1. Did the borrower have a choice or was he/she coerced into accepting MERS, who they really had no idea of what or who it was?
2. Was it ever disclosed that many of the lenders are shareholders of MERS, also who may own the first or second position… this includes Fannie Mae who is a shareholder?
3. Since Fannie (GSE) is owned by “taxpayers” why is she acting 100% private – 100% of the time?
4. One may have been coerced into having MERS in their documents but one would never accept forgery or robo-signing because everyone knows this would be fraud and therefore void the transaction…like a check.
With mounting evidence of robo-signing and other alleged fraud perpetrated by banks, foreclosure law firms and others, Fannie Mae and Flagstar Bank have filed a new defense of such actions in Ingham County Circuit Court — and Ingham County Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel, Jr. is crying foul.
“What they are basically saying is they can forge an assignment and there is nothing the citizen or court can do about it. It is a brazen attempt to legalize robosigning,” says Hertel. “It’s just another example of Fannie Mae thumbing its nose at the American people, and unfortunately while they are under federal bailout we are paying for it.”
This is happening in the case of a Haslett man who suffered a stroke and fell behind on his mortgage payments. As a result, Flagstar Bank and Fannie Mae foreclosed on him and are now in the final stages of evicting him from his Haslett home, says Hertel.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
30th CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF INGHAM
CURTIS HERTEL, JR. individually and as
Register of Feeds for Ingham County,
V
BANK OF AMERICA N.A.;
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP;
ORLAN ASSOCIATES, PC;
TROTT & TROTT, PC;
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
d/b/a FANNIE MAE;
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION
d/b/a FREDDIE MAC
An interesting ruling came down from the nether regions of Northern Michigan today. Houghton County Circuit Judge Charles Goodman ruled that a note holder lacked legal standing to execute both a foreclosure and the subsequent eviction because the originating lender Ameriquest only transferred their rights as mortgagee to MERS not their rights under the note. Therefore, because the mortgage and note have been separated and only the mortgage was assigned, the foreclosing entity, Household Finance who MERS assigned the mortgage to, lacked the legal standing to execute the foreclosure and eviction because they did not hold the promissory note.
Recent Comments