. Vs. Lender Processing Services Inc., DOCX

COMPLAINT + EXHIBITS | American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. Vs. Lender Processing Services Inc., DOCX


American Home Mortgage

Servicing Inc.

v.

Lender Processing Services

Inc., DOCX, L.L.C

[ipaper docId=63851479 access_key=key-19uowkk1cinmvgl4xmqi height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Beyond Robosigning Forgers – The Truths Exposed in the AHMSI Suit

Beyond Robosigning Forgers – The Truths Exposed in the AHMSI Suit


Abigail C. Field-

The American Home Servicing lawsuit against consummate and prolific robosigner Lender Processing Services is a pretty good read, but if you don’t have the time, I’ve highlighted the best nuggets.

Page 1: American Home Servicing Inc. says that over 30,000 assignments of mortgage in Texas and across America are fraudulent—“improperly executed, notarized and recorded”.

Page 2: American Home renames robosigners “Special Officers” to suggest the robosigners were legitimately signing the assignments of mortgages.


[REALITY CHECK]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

PETITION | American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. Vs. Lender Processing Services Inc., DOCX “Bombshell Admission of Failed Securitization Process”

PETITION | American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. Vs. Lender Processing Services Inc., DOCX “Bombshell Admission of Failed Securitization Process”


Via NAKED CAPITALISM-

Wow, Jones Day just created a huge mess for its client and banks generally if anyone is alert enough to act on it.

The lawsuit in question is American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. v Lender Processing Services. It hasn’t gotten all that much attention (unless you are on the LPS deathwatch beat) because to most, it looks like yet another beauty contest between Cinderella’s two ugly sisters.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

.

Looks to me like the year was changed from 2009 to 2008 below…VERY SUSPICIOUS!

 

[ipaper docId=113924002 access_key=key-bo4zjmcs0z1kverjrx2 height=600 width=600 /]

 

 

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

AHMSI sues LPS and DocX over robo-signing scandal

AHMSI sues LPS and DocX over robo-signing scandal


UPDATE 9/25:

PETITION | American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. Vs. Lender Processing Services Inc., DOCX “Bombshell Admission of Failed Securitization Process”

`

Rumor has it for a bit now that all things robo-signing would see an end shortly after “Labor Day”, so now what happens to those who were unlawfully foreclosed upon? How do you justify that AHMSI knew of this for over a year to come to an unsuccessful agreement to settle with LPS?

HousingWire-

Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS: 17.07 -2.29%) and its DocX affiliate caused American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. to lose millions from the robo-signing of mortgage documents, a lawsuit filed Tuesday contends.

Coppell, Texas-based AHMSI filed suit in a Dallas district court against Jacksonville, Fla.-based LPS alleging more than 30,000 residential mortgages across the country were affected by  “improper execution, notarization and recording of assignments of mortgage.”

[HOUSING WIRE]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Maryland County Attempts To Take Property from Stunned Grandson

Maryland County Attempts To Take Property from Stunned Grandson


News with Views-

Jeffrey Smiles was the personal representative for his Grandmother’s estate and he inherited her home in August 2008. The home had been in their family since 1947. There were no other assets and Jeffrey spent nearly $8,000 in this process, $4,500 in legal fees alone. All taxes were paid in full by Jeffrey.

The place was transitioned to Jeffrey as he worked to fix it up so he could rent it out. More taxes came due, but since he was spending so much money fixing up things, he approached the Baltimore County Tax Office to make a partial payment of $500. He personally took a Certified check of the $500 to them in early April 2010.

Jeffrey states he received one tax bill (others were not received) and he explained to the tax office that he was in the middle of remodeling work and couldn’t afford to pay in full right then but wanted to pay in 3 installments. This was all up front in good faith. He was told that they weren’t accepting partial payments but he had until December 2010 to pay and the figure of the tax bill wouldn’t increase much. So, that is what Jeffrey planned to do since they wouldn’t accept a partial payment plan.

Then Jeffrey got a letter from Baltimore County dated August 1, 2010 saying a tax lien had been issued. He shared with me how stunned he was and that he called the number listed and was quoted a figure more than double the amount listed. When he dared to question this new, engorged figure, even quoting the representative on the phone the law, he was hung up on. Jeffrey immediately called back and no one would answer. He left a message and the phone call was not returned.

The crime against Jeffrey Smiles built from here

Continue reading [News With Views]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Benedict v. Ratner, 268 US 353 – Supreme Court 1925

Benedict v. Ratner, 268 US 353 – Supreme Court 1925


268 U.S. 353 (1925)

WALLACE BENEDICT, RECEIVER,
v.
RATNER.

No. 11.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued October 5, 1923. Decided May 25, 1925.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

354*354 Mr. Selden Bacon, for petitioner.

Mr. Louis S. Posner, for respondent.

357*357 MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Hub Carpet Company was adjudicated bankrupt by the federal court for southern New York in involuntary proceedings commenced September 26, 1921. Benedict, who was appointed receiver and later trustee, collected the book accounts of the company. Ratner filed in that court a petition in equity praying that the amounts so collected be paid over to him. He claimed them under a writing given May 23, 1921 — four months and three days before the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings. By it the company purported to assign to him, as collateral for certain loans, all accounts present and future. Those collected by the receiver were, so far as 358*358 appears, all accounts which had arisen after the date of the assignment, and were enumerated in the monthly list of accounts outstanding which was delivered to Ratner September 23. Benedict resisted the petition on the ground that the original assignment was void under the law of New York as a fraudulent conveyance; that, for this reason, the delivery of the September list of accounts was inoperative to perfect a lien in Ratner; and that it was a preference under the Bankruptcy Act. He also filed a cross-petition in which he asked that Ratner be ordered to pay to the estate the proceeds of certain collections which had been made by the company after September 17 and turned over to Ratner pursuant to his request made on that day. The company was then insolvent and Ratner had reason to believe it to be so. These accounts also had apparently been acquired by the company after qthe date of the original assignment.

The District Judge decided both petitions in Ratner’s favor. He ruled that the assignment executed in May was not fraudulent in law; that it created an equity in the future acquired accounts; that because of this equity, Ratner was entitled to retain, as against the bankrupt’s estate, the proceeds of the accounts which had been collected by the company in September and turned over to him; that by delivery of the list of the accounts outstanding on September 23, this equity in them had ripened into a perfect title to the remaining accounts; and that the title so perfected was good as against the supervening bankruptcy. Accordingly, the District Court ordered that, to the extent of the balance remaining unpaid on his loans, there be paid Ratner all collections made from accounts enumerated in any of the lists delivered to Ratner; and that the cross-petition of Benedict be denied. There was no finding of fraud in fact. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order. 282 Fed. 12. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 259 U.S. 579.

359*359 The rights of the parties depend primarily upon the law of New York. Hiscock v. Varick Bank of N.Y., 206 U.S. 28. It may be assumed that, unless the arrangement of May 23 was void because fraudulent in law, the original assignment of the future acquired accounts became operative under the state law, both as to those paid over to Ratner before the bankruptcy proceedings and as to those collected by the receiver;[1] and that the assignment will be deemed to have taken effect as of May 23. Sexton v. Kessler, 225 U.S. 90, 99. That being so, it is clear that, if the original assignment was a valid one under the law of New York, the Bankruptcy Act did not invalidate the subsequent dealings of the parties. Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U.S. 516; Humphrey v. Tatman, 198 U.S. 91. The sole question for decision is, therefore, whether on the following undisputed facts the assignment of May 23 was in law fraudulent.

The Hub Carpet Company was, on May 23, a mercantile concern doing business in New York City and proposing to continue to do so. The assignment was made there to secure an existing loan of $15,000, and further advances not exceeding $15,000 which were in fact made July 1, 1921. It included all accounts receivable then outstanding and all which should thereafter accrue in the ordinary course of business. A list of the existing accounts was delivered at the time. Similar lists were to be delivered to Ratner on or about the 23d day of each succeeding month containing the accounts outstanding at such future dates. Those enumerated in each of the lists delivered prior to September, aggregated between $100,000 and $120,000. The receivables were to be collected by the company. Ratner was given the right, at any time, to 360*360 demand a full disclosure of the business and financial conditions; to require that all amounts collected be applied in payment of his loans; and to enforce the assignment although no loan had matured. But until he did so, the company was not required to apply any of the collections to the repayment of Ratner’s loan. It was not required to replace accounts collected by other collateral of equal value. It was not required to account in any way to Ratner. It was at liberty to use the proceeds of all accounts collected as it might see fit. The existence of the assignment was to kept secret. The business was to be conducted as theretofore. Indebtedness was to be incurred, as usual, for the purchase of merchandise and otherwise in the ordinary course of business. The amount of such indebtedness unpaid at the time of the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings was large. Prior to September 17, the company collected from accounts so assigned about $150,000, all of which it applied to purposes other than the payment of Ratner’s loan. The outstanding accounts enumerated in the list delivered September 23 aggregated $90,000.

Under the law of New York a transfer of property as security which reserves to the transferor the right to dispose of the same, or to apply the proceeds thereof, for his own uses is, as to creditors, fraudulent in law and void.[2] 361*361 This is true whether the right of disposition for the transferor’s use be reserved in the instrument[3] or by agreement in pais,[4] whether the right of disposition reserved by unlimited in time[5] or be expressly terminable by the happening of an event;[6] whether the transfer cover all the property of the Debtor[7] or only a part;[8] whether the right of disposition extends to all the property transferred[9] or only to a part thereof;[10] and whether the instrument of transfer be recorded or not.[11] oral or written;

If this rule applies to the assignment of book accounts, the arrangement of May 23 was clearly void; and the equity in the future acquired accounts, which it would otherwise have created,[12] did not arise. Whether the rule applies to accounts does not appear to have been passed upon by the Court of Appeals of New York. But it would seem clear that whether the collateral consist of chattels 362*362 or of accounts, reservation of dominion inconsistent with the effective disposition of title must render the transaction void. Ratner asserts that the rule stated above rests upon ostensible ownership, and argues that the doctrine of ostensible ownership is not applicable to book accounts. That doctrine raises a presumption of fraud where chattels are mortgaged (or sold) and possession of the property is not delivered to the mortgagee (or vendee).[13] The presumption may be avoided by recording the mortgage (or sale). It may be assumed, as Ratner contends, that the doctrine does not apply to the assignment of accounts. In their transfer there is nothing which corresponds to the delivery of possession of chattels. The statutes which embody the doctrine and provide for recording as a substitute for delivery do not include accounts. A title to an account good against creditors may be transferred without notice to the debtor[14] or record of any kind.[15] But it is 363*363 not true that the rule stated above and invoked by the receiver is either based upon or delimited by the doctrine of ostensible ownership. It rests not upon seeming ownership because of possession retained, but upon a lack of ownership because of dominion reserved. It does not raise a presumption of fraud. It imputes fraud conclusively because of the reservation of dominion inconsistent with the effective disposition of title and creation of a lien.

The nature of the rule is made clear by its limitations. Where the mortgagor of chattels agrees to apply the proceeds of their sale to the payment of the mortgage debt or to the purchase of other chattels which shall become subject to the lien, the mortgage is good as against creditors, if recorded.[16] The mortgage is sustained in such cases “upon the ground that such sale and application of proceeds is the normal and proper purpose of a chattel mortgage, and within the precise boundaries of its lawful operation and effect. It does no more than to substitute the mortgage as the agent of the mortgagee to do exactly what the latter had the right to do, and what it was his privilege and his duty to accomplish. It devotes, as it should, the mortgaged property to the payment of the mortgage debt.” The permission to use the proceeds to furnish substitute collateral “provides only for a shifting of the lien from one piece of property to another taken in exchange.” Brackett v. Harvey, 91 N.Y. 214, 221, 223. 364*364 On the other hand, if the agreement is that the mortgagor may sell and use the proceeds for his own benefit, the mortgage is of no effect although recorded. Seeming ownership exists in both classes of cases because the mortgagor is permitted to remain in possession of the stock in trade and to sell it freely. But it is only where the unrestricted dominion over the proceeds is reserved to the mortgagor that the mortgage is void. This dominion is the differentiating and deciding element. The distinction was recognized in Sexton v. Kessler, 225 U.S. 90, 98, where a transfer of securities was sustained.[17] It was pointed out that a reservation of full control by the mortgagor might well prevent the effective creation of a lien in the mortgagee and that the New York cases holding such a mortgage void rest upon that doctrine.

The results which flow from reserving dominion inconsistent with the effective disposition of title must be the same whatever the nature of the property transferred. The doctrine which imputes fraud where full dominion is reserved must apply to assignments of accounts although the doctrine of ostensible ownership does not. There must also be the same distinction as to degrees of dominion. Thus, although an agreement that the assignor of accounts shall collect them and pay the proceeds to the assignee will not invalidate the assignment which it accompanies,[18] the assignment must be deemed fraudulent in law if it is agreed that the assignor may use the proceeds as he sees fit.

In the case at bar, the arrangement for the unfettered use by the company of the proceeds of the accounts precluded 365*365 the effective creation of a lien[19] and rendered the original assignment fraudulent in law. Consequently the payments to Ratner and the delivery of the September list of accounts were inoperative to perfect a lien in him, and were unlawful preferences.[20] On this ground, and also because the payment was fraudulent under the law of the State, the trustee was entitled to recover the amount.[21]

Stackhouse v. Holden, 66 App. Div. 423, is relied upon by Ratner to establish the proposition that reservation of dominion does not invalidate an assignment of accounts. The decision was by an intermediate appellate court, and, although decided in 1901, appears never to have been cited since in any court of that State.[22] There was a strong dissenting opinion. Moreover, the case is perhaps distinguishable on its facts, p. 426. Greey v. Dockendorff, 231 U.S. 513, upon which Ratner also relies, has no bearing on the case at bar. It involved assignment of accounts, but there was no retention of dominion by the bankrupt. The sole question was whether successive assignments of accounts by way of security, made in pursuance of a contract, were had because the contract embraced all the accounts. The lien acquired before knowledge by either party of insolvency was held good against the trustee.

Reversed.

[1] Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 N.Y. 508, 518-520; Coats v. Donnell, 94 N.Y. 168, 177. See Rochester Distilling Co. v. Rasey, 142 N.Y. 570, 580; MacDowell v. Buffalo Loan, etc. Co., 193 N.Y. 92, 104. Compare New York Security & Trust Co. v. Saratoga Gas, etc. Co., 159 N.Y. 137; Zartman v. First National Bank, 189 N.Y. 267.

[2] Griswold v. Sheldon, 4 N.Y. 580; Edgell v. Hart, 9 N.Y. 213; Russell v. Winne, 37 N.Y. 591; Southard v. Benner, 72 N.Y. 424; Potts v. Hart, 99 N.Y. 168; Hangen v. Hachemeister, 114 N.Y. 566; Mandeville v. Avery, 124 N.Y. 376; Skilton v. Codington, 185 N.Y. 80; Zartman v. First National Bank, 189 N.Y. 267; In re Marine Construction & Dry Docks Co., 135 Fed. 921, 144 Fed. 649; In re Davis, 155 Fed. 671; In re Hartman, 185 Fed. 196; In re Volence, 197 Fed. 232; In re Purtell, 215 Fed. 191; In re Leslie-Judge Co., 272 Fed. 886. Compare Frost v. Warren, 42 N.Y. 204; also Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. 78; Robinson v. Elliot, 22 Wall. 513; Smith v. Craft, 123 U.S. 436; Means v. Dowd, 128 U.S. 273; Etheridge v. Sperry, 139 U.S. 266; Huntley v. Kingman, 152 U.S. 527; Knapp v. Milwaukee Trust Co., 216 U.S. 545.

[3] Edgell v. Hart, 9 N.Y. 213, 216; Zartman v. First National Bank, 189 N.Y. 267, 270.

[4] Russell v. Wynne, 37 N.Y. 591, 595; Southard v. Benner, 72 N.Y. 424, 432; Potts v. Hart, 99 N.Y. 168, 172-173.

[5] Southard v. Benner, 72 N.Y. 424, 430; Potts v. Hart, 99 N.Y. 168, 172.

[6] Zartman v. First National Bank, 189 N.Y. 267, 270.

[7] Zartman v. First National Bank, 189 N.Y. 267, 269.

[8] Russell v. Winne, 37 N.Y. 591; Southard v. Benner, 72 N.Y. 424.

[9] Potts v. Hart, 99 N.Y. 168, 172.

[10] Russell v. Winne, 37 N.Y. 591, 593; In re Leslie-Judge Co., 272 Fed. 886, 888.

[11] Potts v. Hart, 99 N.Y. 168, 171. N.Y. Personal Property Law, § 45; Laws, 1911, c. 626, authorizes the creation of a general lien or floating charge upon a stock of merchandise, including after-acquired chattels, and upon accounts receivable resulting from the sale of such merchandise. It provides that this lien or charge shall be valid against creditors provided certain formalities are observed and detailed filing provisions are complied with. It is possible that, if its conditions are performed, the section does away with the rule “that retention of possession by the mortgagor with power of sale for his own benefit is fraudulent as to creditors.”

[12] Field v. Mayor, etc. of New York, 6 N.Y. 179.

[13] Smith v. Acker, 23 Wend. 653; Griswold v. Sheldon, 4 N.Y. 580, 590; Edgell v. Hart, 9 N.Y. 213, 218; Conkling v. Shelley, 28 N.Y. 360. The statutes to this effect merely embody the commonlaw rule. But, in New York, an additional statute provides that unrecorded chattel mortgages under such circumstances are absolutely void as to creditors. New York Lien Law, § 230; Laws, 1909, c. 38, § 230, as amended 1911, c. 326, and 1916, c. 348, See Seidenbach v. Riley, 111 N.Y. 560; Karst v. Kane, 136 N.Y. 316; Stephens v. Perrine, 143 N.Y. 476; Russell v. St. Mart, 180 N.Y. 355. See Stewart v. Platt, 101 U.S. 731, 735. Compare Preston v. Southwick, 115 N.Y. 139; Nash v. Ely, 19 Wend. (N.Y.) 523; Goodwin v. Kelly, 42 Barb. (N.Y.) 194. In the case of a transfer of personal property by sale, retention of possession creates a rebuttable presumption of fraud. See Kimball v. Cash, 176 N.Y. Supp. 541; also New York Ice Co. v. Cousins, 23 App. Div. 560; Rheinfeldt v. Dahlman, 43 N.Y. Supp. 281; Tuttle v. Hayes, 107 N.Y. Supp. 22; Young v. Wedderspoon, 126 N.Y. Supp. 375; Sherry v. Janov, 137 N.Y. Supp. 792; Gisnet v. Moeckel, 165 N.Y. Supp. 82. In order to create a valid pledge of tangible personalty, there must be a delivery to the pledgee. In re P.J. Sullivan Co., 247 Fed. 139, 254 Fed. 660.

[14] Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 N.Y. 508, 522.

[15] Niles v. Mathusa, 162 N.Y. 546; National Hudson River Bank v. Chaskin, 28 App. Div. 311, 315; Curtis v. Leavitt, 17 Barb. (N.Y.) 309, 364; Young v. Upson, 115 Fed. 192. In 1916, Section 230 of the New York Lien Law was amended to the effect that a mortgage, pledge, or lien on stocks or bonds given to secure the repayment of a loan is, if not recorded, absolutely void against creditors unless such securities are delivered to the mortgagee or pledgee on the day the loan is made. See N.Y. Laws, 1916, c. 348.

[16] Conkling v. Shelley, 28 N.Y. 360; Brackett v. Harvey, 91 N.Y. 214; Spaulding v. Keyes, 125 N.Y. 113; Briggs v. Gelm, 122 App. Div. 102. See Robinson v. Elliot, 22 Wall. 513, 524; People’s Savings Bank v. Bates, 120 U.S. 556, 561.

[17] See note 18, infra.

[18] Young v. Upson, 115 Fed. 192. If it is agreed that the transferor may use the original collateral for his own purposes upon the substitution of other of equal value, the transfer is not thereby invalidated. Clark v. Iselin, 21 Wall. 360 (book accounts); Sexton v. Kessler, 225 U.S. 90 (negotiable securities); Chapman v. Hunt, 254 Fed. 768 (book accounts). Compare Casey v. Cavaroc, 96 U.S. 467.

[19] Compare Mechanics’ Bank v. Ernst, 231 U.S. 60, 67.

[20] Schaupp v. Miller, 206 Fed. 575; Grimes v. Clark, 234 Fed. 604; Gray v. Breslof, 273 Fed. 526, 527.

[21] Mandeville v. Avery, 124 N.Y. 376, 382; Stimson v. Wrigley, 86 N.Y. 332, 338; Dutcher v. Swartwood, 15 Hun (N.Y.) 31.

[22] It was cited in Young v. Upson, 115 Fed. 192 (Circ. Ct.); In re Michigan Furniture Co., 249 Fed. 978 (D. Ct.); and in the opinion here under review.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

MERS Loses Quiet Title Appeal in Texas, Affirms Trial Court Judgment of Voiding Deed of Trust: MERS v. GROVES

MERS Loses Quiet Title Appeal in Texas, Affirms Trial Court Judgment of Voiding Deed of Trust: MERS v. GROVES


Via: William A. Roper

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR GREENSPOINT FUNDING, Appellant,
v.
NANCY GROVES, Appellee.

No. 14-10-00090-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston.

Memorandum Opinion filed April 12, 2011.

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce and Jamison.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM J. BOYCE, Justice.

Nancy Groves sued Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as nominee for Greenspoint Funding, to invalidate a deed of trust securing MERS’s alleged lien on Groves’s property. The trial court entered a default judgment against MERS, which then filed this restricted appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Groves filed her original petition against MERS on May 8, 2009. She alleged that she owns a certain tract of land subject to a lien secured by a deed of trust “accepted and recorded” by MERS. She further alleged that the deed of trust is invalid and asked the trial court to remove it and quiet title in Groves. MERS was served with process but failed to file an answer, and Groves filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court signed a default judgment against MERS stating that (1) Groves owns the property in question; (2) the deed of trust is “void and of no force or effect;” and (3) the deed of trust be removed from the property title.

MERS filed a timely notice of restricted appeal, arguing that (1) “Groves failed to properly state a cause of action and such failure is plain on the face of Groves’s petition;” and (2) “no justiciable controversy is alleged in Groves’s petition.”

ANALYSIS

A restricted appeal is available when (1) it is filed within six months after the trial court signed the judgment; (2) by a party to the suit; (3) who, either in person or through counsel, did not participate at trial and did not timely file any post-judgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent from the face of the record. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30; Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004). The face of the record consists of all papers on file in the appeal. Osteen v. Osteen, 38 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.).

MERS, a party to this suit, did not participate in the trial court and did not file any post-judgment motion or request for findings of fact or conclusions of law. MERS filed its notice of restricted appeal on January 26, 2010, less than six months after the trial court signed the default judgment on September 25, 2009. Accordingly, the only issue in this restricted appeal is whether error is plain on the record’s face. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30; Alexander, 134 S.W.3d at 848.

I. Groves’s Pleadings

MERS argues in its first issue that error is plain on the record’s face because Groves’s pleading does not properly raise a claim for which the trial court could grant relief. According to MERS, Groves’s pleading does not raise a viable claim because Groves (1) failed to base her claim on the superiority of her own title to the property; and (2) requested only declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Groves stated in her petition:

Nancy Groves, Plaintiff, petitions the court pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act . . . for a declaration of the invalidity of certain documents and claim held by the Defendant, [MERS], in order to quiet title to the property in which Plaintiff has an interest, and for cause of action shows:

* * *

3. Plaintiff’s Interest in Property. The plaintiff is the owner of a certain tract of land located in Harris County, Texas, as shown in the Assessment Lien Deed recorded under document number V230924 in the official Public records of Tarrant County, Texas, and more particularly described as Lot Thirteen (13), in Block Two (2), of Summerwood, Section 4, Seven Oaks Village, an addition in Harris County, Texas, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Film Code No. 388 of the Map Records of Harris, County, Texas.

* * *

5. Invalidity of Defendant’s Claim. The Deed of Trust under which the Defendant or the Lender or Lender’s assigns asserts an interest that interferes with Plaintiff’s title, although appearing valid on its face, is in fact invalid and of no force or effect. The Plaintiff will show that Defendant nor the Lender’s assigns is not the holder of the original Real Estate Lien note that is secured by the Deed of Trust.

Groves also requested “other and further relief for which Plaintiff may be justly entitled” based on allegations that (1) she owns the property in question; (2) MERS accepted and recorded a deed of trust securing an alleged lien on the property; and (3) the deed of trust “is in fact invalid and of no force or effect.”

The trial court’s judgment states:

[T]he court Orders and Adjudges, that [Groves] is the owner of [the property].

The court further Orders and Adjudges that the Deed of Trust filed is void and has no force or effect.

The court further orders the deed of trust removed from the title to the property made the subject of this litigation.

A. Strength of Title

MERS first argues that the judgment was in error because Groves pleaded “a quiet title (or trespass-to-try-title) claim” but did not “base her claim solely on the strength of her own title.” MERS argues that suits to quiet title must be based on the strength of the claimant’s own title, rather than the weakness of the adverse claimant’s title. See, e.g., Fricks v. Hancock, 45 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Resolution of this contention requires consideration of the different types of claims that have been characterized as suits to quiet title. The case law is not entirely consistent on this issue.

A suit to quiet title is equitable in nature, and the principal issue in such suits is “`the existence of a cloud on the title that equity will remove.'” Florey v. Estate of McConnell, 212 S.W.3d 439, 448 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, pet. denied)Bell v. Ott, 606 S.W.2d 942, 952 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.)). A “cloud” on legal title includes any deed, contract, judgment lien or other instrument, not void on its face, that purports to convey an interest in or makes any charge upon the land of the true owner, the invalidity of which would require proof. Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. denied). A suit to quiet title “`enable[s] the holder of the feeblest equity to remove from his way to legal title any unlawful hindrance having the appearance of better right.'” Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 448 (quoting Thomson v. Locke, 1 S.W.112, 115 (Tex. 1886)). (quoting

Courts have used the term “suit to quiet title” to refer to legal disputes regarding

(1) title to and possession of real property; and (2) the validity of other “clouds” on an undisputed owner’s title to real property. Compare Alkas v. United Sav. Ass’n of Tex., Inc., 672 S.W.2d 852, 855-56 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (suit to adjudicate ownership of property to determine whether creditors of original owner retained interest in property purportedly conveyed to new owner was action “to quiet title”), with Sw. Guar. Trust Co. v. Hardy Rd. 13.4 Joint Venture, 981 S.W.2d 951, 956-57 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s action to invalidate lien and deed of trust securing lien constituted suit “to quiet title”); see also Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449 (distinguishing between “suits to quiet title that are equivalent to trespass-to-try-title actions” and suits to quiet title involving interests that only “indirectly impact” title to and possession of real property).[1]

The first type of claim, which involves title to and possession of real property, is essentially “the equivalent to [a] trespass-to-try-title action[].” See Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449; see also Sani v. Powell, 153 S.W.3d 736, 746 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (quiet title claim involving allegedly invalid tax sale of property characterized as trespass to try title action). “A trespass to try title action is the method of determining title to lands, tenements, or other real property.” Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 22.001 (Vernon 2000). A trespass to try title action “is typically used to clear problems in chains of title or to recover possession of land unlawfully withheld from a rightful owner.” See Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262, 265 (Tex. 2004), superseded by statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 37.004 (Vernon 2008) (reversing Martin‘s holding that relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act was unavailable for boundary dispute). It is the exclusive remedy by which to resolve competing claims to property. Jordan v. Bustamante, 158 S.W.3d 29, 34 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). Courts require claimants bringing this type of “suit to quiet title” to base their claims on the strength of their own title. See Kennedy Con., Inc. v. Forman, 316 S.W.3d 129, 135 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.); Alkas, 672 S.W.2d at 857. To recover, a claimant must establish a prima facie right of title by proving one of the following: (1) a regular chain of conveyances from the sovereign; (2) a superior title out of a common source; (3) title by limitations; or (4) prior possession, which has not been abandoned. Kennedy Con., Inc., 316 S.W.3d at 135.

The second type of claim, which involves other “clouds” on an undisputed owner’s title to real property, challenges an adverse interest that impacts title and possession only indirectly. See Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449; see also Max Duncan Family Inv., Ltd. v. NTFN Inc., 267 S.W.3d 447, 453-54 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s suit to invalidate promissory note and lien securing note “involve[d] more than just title and possession of real property”); Cadle Co. v. Ortiz, 227 S.W.3d 831, 837-38 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2007, pet. denied) (undisputed property owner’s post-foreclosure suit to invalidate mechanic’s lien distinguished from trespass to try title action); Sw. Guar. Trust Co., 981 S.W.2d at 957 (undisputed property owner’s action to declare lien invalid was “really one to quiet title”). A claim is sufficiently adverse if its assertion would cast a cloud on the owner’s enjoyment of the property. See Katz v. Rodriguez, 563 S.W.2d 627, 629 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). To remove such a cloud, a plaintiff must “allege right, title, or ownership in herself with sufficient certainty to enable the court to see she has a right of ownership that will warrant judicial interference.” Wright, 26 S.W.3d at 578.

MERS does not dispute that Groves holds title to the property subject to the deed of trust; Groves does not dispute that the deed of trust securing the lien belongs to MERS. Groves’s claim that the deed is invalid does not directly implicate any issues to be resolved by a trespass to try title suit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 22.001 (Vernon 2000) (“A trespass to try title action is the method of determining title to lands, tenements, or other real property.”); Martin, 133 S.W.3d at 265 (trespass to try title statute is “typically used to clear problems in chains of title or to recover possession of land unlawfully withheld from a rightful owner”); see also Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Stockdick Land Co., No. 14-09-00617-CV, 2011 WL 321742, at *10 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 3, 2011, no pet.) (“If the Bank succeeds in its arguments . . . then the Property is subject to the Bank’s lien. If not, then the Property is not subject to the lien. In any event, title to the Property or to the liens is not in question . . . . [The Bank] is not required to pursue a trespass-to-try-title action.”). Therefore, Groves’s claim is not in the nature of a trespass to try title action and she was not required to base her claim upon the strength of her own title.

Groves alleged in her pleading that she owns the property by virtue of her recorded deed. This satisfies the requirement that she “allege right, title, or ownership in herself with sufficient certainty to enable the court to see she has a right of ownership that will warrant judicial interference” in the issue of the deed of trust’s validity. Wright, 26 S.W.3d 575.[2] Therefore, Groves’s pleadings do not establish error on the face of the record.

B. Relief under Declaratory Judgment Act

MERS alternatively argues that “the trespass-to-try-title statutes [are] Groves’s sole remedy” and complains that Groves “did not raise a cause of action under those statutes” because she requested only declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. MERS bases its argument on Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d at 267-68. The holding in Martin rested upon the court’s characterization of section 22.001 of the Texas Property Code as the exclusive remedy for trespass to try title actions. See id.

We need not decide whether Martin precludes Groves’s request for declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act in this case.[3] Groves requested relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as well as “other and further relief to which [she] may be justly entitled.” The trial court’s judgment does not indicate that it granted her request to “quiet title” exclusively under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Accordingly, no error appears on the face of this record. SeeAlexander, 134 S.W.3d at 848. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30;

We overrule MERS’s first issue.

II. Justiciable Controversy

MERS argues in its second issue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the action because Groves “failed to allege a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act.”

A justiciable controversy between the parties must exist at every stage of the legal proceedings. Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). We cannot decide moot controversies. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). “In order to maintain a suit to quiet title, there must be an assertion by the defendant of a claim to some interest adverse to plaintiff’s title; and the claim must be one that, if enforced, would interfere with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the property.” Mauro v. Lavlies, 386 S.W.2d 825, 826-27 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1964, no writ) (internal quotation omitted) (no justiciable controversy existed because the judgments defendants obtained against plaintiffs asserted no claims against plaintiffs’ property and defendants made no attempt to create a lien upon property or to have property sold to satisfy judgments).

Groves alleged in her petition that MERS’s deed of trust “purported to create a lien for security purposes on Plaintiff’s property as described.” This alleged lien constitutes an adverse interest to Groves’s title, which, if enforced, would interfere with her enjoyment of the property. See id. Therefore, a justiciable controversy existed, and the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184; Mauro, 386 S.W.2d at 826-27.[4]

We overrule MERS’s second issue.

CONCLUSION

Having overruled both of MERS’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[1] Other decisions have stated that a suit to quiet title is distinct from a trespass to try title action. See, e.g., Longoria v. Lasater, 292 S.W.3d 156, 165 n.7 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2009, pet. denied); Fricks v. Hancock, 45 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); McCammon v. Ischy, No. 03-06-00707-CV, 2010 WL 1930149, at *7 (Tex. App.-Austin May 12, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

[2] Even assuming for argument’s sake that Groves’s suit is properly characterized as a trespass to try title suit, the rule that a claimant in such an action must base her claim on the superiority of her own title concerns Groves’s burden of proof. See Kennedy Con., Inc., 316 S.W.3d at 135 (“To recover [in trespass to try title action], Forman must establish a prima facie right of title by proving [strength of Forman’s own title by one of four ways].”) (emphasis added). Any alleged error relating to this issue would be one of proof and is not apparent from Groves’s petition or on the face of this record. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30; Alexander, 134 S.W.3d at 848.

[3] Although Martin addressed exclusivity of relief under the Texas Property Code for trespass to try title claims, courts of appeals are split on whether exclusivity of relief under the Texas Property Code applies to all suits characterized as suits to quiet title. Compare Sw. Guar. Trust Co., 981 S.W.2d at 957 (action to quiet title brought to invalidate lien on property was governed exclusively by trespass to try title statute), with Florey, 212 S.W.3d at 449 (Martin does not preclude relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act for actions to quiet title that only indirectly impact title and possession and therefore are not not equivalent to trespass to try title actions).

[4] MERS also argues: “All Groves alleged is MERS lacked an enforceable security interest in the property at the time she filed her petition because MERS was not then holder of the original note secured by the deed of trust. . . . [T]his one fact shows Groves’s action is based entirely on facts subject to change” and therefore fails to manifest the “ripening seeds of a controversy” between Groves and MERS. MERS argues that a justiciable controversy does not exist because it “may or may not be required to hold the original note” to enforce the security interest and could “acquire noteholder status through assignment” if so required. This argument goes to the merits of Groves’s argument for invalidating the deed of trust and does not affect whether a controversy existed as to the validity of the deed of trust.

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

WATCH YOUR CAR IF IT’S PAID OFF…IT’S NOT JUST HOMES THEY ARE SEIZING!

WATCH YOUR CAR IF IT’S PAID OFF…IT’S NOT JUST HOMES THEY ARE SEIZING!


I was alerted from a car owner that her vehicle was towed away even when she has been making her timely payments, she was told her loan was sold from Mitsubishi to another lender but this was not Wells Fargo (to make this clear). She never received any notice of the loan having been transferred out of Mitsubishi Motors and is inquiring as to who the new lien holder is. Now, she has to pay to get her vehicle out of the tow yard! RIDICULOUS!

Which prompted me to do some research and came into this video below. It’s not only homes they are repossessing without any liens, no loan outstanding.

Pointers:

  • Wells Fargo tows car with no loan
  • She has proof she has NO NOTE, paid car off
  • She shows police she has no loan and provides them her “clear” title
  • Police ignore and proceed to remove her car

It’s not only homes they are taking with no note and “clear” title.

“We’ve been hearing of similar cases in the area” Jesse Jones -K5News

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory by Christopher L. Peterson

Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory by Christopher L. Peterson


.

.

.

.

.

Christopher Lewis Peterson

University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Journal, Forthcoming

Abstract:

Hundreds of thousands of home foreclosure lawsuits have focused judicial scrutiny on the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”). This Article updates and expands upon an earlier piece by exploring the implications of state Supreme Court decisions holding that MERS is not a mortgagee in security agreements that list it as such. In particular this Article looks at: (1) the consequences on land title records of recording mortgages in the name of a purported mortgagee that is not actually mortgagee as a matter of law; (2) whether a security agreement that fails to name an actual mortgagee can successfully convey a property interest; and (3) whether county governments may be entitled to reimbursement of recording fees avoided through the use of false statements associated with the MERS system. This Article concludes with a discussion of steps needed to rebuild trustworthy real property ownership records.

[ipaper docId=39287904 access_key=key-t9fm5292wmd8fg9fz88 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bifurcate, Christopher Peterson, deed of trust, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

NY JUDGE SPINNER DENIES Deutsche & MERS for NOT Recording Mortgage, Make up Affidavit and Assignment!

NY JUDGE SPINNER DENIES Deutsche & MERS for NOT Recording Mortgage, Make up Affidavit and Assignment!


MERS ‘QUIET TITLE’ FAIL

NY SUPREME COURT: SUFFOLK COUNTY

INDEX NO. 09-3 1067

Excerpts:

MERS alleges that the mortgage was never recorded, and upon information and belief, has been lost or inadvertantly destroyed. MERS commenced this action on August 1 1, 2009, with the filing of the summons, verified complaint, and notice of pendency.

Also, in support of its cross motion, MERS submits, inter alia, copies of the alleged note and mortgage, and the affidavit of John Burnett ( “Burnett”), a Vice President of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for the MLMI Trust Series 2007-MLNI (“Deutsche Bank”) who alleges that Deutsche Bank is the current owner and holder of the mortgage that is the subject of this action. Burnett claims that MERS’ mortgage has been assigned to Deutsche Bank by an unrecorded assignment of the mortgage acknowledged on September 4,2009, a copy of which has been submitted to the court. Burnett states that the assignment will be recorded once the mortgage has been established of record. Further, Burnett alleges that out of the loan proceeds that were secured by the mortgage, $641,441.54 was paid to Downey Savings and Loan to satisfy a prior mortgage Torr had given on the property, and the amount of $34,833.22 was paid directly to Torr. Burnett submits a copy of the alleged HUD- 1 A Settlement Statement from Torr’s closing.

Additionally, Burnett asserts that it has been discovered that the original mortgage was never recorded, cannot be located, and is presumed to be lost or inadvertantly destroyed. He claims that the original mortgage is not in Deutsche Bank’s files, and only a copy has been located. Burnett states that Interactive Abstract (“Interactive”) a title abstract company, presided over the November 17, 2006 closing of the mortgage and took the executed original for the purpose of recording it in the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office. He states that, upon information and belief, the mortgage was lost, misplace or destroyed while in Interactive‘s possession or after it had been submitted to the Clerk’s Office for recording. Burnett alleges that he has been advised that Interactive has ceased operating as a title abstract company and is out of business.

MERS alleges that by submitting the affidavit of Burnett, and copies of the affidavits of service, together with the relevant documentary evidence, it has satisfied the proof required by CPLR 321 5 setting forth the facts constituting the claim against Torr and establishing his default. Moreover, MERS alleges that the relief sought herein, a declaratory judgment, is necessary to enable it to realize the security interest in the property that was bargained for when MLN made its $695,000.00 loan to Torr and Torr gave the mortgage to secure the loan. MERS requests that the court render a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the holder of a mortgage encumbering the premises under the terms and conditions set forth in the unrecorded plaintiffs mortgage, and directing the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office to record such a declaratory judgment, together with a copy of the plaintiffs mortgage.

As to Torr’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, MERS has established that such motion is untimely. Torr was served by two different methods of service. One of the affidavits of service submitted indicates that Torr was served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) on September 2, 2009, by leaving the summons and verified complaint with a person of suitable age and discretion; mailing them to Torr’s residence on September 8,2009; and then filing proof of service with the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office on September 18, 2009. Therefore, under this method of service, Torr would have had to have served an answer or a notice of appearance by October 28,2009 (see CPLR 308[2]; CPLR 320; and CPLR 3012). The other affidavit of service submitted indicates that Torr was served pursuant to CPLR 308( 1) on September 2,2009, by personal delivery of the summons and verified complaint, and then fiIing proof of service with the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office on September 10, 2009. Thus, under this method of service, Torr would have had to have served an answer or a notice of appearance by September 22, 2009 (see CPLR 320 and CPLR 30 12). Furthermore, this motion to dismiss the complaint was made by Torr on December 2 1,2009, the date upon which it was served (see CPLR 221 1). Inasmuch as this motion was not interposed within the time required for service of responsive pleadings (see CPLR 32 1 1 [e]), no matter which of the two afl’ldavits of service submitted herein is used, the motion is untimely. Therefore, Torr’s motion to dismiss is denied.

As to MERS’ cross motion, it is well settledl that when applying for a default judgment, a plaintiff must submit evidence sufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case (see CPLR 32 lS[fl; Silberstein v Presbyterinn Hosp. in the City of New York, 96 AD2d 1096,463 NYS2d 254 [1983]). Thus, if a court finds that the allegations in a complaint or affidavit of facts fail to establish a prima facie case, a movant is not entitled to the requested relief; even on default (Dyno v Rose, 260 AD2d 694,687 NYS2d 497 [1999]; Green v Dolplzy Construction Co., Inc., 187 AD2d 635, 590 NYS2d 238 [1992]). Consistent with the foregoing, and upon review of t.he papers submitted, the court finds MERS’ application for a default judgment to be deficient.

An action to compel the determination of a claim to real property may be maintained where a plaintiff claims an estate or interest in real property (RPAPL § 150 I [ 11). Although the interest had by a mortgagee of real property or its successor in interest is an “interest in real property”(RPAPL tj 150 1 [ 5 ] ) , here MERS has failed to meet its burden by demonstrating that it has standing to maintain this action to quiet title (see Soscin v Soscin, 35 AD3d 841, 829 NYS2d 543 [2006]). MERS has failed to make a prima facie showing that it was the owner or holder of the note and the mortgage at the time this action was commenced (cc Mortgnge Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Conkley, 41 AD3d 674, 838 NYS2d 622 [2007]). In addition, the purported mortgage describes MERS as the nominee of MLN, and that for purposes of recording the mortgage, MERS is the mortgagee of record. Thus, MERS as nominee, is the agent of MLN, for limited purposes, “and has only those powers which are conferred to it and authorized by” MLN (Bank of New York v Aldernzi, 201 0 NE’ Slip Op. 20 167,900 NYS2d 82 1, 823 [Sup Ct, Kings County, 20101). There is no evidence that MLN, who is not a party herein, authorized MERS to bring this action’.

Moreover, the effectiveness of the assignment dated September 4, 2009, is unclear as there is no evidence that MLN ever directly assigned the note to MERS or expressly gave MERS the authority to act as MLN’s authorized agent to assign the subject note to Deutsche Bank (see In re Stralern, 303 AD2d 120, 758 NYS2d 345 [2003]; Teitz v Goettler, 191 AD 924, 181 NYS 956 [1920]).Without an effective transfer of MLN’s interest in the note to MERS or express authorization from MLN for MERS to assign the note on its behalf, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity (see Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [1988]). Thus, it is also iinclear whether Deutche Bank’s Vice President had the authority to act in terms of satisfying the proof of facts constituting this claim (see CPLR 3215[fl; Wells Fargo Barzk, NA v Davilmar, 16 Misc3d 1 13 3A, 847 NYS2d 906 [2007]).

[ipaper docId=37138728 access_key=key-1brfunk8ho62g6uhl4j0 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in chain in title, conflict of interest, conspiracy, deutsche bank, dismissed, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note, quiet title, rmbs, servicers, stopforeclosurefraud.com, trustee, Trusts, Wall StreetComments (0)

EXCLUSIVE | ‘MERS’ DEPOSITION of SECRETARY and TREASURER of MERSCORP 4/2010

EXCLUSIVE | ‘MERS’ DEPOSITION of SECRETARY and TREASURER of MERSCORP 4/2010


Could this deposition hold the key to take all of MERS V3 &  MERSCORP down!

There is not 1, 2 but 3 MERS, Inc. in the past.

Just like MERS et al signing documents dated years later from existence the Corporate employees do the same to their own corporate resolutions! Exists in 1998 and certifies it in 2002.

If this is not proof of a Ponzi Scheme then I don’t know what is… They hide the truth in many layers but as we keep pulling and peeling each layer back eventually we will come to the truth!

“A Subtle Stranger” Orchestrates a Paradigm Shift

MERS et al has absolutely no supervision of what is being done by it’s non-members certifying authority PERIOD!

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION – ATLANTIC COUNTY
DOCKET NO. F-10209-08
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,
INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-AB3
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE
Defendant(s).

___________________________________________
VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE
Counter claimants and
Third Party Plaintiffs,
vs.
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,
INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-AB3
Defendants on the Counterclaim,
and
AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.;
MORGAN FUNDING CORPORATION,
ROBERT CHILDERS; COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS SERVICING LP,
PHELAN, HALLINAN & SCHMIEG,
P.C.,
Third Party Defendants
——————–

Deposition of William C. Hultman, Secretary and Treasurer of MERSCORP

[ipaper docId=36513502 access_key=key-1ltln0ondmrqe0v9156u height=600 width=600 /]

Does MERS have any salaried employees?
A No.
Q Does MERS have any employees?
A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.
Q Does MERS have any employees currently?
A No.
Q In the last five years has MERS had any
employees
?
A No.
Q To whom do the officers of MERS report?
A The Board of Directors.
Q To your knowledge has Mr. Hallinan ever
reported to the Board?
A He would have reported through me if there was
something to report.
Q So if I understand your answer, at least the
MERS officers reflected on Hultman Exhibit 4, if they
had something to report would report to you even though
you’re not an employee of MERS, is that correct?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A That’s correct.
Q And in what capacity would they report to you?
A As a corporate officer. I’m the secretary.
Q As a corporate officer of what?
Of MERS.
Q So you are the secretary of MERS, but are not
an employee of MERS?
A That’s correct.

etc…
How many assistant secretaries have you
appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how
many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.
Q Approximately?
A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you
right now.
Q Is it in the thousands?
A Yes.
Q Have you been doing this all around the
country in every state in the country?
A Yes.
Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid
officers of MERS
?
A Yes.
Q And there’s no live person who is an employee
of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an
employee?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A There are no employees of MERS.

RELATED ARTICLE:

_____________________________

MERS 101

_____________________________

FULL DEPOSITION of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) PRESIDENT & CEO R.K. ARNOLD “MERSCORP”

_____________________________

DEPOSITION of A “REAL” VICE PRESIDENT of MERS WILLIAM “BILL” HULTMAN

_____________________________

HOMEOWNERS’ REBELLION: COULD 62 MILLION HOMES BE FORECLOSURE-PROOF?

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bac home loans, bank of america, bank of new york, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, countrywide, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, insider, investigation, lawsuit, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note, originator, R.K. Arnold, racketeering, Real Estate, sanctioned, scam, securitization, servicers, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, TAXES, trustee, trustee sale, Trusts, truth in lending act, unemployed, Violations, Wall StreetComments (4)

Tapped Out: When Water Bills Force Foreclosure

Tapped Out: When Water Bills Force Foreclosure


Some may recall the post I did about DISTURBING BEHAVIOR in FLORIDA: The $67K Water Lien! Revoked Homestead!

I guess this isn’t that rare. Take a look what a $3,000 unpaid water bill can do if you DO NOT HAVE ANY MORTGAGE.

One raw day in early February, Vicki Valentine stood by helplessly as real estate investors snatched her West Baltimore home over what began with an unpaid city water bill of $362. Valentine lost the property after the city sold her debt to investors through a contentious and byzantine legal process called a tax sale. This little-known type of foreclosure can enrich investors as growing numbers of property owners struggle to pay their bills.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59cOz05Ovdk]

Posted in foreclosure, foreclosure fraudComments (0)

DISTURBING BEHAVIOR in FLORIDA: The $67K Water Lien! Revoked Homestead!

DISTURBING BEHAVIOR in FLORIDA: The $67K Water Lien! Revoked Homestead!


Individual does not want to disclose their name. I have authenticated this to be true.

I have spoke to others and this has happened to them …but without ANY violations.

Could this be the way that the MBA might get around to allow banks to foreclose on “Non-Homestead” properties?? Just CURIOUS?

“DISTURBING BEHAVIOR”

1. Non-Creditor places a Lis Pendens

2. County/City revokes your HOMESTEAD

3. County/City issues code violations

4. County/City places a lien on the subject property

5. County files a Foreclosure Notice for unpaid Code Violations (ie: not getting a $2-3K sewer connected that turns into $67K FASTand growing …while in Lis Pendens)

6. County sends you a letter letting you know that they CANNOT foreclose on a homestead residence.

GUESS WHAT? They revoked it! So now they can foreclose and get in first place of the bank(s) foreclosing… Kick you to the CURB!

Bank now pays the “County/ City” off. It can be any violation…Did you clean your pool? mow the lawn? ANYTHING!

“DISTURBING BEHAVIOR”

But why you ask…

It’s the only property you own!

It’s the only “Primary” residence you have!

It’s the only mortgage in the Country….So why is this not your Homestead property?

Good thing they weren’t working on a “Loan Mod”.

“DISTURBING BEHAVIOR”

Don’t believe me see for yourself…

Related Stories:

mortgage-banking-the-mers-alternative-to-vacant-property-registration-ordinances

state-supreme-court-seeks-to-relieve-foreclosure-pressure-valve

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in conspiracy, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, scamComments (0)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives