Recording | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "recording"

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 /]

 

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

READ | Essex County, MA John O’Brien Rejection Letter & Affidavit re: M.G.L. c. 266 § 35A

READ | Essex County, MA John O’Brien Rejection Letter & Affidavit re: M.G.L. c. 266 § 35A


Highlight of these incredible documents:

MGL Chapter 266, Section 35A (b) (4) provides that:

“Whoever intentionally: files or causes to be filed with a registrar of deeds any document that contains a material statement that is false or a material omission, knowing such document to contain a material statement that is false or a material omission, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $10,000 in the case of a natural person or not more than $100,000 in the case of any other person, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

Once the Affidavit is prepared and notarized, please forward it and your Recording to my attention with a recording fee of $75 for each document, and I will make sure the documents are put on record forthwith.

[…]

[ipaper docId=57341453 access_key=key-d99wdhhax2y6o3lamab height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Oregon Senate Bill 827 to help families in foreclosure, passed out of the Rules Committee today and is headed to the floor for a vote!

Oregon Senate Bill 827 to help families in foreclosure, passed out of the Rules Committee today and is headed to the floor for a vote!


Sponsored by Senator BONAMICI; Senators BATES, BOQUIST

SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the
measure.

Provides that failure to include required modification form with notice of sale, failure to comply with provisions governing loan modifications and failure to record required affidavit of compliance with loan modification requirements are unlawful practices subject to enforcement under unlawful trade practices law.  Prescribes  time within which beneficiary or beneficiary’s agent must file affidavit for recording. Requires trustee to send copy of required affidavit to Department of Justice.

Requires Department of Consumer and Business Services by rule to prescribe form of affidavit and specifies minimum requirements for affidavit.

Removes certain exemptions from requirement to comply with law governing mortgage loan modifications.

Permits grantor to record affidavit stating that grantor requested loan modification in accordance with law and by applicable deadline.

Requires trustee to be resident of this state or have registered agent that meets certain qualifications.

Declares emergency, effective on passage.

[ipaper docId=55863283 access_key=key-bwmvunoxetdjgxzsouj height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

PASSED Texas HB 213 requiring new disclosure requirements for mortgage servicing

PASSED Texas HB 213 requiring new disclosure requirements for mortgage servicing


The Texas House of Representatives passed a bill that requires new disclosure requirements for mortgage servicing:

By: Rodriguez, Keffer, et al. H.B. No. 213
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the duties of a mortgage servicer of certain
residential mortgage loans.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1.  Title 5, Finance Code, is amended by adding
Chapter 397 to read as follows:
CHAPTER 397. RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE SERVICERS
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 397.001. DEFINITION. In this chapter, “mortgagee” and
mortgage servicer” have the meanings assigned by Section 51.0001,
Property Code.
Sec. 397.002. APPLICABILITY. This chapter applies only to
a loan secured by a first lien on residential real property that:
(1) is not a federally related mortgage loan, as
defined by 12 U.S.C. Section 2602; and
(2) is serviced by a mortgage servicer other than the
mortgagee of the loan.
[Sections 397.003-397.050 reserved for expansion]
SUBCHAPTER B. DEBTOR REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
Sec. 397.051. RECORDKEEPING. A mortgage servicer shall
maintain written or electronic records of each written request for
information regarding a dispute or error involving the debtor’s
account until the loan is paid in full, otherwise satisfied, or
sold.
Sec. 397.052. PROVISION OF GENERAL INFORMATION ON REQUEST.
(a) A mortgage servicer shall provide the following to a debtor in
response to a debtor’s written request:
(1) a copy of the original note or, if the original
note is unavailable, an affidavit of lost note; and
(2)  a statement that:
(A) identifies and itemizes all fees and charges
assessed under the loan transaction and provides a full payment
history identifying in a clear and conspicuous manner all of the
debits, credits, application of and disbursement of all payments
received from or for the benefit of the debtor, and other activity
on the loan, including any escrow or suspense account activity; and
(B) covers the two years preceding the receipt of
the request or the period for which the servicer has serviced the
loan, whichever is shorter.
(b) If the mortgage servicer claims that delinquent or
outstanding sums were owed on the loan before the two-year period
preceding the receipt of the request under Subsection (a) or before
the servicer began servicing the loan, whichever is shorter, the
servicer shall provide an account history beginning with the
earliest month for which the servicer claims outstanding sums were
owed on the loan and ending on the date of the request for
information. For purposes of this subsection, the date of the
request for information is presumed to be not later than the 30th
day before the date the servicer receives the request.
(c) A mortgage servicer must provide a statement under
Subsection (a) on or before the 25th business day after the date the
servicer receives a written request from the debtor that:
(1) includes or otherwise enables the servicer to
identify the name and account of the debtor; and
(2) includes a statement that the account is or may be
in error or otherwise provides sufficient detail to the servicer
regarding information sought by the debtor.
Sec. 397.053. PROVISION OF INFORMATION REGARDING DISPUTE OR
ERROR. (a) A mortgage servicer shall provide a written statement
to a debtor in response to a debtor’s written request for
information regarding a dispute or error involving the debtor’s
account that includes the following information, if requested:
(1) whether the account is current and an explanation
of any default and the date the account went into default;
(2) the current balance due on the loan, including the
principal due, the amount of any funds held in a suspense account,
the amount of any escrow balance known to the servicer, and whether
there are any escrow deficiencies or shortages known to the
servicer;
(3) the identity, address, and other relevant
information about the current holder, owner, or assignee of the
loan; and
(4) the telephone number and mailing address of a
servicer representative with the information and authority to
answer questions and resolve disputes.
(b) A mortgage servicer must provide a statement under
Subsection (a) on or before the 10th day after the date the servicer
receives a written request from the debtor that:
(1) includes or otherwise enables the servicer to
identify the name and account of the debtor; and
(2) includes a statement that the account is or may be
in error or otherwise provides sufficient detail to the servicer
regarding information sought by the debtor.
[Sections 397.054-397.100 reserved for expansion]
SUBCHAPTER C. REMEDIES
Sec. 397.101. ENFORCEMENT GENERALLY. The Department of
Savings and Mortgage Lending, the attorney general, or any party to
a loan to which this chapter applies may enforce this chapter.
Sec. 397.102. ACTION BY DEBTOR. In addition to any other
legal and equitable remedy available, a debtor injured by a
violation of this chapter may bring an action for recovery of actual
damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

FDL | Top Corporate Lawyer Claims Mortgage Rates Will Skyrocket Without MERS

FDL | Top Corporate Lawyer Claims Mortgage Rates Will Skyrocket Without MERS


And exactly where are the cost savings when it’s probably costing them a ton more defending MERS??

By: David Dayen Thursday January 20, 2011 7:15 am

Laurence Platt, a partner at the firm K&L Gates, which defended Wells Fargo and US Bank in the Ibanez case, basically threatened the American homeowner with sky-high interest rates if the banks aren’t allowed to run their own private land recording system.

If local governments succeed in the fight against how banks have recorded the transfer of mortgage notes through the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, home loans could become as expensive as credit cards, K&L Gates Partner Laurence Platt said Wednesday […]

Platt admitted there were issues with the system, but he warned that scoring short-term political points could be the end of affordable housing.

“They are making secured credit unenforceable,” Platt said. “If you think you’re going to get 4% mortgages on unsecured loans, you’re wrong. You’re going to get credit card rates. MERS was designed to make it easy to transfer assignments in modern economics.”

This occurred on a panel at a meeting of the Mortgage Bankers Association, where Platt appeared with Georgetown Law Professor Adam Levitin, who has been critical of MERS. I corresponded with Levitin, and this was an accurate rendering of Platt’s remarks.

“My response was that’s nonsense,” Levitin wrote in an email. “No one, absolutely no one, is arguing that a valid security agreement should not be enforced. Instead, the issue is whether we should enforce invalid security interests or let parties that do not hold a security interest enforce someone else’s. I hardly think that denying parties that right will result in a change in the cost of credit. It might result in them changing law firms, however, to ones that didn’t screw up their securitization deals.”

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

1st Comes Fannie, then comes Freddie, then comes tax payer with…

1st Comes Fannie, then comes Freddie, then comes tax payer with…


Scratch this record!!!!! Need help go to MERS!!

Last week Fannie Mae asked treasury for $1.5 billiion in assistance …now comes Freddie with loss and seeks aid.

You know this is outrageous! They applaud MERS and write recommendations of how they are excited with MERS but yet MERS does nothing but conceal information from the borrowers and has secret agreements with the possible beneficiaries of these loans. MERS takes tax dollars away from our schools, children, counties etc.

While we are on this subject of counties and states, why are they crying bankruptcy and major cut backs…how about ending the MERS sham and go after the fees that you cry about with them? Who does this benefit? Not us but the Mortgage Banking Industry and Wall Street so called Lending Institutions.

All these problems came about the same time MERS came to existence…now tell me something? Isn’t this a tad of a coincidence these issues became at the same time sub-prime loans hit peak?

By now we all have witness the Foreclosure Barons you have as designated counsel and what do you plan to do about it? No matter what dots there are, both Fannie and Freddie have a connection?

Why was all this NEVER a REAL PROBLEM in the past with assignments…lets say prior to 1998? Hmmm…

We are no fools.

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in bogus, chain in title, concealment, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, fannie mae, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Freddie Mac, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., mbs, MERS, MERSCORP, Mortgage Bankers Association, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., non disclosure, notary fraud, note, originator, QUI TAM, racketeering, sub-prime, trade secrets, Violations, Wall StreetComments (0)

QUI TAM: Tennessee vs. MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems April 20. 2010, RECORDING FRAUD

QUI TAM: Tennessee vs. MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems April 20. 2010, RECORDING FRAUD


From: b.daviesmd6605

COMPLAINT:

COMES the State of Tennessee ex rel. Barrett Bates, on behalf of real parties in interest, the counties of the State of Tennessee, above-named and hereby complains of Defendants as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Barrett Bates seeks recovery pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-103, the False Claims Act, because Defendants made false representations in order to avoid payment in full of all recording fees reflecting the establishment and/or transfer of secured interests in real property in the State. After having recorded false, fraudulent, misleading and untruthful documents with the land records of the counties of this State, Defendants intentionally failed to cure/correct said false, misleading and untruthful documents and further failed to record subsequent assignments, deeds and other documents evidencing accurate changes in ownership interests in real property and, thereby, avoided, decreased and/or diminished their obligation to pay fees or monies to the counties of the State of Tennessee, the above-named real parties in interest.

PARTIES
1. Barrett Bates, relator, is a resident of the State of Nevada and an original source of information and authorized to bring this action pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-18-101, et seq., and as the qui tam Plaintiff because Bates has worked in the secondary mortgage market business and, during the course of his work in June 2009, became aware Defendants were concealing and avoiding the payment of recording fees or other monies to the above-named counties in this and other states and brings this action under Tenn. Code Ann. G 4-18-103 against Defendants for violations of these sections.

[ipaper docId=31137181 access_key=key-19q0ufo3vs69pn8pqxlf height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED:

.

MERS 101

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in foreclosure fraud, MERS, mortgage electronic registration system, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, QUI TAMComments (0)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives

Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments