A Farmington Hills law firm that represents mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in foreclosure and eviction cases has contributed $200,000 to a super PAC supporting Republican Mitt Romney for president.
That super PAC, Restore Our Future, has run ads against Romney’s GOP rival Newt Gingrich, attacking his ties to Freddie Mac and accusing him of “cashing in” on the foreclosure crisis.
The Dec. 27 contribution, disclosed Tuesday in a Federal Election Commission filing, was written from the corporate account of Trott & Trott PC. A 2010 Supreme Court decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent campaigns to support or oppose federal candidates.
Managing partner David Trott is a member of Romney’s Michigan finance committee. He and his wife also contributed $7,500 to the Romney campaign, and his employees contributed more than $11,000 to Romney.
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.
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
ALLEN BAKRI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEM, MERSCORP INC, BANK OF NEW
YORK MELLON, f/k/a BANK OF NEW YORK,
and TROTT & TROTT PC,
Defendants-Appellees.
EXCERPT:
Although we find that the trial court properly concluded that defendant MERS had the
right to assign the mortgage to defendant Bank of New York Mellon and that defendant Bank of
New York Mellon had the power to foreclose on and sell the property, our inquiry does not end
there. There is another layer to the analysis, which involves an issue not raised by the parties,
but decided in our recent decision in Residential Funding Co, LLC v Saurman, ___ Mich App
___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket Nos. 290248 & 291443; April 21, 2011) (Shapiro, J.). In Saurman,
the issue was whether a mortgagee who was not the note holder could foreclose by advertisement
under MCL 600.3204(1)(d). Saurman, slip op pp 7-8. We held that under MCL 600.3204(1)(d),
the Legislature has limited foreclosure by advertisement to those parties with ownership of an
interest in the note and that because the mortgagee was not “the owner . . . of an interest in the
indebtedness secured by the mortgage[,]” MCL 600.3204(1)(d), it lacked the authority to
foreclose by advertisement:
Applying these considerations to the present case, it becomes obvious that
MERS did not have the authority to foreclose by advertisement on defendants’
properties. Pursuant to the mortgages, defendants were the mortgagors and
MERS was the mortgagee. However, it was the plaintiff lenders that lent
defendants money pursuant to the terms of the notes. MERS, as mortgagee, only
held an interest in the property as security for the note, not an interest in the note
itself. MERS could not attempt to enforce the notes nor could it obtain any
payment on the loans on its own behalf or on behalf of the lender. Moreover, the
mortgage specifically clarified that, although MERS was the mortgagee, MERS
held “only legal title to the interest granted” by defendants in the mortgage.
Consequently, the interest in the mortgage represented, at most, an interest in
defendants’ properties. MERS was not referred to in any way in the notes and
only Homecomings held the notes. The record evidence establishes that MERS
owned neither the notes, nor an interest, legal share, or right in the notes. The
only interest MERS possessed was in the properties through the mortgages.
Given that the notes and mortgages are separate documents, evidencing separate
obligations and interests, MERS’ interest in the mortgage did not give it an
interest in the debt. [Saurman, slip op pp 10-11 (emphasis in original; footnote
omitted).]
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
Recent Comments