Disqualification of Foreclosure Mill Attorney

Neil Garfield
Jul 5

Over the years many lawyers and laypeople have sent me proposed motions to disqualify or bar opposing counsel from representing to the court that the bank he or she named in a complaint or claim is his client.
It seems like an open secret that virtually no lawyer engaged in the foreclosure process is actually representing that bank; it is also an open secret that no lawyer is actually pursuing a legally recognizable claim against homeowners. Instead, they have been creating false claims (virtual claims) based upon virtual loan accounts that do not exist on the books and records of any creditor much less the bank they say they’re representing.
Such attacks on the lawyers get little support from the courts. And Bar Associations that could prevent and punish such conduct are doing nothing. So I don’t think I am speaking out of turn when I say that you are not likely to get satisfactory results in filing a motion in court or a grievance with the bar association.
A recent interesting countermovement in bar associations is the current effort to remove words like “zeal” and “zealously” from the rules and oath of the lawyer. There is a growing recognition that the use of such words provides cover from unscrupulous lawyers who weaponize the legal process in order to obtain an illegal result.
I can think of no other areas of law where such conduct prevails more than in foreclosures. For nearly 25 years the courts have bent over backward allowing the remedy of foreclosure to be used solely on the basis of “zealous” representations from lawyers whose [principal objective is to make money for themselves, their law firm, the erroneously named “servicer,” and the undisclosed investment bank.
But since so many people keep returning to the subject I will admit that without lawyers being willing to undermine their own due diligence obligation (to assure the factual existence of the client and the claim). Protected by a doctrine called litigation immunity afforded to the lawyers, the investment bank, acting through lawyers with whom it has no direct contact, controls all events and actions by all actors in connection with the administration, collection, and enforcement of a debt that is fictional (virtual) instead of real.
While there have been instances in which lawyers were sanctioned for falsely representing to the court that U.S. Bank was their client acting as a trustee, such arguments are treated dismissively almost all the time. Frankly, it isn’t easy establishing that the law firm itself does not consider its attorney-client relationship is with parties OTHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF OR CLAIMANT. You can allege it, but how do you back that up with proof?
The answer lies in circumstantial evdience and in effective persuasion in court directed at a judge who for the most part has already decided the outcome of the case based solely upon the allegations.
So far I still don’t recommend that homeowners file such motions. If you fail you will make it look like you are trying to distract the court from the debt you owe instead of dealing with the fact that no such debt exists.
But, if I was going to do it, here are my notes on the subject:

Background facts:

The lawyer executes and files documents that contain or imply a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which the remedy of foreclosure could be granted. The lawyer is naming the claimant as a bank acting as trustee of a trust that is always implied but never stated to own the underlying obligation surviving the “closing” of a transaction that was labeled as a loan. No allegation is ever made that the named claimant or Plaintiff ever paid value for the underlying obligation. The closest they come is the general allegation that all conditions precedent have been satisfied.

In truth, the lawyer has initiated the foreclosure process for the benefit of several actors, including the lawyer, and not for the benefit of the bank acting as trustee or the trust itself. In fact, the lawyer knows that any payments from the homeowner or payments arising from the forced sale of the subject property will be diverted away from the named claimant which is the bank acting supposedly on behalf of the trust, which in fact does not own any right, title or interest to the subject obligation, debt, note or mortgage. Neither the bank nor the lawyer expects or receives any flow of funds to or on behalf of the bank.

In no case do the common “trustees” (U.S. Bank, Bank of New York Mellon, Deutsch) receive or distribute money from homeowners or to any beneficiaries. In no case do the common “trustees” actively manage the affairs of a trust that owns a legal right, title or interest to the subject obligation, legal debt, note or mortgage. In no case, does the lawyer receive any instructions, information, or legal right to administer, collect or enforce an alleged unpaid loan account receivable owned, maintained or administered by the bank or any trust. In no case does such a receivable exist on the books of account for any trust or other creditor to whom the homeowner owes money.

The lawyer is using a fictitious name to further his own interest, that of the company named as a “servicer,” and the securities brokerage firm named as investment bank book runner with permission to use the name of the bank in a vaguely worded Plaintiff or claimant. If the foreclosure effort is unsuccessful no loss of income, principal or interest occurs on the books of record of any entity. If it succeeds, the proceeds are distributed to many different actors as revenue or other non-categorized receipts of money — but no unpaid loan account receivable is decreased by the receipt of such money because no such account exists.

The appearance of the unpaid loan account receivable is a fiction, but not a legal fiction. It is illegal and extra-legal. There are no provisions in statutory or common law for the administration, collection, and enforcement of a virtual debt. At the base of every legal debt is a transaction in which consideration is exchanged. The unpaid loan account must be real and it must be reflected on the books of account of the supposed creditor. And the enforcer must be a party who paid value for the underlying obligation (not the note or mortgage).

The attorney then misleads the court by both promoting and allowing untrue statements to stand as true, while the attorney knows they are false. When, for example, U.S. Bank is named as Trustee for the SASCO Trust 2006-A1, for the benefit of registered holders of SASCO Trust 2006-A1 pass-through certificates, the lawyer is making a misleading statement of claim, a misleading identification of the claimant, and promoting and active attempt to mislead the court into believing that ultimately it is investors who will compensate for their loss a rising from a claimed “default” by the homeowner.

It was my discovery in 2006 that nearly everything said about securitization consisted of bold big lies, that caused me to name my blog (beginning in October 2007) “LivingLies.”

• It was a lie to send statements to homeowners indicating they had a legal obligation or even a moral one to pay the newly designated “servicer” who actually performed no servicing duties.
• It was a lie to declare delinquency or default without disclosing the creditor who had suffered any loss arising out of the non-receipt of scheduled payments.
• It was a lie to declare delinquency or default when no creditor suffered any financial loss arising from the alleged non-receipt of a scheduled payment.
• It was a lie to imply that investors were buying pieces of mortgage loans or that foreclosures were being prosecuted on behalf of the investors, often referred to as the “holders of certificates” or “registered holders of certificates” — especially since they were not holders of any notes nor were they registered to receive any part of any payment from any homeowner.
• It was a lie to assert or imply that the naming of a trust in the claim or complaint was sufficient to explain the appearance of the trust since it expressly disclaimed any economic interest in any debt, note or mortgage even if there was an assignment or endorsement — all as stated in the “Trust Agreement” or equivalent document.
• It was a lie to assert that the trust had any right to administer, collect or enforce any promise or agreement with the homeowner and a concurrent lie to assert that the trustee had any right to grant powers of attorney or execute any servicing agreement for unpaid loan accounts that it did not own.
• It was a lie to imply that the outcome of a “successful” foreclosure would result in the payment of a creditor.
• It was a lie to assert representation of “the plaintiff” or “the claimant” when no such representation, retainer agreement, or contract existed.

The list could go further, to be sure. But the point is already made. Without lawyers willing to bend custom and norms to the breaking point there would be no successful foreclosure because the law does not allow foreclosure for fun and profit. It only allows it for restitution of an unpaid debt.

 

 

What is MERS?

What is MERS? MERS is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System and it is an electronic database that holds digitized mortgage loan documents. You can search the MERS Database here: The MERS Servicer ID to identify the servicer associated with a mortgage loan registered on the MERS System.

 

Bankers Association testified to THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT (in CASE NO.: 09-1460) that the physical loan documents were deliberately destroyed to avoid any confusion upon their conversion to electronic files. CASE 09-1460 COMMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BANKERS ASSOCIATION

 

In other words, the Banksters deliberately destroyed the wet ink signature loan documents for millions of mortgages in MERS the Mortgage Electronic Registration System.

A Few Facts about MERS

  1. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is incorporated within the State of Delaware.
  2. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was first incorporated in Delaware in 1999.
  3. The total number of shares of common stock authorized by MERS’ articles of incorporation is 1,000.
  4. The total number of shares of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) common stock actually issued is 1,000.
  5. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCorp, Inc.
  6. MERS’ principal place of business at 1595 Spring Hill Road, Suite 310, Vienna, Virginia 22182
  7. MERS’ national data center is located in Plano, Texas.
  8. MERS’ serves as a “nominee” of mortgages and deeds of trust recorded in all fifty states.
  9. Over 50 million loans have been registered on the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) system. (UPDATE 9/11/2011: 70 MILLION American Mortgages)
  10. MERS’ federal tax identification number is “541927784”.
  11. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not take applications for, underwrite or negotiate mortgage loans.
  12. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not make or originate mortgage loans to consumers.
  13. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not extend any credit to consumers.
  14. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no role in the origination or original funding of the mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
  15. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not service mortgage loans.
  16. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not sell mortgage loans.
  17. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not an investor who acquires mortgage loans on the secondary market.
  18. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not ever receive or process mortgage applications.
  19. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) simply holds mortgage liens in a nominee capacity and through its electronic registry, tracks changes in the ownership of mortgage loans and servicing rights related thereto.
  20. MERS© System is not a vehicle for creating or transferring beneficial interests in mortgage loans.
  21. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not named as a beneficiary of the alleged promissory note.
  22. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is never the owner of the promissory note for which it seeks foreclosure.
  23. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no legal or beneficial interest in the promissory note underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
  24. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no legal or beneficial interest in the loan instrument underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”
  25. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
  26. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage indebtedness.
  27. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS)is not a party to the alleged mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
  28. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no financial or other interest in whether or not a mortgage loan is repaid.
  29. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not the owner of the promissory note secured by the mortgage and has no rights to the payments made by the debtor on such promissory note.
  30. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not make or acquire promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature and therefore cannot be said to be acquiring mortgage loans.
  31. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no interest in the notes secured by mortgages or the mortgage servicing rights related thereto.
  32. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not acquire any interest (legal or beneficial) in the loan instrument (i.e., the promissory note or other debt instrument).
  33. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans.
  34. The note owner appoints MERS to be its agent to only hold the mortgage lien interest, not to hold any interest in the note.
  35. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not hold any interest (legal or beneficial) in the promissory notes that are secured by such mortgages or in any servicing rights associated with the mortgage loan.
  36. The debtor on the note owes no obligation to MERS and does not pay Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS)on the note.
  37. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not entitled to receive any of the payments associated with the alleged mortgage indebtedness.
  38. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not entitled to receive any of the interest revenue associated with mortgage indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.
  39. Interest revenue related to the mortgage indebtedness for which Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) serves as “nominee” is never reflected within MERS’ bookkeeping or accounting records nor does such interest influence MERS’ earnings.
  40. Mortgage indebtedness for which Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) serves as the serves as “nominee” is not reflected as an asset on MERS’ financial statements.
  41. Failure to collect the outstanding balance of a mortgage loan will not result in an accounting loss by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS).
  42. When a foreclosure is completed, MERS never actually retains or enjoys the use of any of the proceeds from a sale of the foreclosed property, but rather would remit such proceeds to the true party at interest.
  43. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not actually at risk as to the payment or nonpayment of the mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
  44. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no pecuniary interest in the promissory notes or the mortgage indebtedness for which it serves as “nominee”.
  45. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not personally aggrieved by any alleged default of a promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.
  46. There exists no real controversy between MERS and any mortgagor alleged to be in default.
  47. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has never suffered any injury by arising out of any alleged default of a promissory note for which it serves as “nominee”.
  48. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) holds the mortgage lien as nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
  49. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), in a nominee capacity for lenders, merely acquires legal title to the security instrument (i.e., the deed of trust or mortgage that secures the loan).
  50. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) simply holds legal title to mortgages and deeds of trust as a nominee for the owner of the promissory note.
  51. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) immobilizes the mortgage lien while transfers of the promissory notes and servicing rights continue to occur.
  52. The investor continues to own and hold the promissory note, but under the MERS® System, the servicing entity only holds contractual servicing rights and MERS holds legal title to the mortgage as nominee for the benefit of the investor (or owner and holder of the note) and not for itself.
  53. In effect, the mortgage lien becomes immobilized by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) continuing to hold the mortgage lien when the note is sold from one investor to another via an endorsement and delivery of the note or the transfer of servicing rights from one Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) member to another Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) member via a purchase and sale agreement which is a non-recordable contract right.
  54. Legal title to the mortgage or deed of trust remains in MERS after such transfers and is tracked by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) in its electronic registry.
  55. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) holds legal title to the mortgage for the benefit of the owner of the note.
  56. The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or person or entity whose interest is secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note and/or servicing rights thereunder.
  57. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage loan.
  58. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not acquire an interest in promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature.
  59. The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or the person or entity whose interest is secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note (NOT MERS).

Fraud Stoppers MERS wins in four Pennsylvania county lawsuits

MERS as Holder

  1. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is never the holder of a promissory note in the ordinary course of business.
  2. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not a custodian of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
  3. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not even maintain copies of promissory notes underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
  4. Sometimes when an investor or servicer desires to foreclose, the servicer obtains the promissory note from the custodian holding the note on behalf of the mortgage investor and places that note in the hands of a servicer employee who has been appointed as an officer (vice president and assistant secretary) of MERS by corporate resolution.
  5. When a promissory note is placed in the hands of a servicer employee who is also an Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) officer, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) asserts that this transfer of custody into the hands of this nominal officer (without any transfer of ownership or beneficial interest) renders Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) the holder.
  6. No consideration or compensation is exchanged between the owner of the promissory note and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) in consideration of this transfer in custody.
  7. Even when the promissory note is physically placed in the hands of the servicer’s employee who is a nominal Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) officer, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has no actual authority to control the foreclosure or the legal actions undertaken in its name.
  8. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) will never willingly reveal the identity of the owner of the promissory note unless ordered to do so by the court.
  9. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) will never willingly reveal the identity of the prior holders of the promissory note unless ordered to do so by the court.
  10. Since the transfer in custody of the promissory note is not for consideration, this transfer of custody is not reflected in any contemporaneous accounting records.
  11. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS)is never a holder in due course when the transfer of custody occurs after default.
  12. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is never the holder when the promissory note is shown to be lost or stolen.

 

MERS’ Role in Mortgage Servicing

  1. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not service mortgage loans.
  2. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is not the owner of the servicing rights relating to the mortgage loan and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not service loans.
  3. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not collect mortgage payments.
  4. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not hold escrows for taxes and insurance.
  5. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not provide any servicing functions on mortgage loans, whatsoever.
  6. Those rights are typically held by the servicer of the loan, who may or may not also be the holder of the note.

 

MERS’ Rights To Control the Foreclosure

  1. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) must all times comply with the instructions of the holder of the mortgage loan promissory notes.
  2. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) only acts when directed to by its members and for the sole benefit of the owners and holders of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage instruments naming Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as nominee owner.
  3. MERS’ members employ and pay the attorneys bringing foreclosure actions in MERS’ name.

 

MERS’ Access To or Control over Records or Documents

  1. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has never maintained archival copies of any mortgage application for which it serves as “nominee”.
  2. In its regular course of business, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as a corporation does not maintain physical possession or custody of promissory notes, deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments on behalf of its principals.
  3. MERS as a corporation has no archive or repository of the promissory notes secured by deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
  4. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as a corporation is not a custodian of the promissory notes secured by deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
  5. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as a corporation has no archive or repository of the deeds of trust or other mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
  6. In its regular course of business, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as a corporation does not routinely receive or archive copies of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
  7. In its regular course of business, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as a corporation does not routinely receive or archive copies of the mortgage security instruments for which it serves as nominee.
  8. Copies of the instruments attached to MERS’ petitions or complaints so not come from MERS’ corporate files or archives.
  9. In its regular course of business, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as a corporation does not input the promissory note or mortgage security instrument ownership registration data for new mortgages for which it serves as nominee, but rather the registration information for such mortgages are entered by the “member” mortgage lenders, investors and/or servicers originating, purchasing, and/or selling such mortgages or mortgage servicing rights.
  10. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) does not maintain a central corporate archive of demands, notices, claims, appointments, releases, assignments, or other files, documents and/or communications relating to collections efforts undertaken by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) officers appointed by corporate resolution and acting under its authority.

 

Management and Supervision

  1. In preparing affidavits and certifications, officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, making representations under MERS’ authority and on MERS’ behalf, are not primarily relying upon books of account, documents, records or files within MERS’ corporate supervision, custody or control.
  2. Officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) preparing affidavits and certifications, including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, and otherwise making representations under MERS’ authority and on MERS’ behalf, do not routinely furnish copies of these affidavits or certifications to MERS for corporate retention or archival.
  3. Officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) preparing affidavits and certifications, including Vice Presidents and Assistant Secretaries, and otherwise making representations under MERS’ authority and on MERS’ behalf are not working under the supervision or direction of senior Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) officers or employees, but rather are supervised by personnel employed by mortgage investors or mortgage servicers.

This should be a pretty good start for those of you faced with a foreclosure in which Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is falsely asserting that it is the owner of the promissory note.  Whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is or was ever the holder is a FACT QUESTION which can be determined only by ascertaining the chain of custody of the promissory note.  When the promissory note is lost, missing or stolen, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is NOT the holder.

By William A. Roper, Jr. Excerpted from the MSFraud Forum thread “Facts about MERS / MERS Unmasked”

Is Your MERS Mortgage Status Designated Inactive?

Many homeowners find out their existing mortgage is listed as “inactive.” An inactive status can refer to the transfer of their mortgage to another loan servicer, or to a few other factors as noted below.

The difference between having an inactive or an active MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) loan may determine if the property owner has any improved or worsened home equity, or a truly saleable asset.

 

What is MERS?

MERS functions as a centralized electronic registry of mortgages, and it was supposed to track the ownership of these mortgages, which are typically sold multiple times during the loan’s life. MERS potentially affects upwards of 70 million residential mortgage loans nationwide, and almost completely crashed the U.S. housing market by itself because of so many problems with the packages.

MERS was created by lenders and title insurance companies, so it would be easier to transfer the beneficial interests to other secondary market lenders. Yet, some mortgages ended up significantly discounted due to packaging problems, which made them inactive.

Where’s the “IOU” for the mortgage debt?

 

The MERS Scandal

Missing documents, notary fraud, and “robo-signing” led the way.

There was a lot of chaos involved with MERS mortgage packets, which contained no original promissory notes (the “IOU” for the mortgage debt) in these same MERS files.

Knowledgeable homeowners were able to completely stop their home foreclosures by pointing out that the foreclosing entity, such as the mortgage servicing company, didn’t have a legal right to foreclose on their homes, since they didn’t have all of their valid mortgage paperwork in their files.

These questionable ownership interests in the mortgages led to foreclosure moratoriums, court settlements, and inactive statuses.

There were a large number of allegations of notary fraud in which real or fake notaries such as “Linda Green” were allegedly part of the massive “Robo-Signing Scandal” nationwide.

It has been suggested that promissory notes, deeds of trust or mortgages, and other loan or title documents were forged, left blank, or illegally assigned to numerous mortgage investors. Since MERS was set up to become as paperless, speedy, and efficient as possible, there was not enough third party oversight to check whether these documents were valid.

 

Questionable Beneficial Interests

“No Note = No Debt” became the mantra for homeowners who were in the midst of their own foreclosures due to the weaker U.S. economy. Some savvy property owners were able to legally void their existing mortgage debt altogether by proving that the foreclosing mortgage company had no valid beneficial interests in the existing mortgage, and thus had to legal right to collect any payments.

Other homeowners were able to show that their MERS files had fraudulent notary signatures signed on behalf of both owners and lenders, which moved their file designations over to “inactive” as well.

Mortgage lenders that have collapsed or imploded since the official start of the Credit Crisis back in 2007, such as Countrywide, Indy Mac, Lehman Brothers, World Savings, Downey Savings, and Washington Mutual still figuratively exist by way of their asset or beneficial interest transfers to the “strawman” named MERS.

MERS may pay no taxes or employ anyone. Without the proper assignment of these MERS mortgages, these same imploded mortgage companies’ loans could have ceased to exist.

 

The Shadow Inventory & MERS

Instead of upwards of 60 million residential MERS mortgages becoming inactive or possibly even completely voided and worthless, many of the largest banks and mortgage service companies worked closely with the U.S. government to create the National Mortgage Settlement in early 2012. This insanely small $25 billion settlement is but a mere fraction of the potentially trillions of dollars of MERS mortgages nationwide.

The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 and MERS Scandal were two of the primary reasons why home listings nationally dropped dramatically.

There were potentially millions of Shadow Inventory homes (mortgage payments are more than 90 days late), which may not have valid promissory notes, or other mortgage or title instruments or documents, in the files. The lack of listed home inventory led to a rapid increase of home prices between 2011 and 2013 (also partly due to the record low mortgage rates).

 

The “Inactive” MERS Designation

An inactive MERS designation may relate to the loan having been refinanced or paid off, discounted, or completely voided due to the invalid mortgage documents in the file. Or, the mortgage loan was assigned out of the MERS system to a completely new mortgage servicing company.

A property owner with a MERS mortgage can find the status of their loan by searching for their 18-digit Mortgage Identification Number (MERS MIN). Then, the same person may search online for the MERS Servicer ID system in order to check the status of their mortgage.

Before attempting to pay off a MERS loan, it’s very important to find out if all of the mortgage payments have been properly applied to the account. The vast majority of MERS mortgages have been assigned to multiple mortgage investors over the years, so it is very important to check your own payment history over the years in order to determine if all of your payments have been credited to every mortgage servicing lender’s accounts.

It’s imperative that the owner pays off the correct amounts, which may mean more money back to the owner and much less money for the current mortgage loan servicer. As such, a little research and loan analysis by a property owner on their personal payment histories can save them a lot of money and headaches.

Here is some additional information on MERS:

 

Take action right now and get the FACTS and HELP that you need to gain the legal remedy that the law entitles you to, and that you deserve!

Who Owns Your Mortgage Note?

Have you ever asked who owns your mortgage note? A better question to ask is, “If I paid off my mortgage loan tomorrow, would I get clear and equitable title to my real property?” If your mortgage loan contract was converted into a mortgage backed security and sold to an investment trust on Wall Street you might not!

If you are thinking of applying for a loan modification, or refinancing through the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), or other program(s) under the Making Home Affordable (MHA) initiative there are a few things to consider.

First, remember that the entity who claims to own your mortgage loan is not automatically the same entity that may be servicing your mortgage loan. A loan servicer is a debt collections company that sends you mortgage statements, takes your payments each month, and if you have an escrow account, pays your homeowner’s insurance and property tax bills. But who really owns your mortgage loan?

If you want to find out here are a few things you can do:

  • Ask the servicer. Your loan servicer is legally obligated to tell you the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of your loan as shown in their records. It’s a good idea to ask them in writing officially with a “Qualified Written Request” via certified mail while keeping a log of your communications. The name of your servicer should be on your mortgage statement, but you can also use the MERS link below.
  • Original lender. Your loan may have never been sold, and still kept as a “portfolio loan” with the original lender. That’s the way loans used to be done!
  • Fannie Mae. In reality, many loans are sold to FNMA aka “Fannie Mae”. See Fannie Mae loan lookup tool.
  • Freddie Mac. Similar story with Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) aka “Freddie Mac”. See Freddie Mac loan lookup tool.
  • Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is a big online registry designed to replace the costly process of publicly recording mortgage ownership at the local government level with a private electronic version that allows the swapping of mortgages with no friction at all. MERS tracks both the servicing rights and ownership of mortgage loans in the United States, although the accuracy has been called into question. See MERS ServiceID lookup tool. You can also call them at 888-679-6377 FREE.
  • Search the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the alleged trust that claims they are the owner of your mortgage loan: https://www.fraudstoppers.org/how-to-search-the-sec-for-a-securitized-trust
  • Register for a Free Mortgage Fraud Analysis and Securitization Search. Complete our Mortgage Fraud Analysis form and we will conduct a free securitization check to see if your mortgage loan contract was converted into a mortgage backed security and who really owns your note. If your loan was securitized than you may have legal standing to sue your lender, or current loan servicer, for mortgage fraud and quiet title. Find out more by completing our Mortgage Fraud Analysis form or call us at 773-877-3655 and we will help you get the facts and evidence you need to get the legal remedy you deserve.

Cases like the Glaski v. Bank of America and Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans may have provided hope for homeowners who were victims of mortgage and foreclosure fraud. But they did not strike at the heart of the real problem behind the securitization of millions of mortgage loans.

The Glaski decision states that if some entity wants to collect on a debt they must first legally own that debt. Furthermore, if that entity is claiming ownership by way of an Assignment, it must prove that Assignment is legally valid.

The Jesinoski case addressed a borrower’s right to rescind, or cancel, their mortgage loan contract under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by only providing written notice to the lender, without filing suit. A loan is rescinded at the time the rescission letter is mailed. If the lender wants to refute or fight the rescission they must file an action to do so, and they have limited time to do so.

If your mortgage was securitized (the practice of pooling mortgages and selling their related cash flows to third party investors as securities) then it was part of a table funded transaction. In a table funded transaction the borrower named on the note is NOT in debt to the lender (“Pretender Lender”) because they signed the note in the capacity of an Accommodation Party, or co-signer for the purpose of incurring liability on the instrument without being a direct beneficiary of the value given for the instrument!

The broker, or originator, of the loan is pretending to loan money to the alleged “Borrower“, but in reality they trick the alleged “Borrower” into co-signing on a note that is pledged as collateral on a warehouse line of credit with the funding bank.

It is illegal for banks to loan credit, they can only loan money!

But if the Pretender Lender is not the entity putting up the funds, then there is no underlining indebtedness between the alleged “Borrower” and the originator who is named on the note. And if there is no underlining indebtedness between the parties named on the note, then the mortgage (or deed of trust) vaporizes into nothingness, and is legally unenforceable as a matter of law.

If your mortgage loan contract was part of a table funded transaction and converted into a mortgage backed security that was sold to an investment vehicle, or trust, on Wall Street, then you may have legal standing to rescind your mortgage loan contract, and sue your “Pretender Lender” for Special Damages equal to triple the original amount of your note, plus clear and equitable title to your home!

Fraud Stoppers is part of a National Private Members Association that provides back office litigation support to law firms, foreclosure defense advocacy groups, and pro se litigants nationwide. Our Private Members Association can help you sue your lender for mortgage fraud, with or without an attorney.

Then after our free mortgage fraud analysis is done, we can scheduled a free potential cause of action consultation to discuss your loan and lawsuit in detail and help you get started filing your state and federal lawsuit for the remedy that the law entitles you to, and that you deserve!

You can save 60% to 70% in legal fees when you get your lawsuit started yourself, Pro Se, (without an attorney), and then bring in a local attorney to help you at trial, where you need them the most! This way you can get the best of both worlds: Save money in legal fees, and get the professional help you need at the same time!

FRAUD STOPPERS Private Members Association (PMA) has a PROVEN WAY to help you save time and money, and increase your odds of success, suing the banks for mortgage and foreclosure fraud.

Our primary focus is helping you get clear and marketable title to your property by arguing that the actions of the banks have made the security provisions of the mortgage/deed of trust unenforceable as a matter of law.

LIST OF FORECLOSURE LAWS BY STATE

Get In Touch

Phone / Fax

Phone: 800-459-1215

Fax: 844-318-3941

Email

info@fraudstoppers.org

Hours: 24/7/365

 

Send A Message

 

Fraud Stoppers Logo

THIS SITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. FRAUD STOPPERS is a Private Members Association PMA. FRAUD STOPPERS PMA is NOT a law firm, non-profit organization, or government agency.  FRAUD STOPPERS PMA does not operate in the public sector. Although this website is visible to the public  FRAUD STOPPERS PMA does not intend for any information contained in this website to be considered as legal advise.

The information about Foreclosure law and other legal information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.  This website contains links to other third-party websites.  Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; FRAUD STOPPERS and its members do not recommend or endorse the contents of the third-party sites.

Readers of this website should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.  No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.  Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation.  Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website authors, contributors, contributing law firms, or committee members and their respective employers. This site provides “information” about the law and is only designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal information is not the same as legal advice — the application of law to an individual’s specific circumstances.

The views expressed at, or through, this site are those of the individual authors writing in their individual capacities only – not those of their respective employers, FRAUD STOPPERS, or committee/task force as a whole.  All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this site are hereby expressly disclaimed.  The content on this posting is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.

For instant access to an affordable local competent attorney click here

 

Spread the love
Yum