On April 23, 2012, the plaintiff in State of Ohio ex rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney of Geauga County Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., N.D. Ohio Case No. 1:11-cv-02474, filed its motion seeking an order certifying the action as a class action, appointing Geauga County as class representative, and appointing plaintiff’s counsel, the New York law firm of Bernstein Liebhard LLP, as class counsel. The plaintiff argues that the case, which the plaintiff is attempting to bring on behalf of all 88 Ohio counties for relief relating to the allegedly unlawful failure of MERS and its member institutions to record millions of mortgages and mortgage assignments throughout Ohio, meets all requirements of Rule 23(a) and that certification is proper under any one of the 3 subsections of Rule 23(b). The plaintiff hopes to persuade the court that the MERS/member institution policy concerning recordation of mortgages and assignments is a “common scheme or course of conduct” that has given rise to claims “ideally suited for class certification.”
October 13, 2011: Bernstein Liebhard LLP, with David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney for Geauga County, Ohio, announced today that a lawsuit has been filed in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas by Plaintiff Geauga County, on behalf of itself and all other Ohio counties, (the “Class”) against MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”), and MERS’s members (collectively, “Defendants”).
In the class action complaint, Plaintiff Geauga County, on behalf of itself and all other Ohio counties, alleges violations of Ohio state law arising from Defendants’ failure to record intermediate mortgage assignments in, and pay the attendant county recording fees to, Ohio county recording offices. In failing to record, Defendants systematically broke chains of title throughout Ohio counties’ public land records by creating “gaps” due to missing mortgage assignments they failed to record, or by recording patently false and/or misleading mortgage assignments. Defendants’ purposeful failure to record has eviscerated the accuracy of Ohio counties’ public land records, rendering them unreliable and unverifiable — damage to public land records that may never be entirely remedied.
Ohio’s recording laws have been in place for nearly 200 years.
The case is captioned State of Ohio, ex rel. David P. Joyce Prosecuting Attorney of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., No. 11-M-001087. For more information, please contact either Stanley D. Bernstein at (212) 779-1414, bernstein@bernlieb.com or Christian Siebott at (212) 779-1414, siebott@bernlieb.com.
Earnings at Bank of America, the largest U.S. lender, may suffer materially if using Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or MERS is found to be invalid, according to a regulatory filing last week. Citigroup and PNC said fines or other penalties may result from investigations into MERS and allegations of faulty foreclosure practices.
“They’re recognizing the writing on the wall, that there are serious problems associated with the basic business model and legal theories of the MERS system,” Christopher L. Peterson, a law professor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City who has written articles on Reston, Virginia-based MERS, said yesterday.
Just a friendly reminder to you that you’re still missing the target by a looooooooong shot.
In order for anyone to have standing to foreclose in the first place one needs to perfect the chain of title.
An assignment of mortgage is the document which indicates that a mortgage has been transferred from the original lender or borrower to a third party. Assignments of mortgage are more commonly seen when lenders sell mortgages to other lenders. When someone has what is known as an assumable mortgage, it is possible for the borrower to transfer the mortgage to another person, in which case an assignment of mortgage will need to be filed to record the transaction.
Before anyone can produce any affidavits period…they first must have equitable rights transferred!
Lets see how they produce the assignment from 2005! We bet we already know!
Plaintiff subsequently purchased the aforementioned mortgage and note from Defendant. However, an Assignment of Mortgage from Defendant to Plaintiff has been lost and was never recorded. Plaintiff, as the current holder of the note, desires to foreclose on the subject mortgage.
However, Plaintiff cannot do so because of the break in chain of title.
the Clerk of the County of Suffolk be directed to record an Order reflecting the assignment of mortgage as Lancaster Mortgage Bankers as original assignor to Indymac Bank, FSB, as the assignee with an effective date-of December 20,2005. The Plaintiff interests originates from a mortgage from Hem-Ur Nekhet to Lancaster Mortgage Bankers, in the principal amount of $608,000.00, dated December 20,2005 and recorded on February 9,2006 in CRFN: 2006000079624. Plaintiff subsequently purchased the aforementioned mortgage and note from Defendant.
She goes on and hand writes the following:
Insufficient proof of ownership of mortgage to make up for lost assignment of mortgage, service was pursuant to BCC 306 on a corporation that is alleged to no longer be in operation and the proposed judgment says that the summons & complaint were filed in Suffolk County
Recent Comments