Washtenaw County MI | Sheriff Jerry L. Clayton Ceases Sales & Enforcement of MERS Foreclosures

Sheriff Ceases Sales & Enforcement of MERS Foreclosures

This applies to all Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems foreclosures, with a few exceptions.


May 13, 2011

Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Saurman, 2011 Mich. App. LEXIS 719 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2011), the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office will immediately cease all sales and enforcement of MERS foreclosures by advertisement unless one of the following conditions exists:

1.      MERS is not the sole foreclosing party as disclosed by the Affidavit of Publication and the Sheriff’s Deed. Such documents must list the name of the lender which holds the debt itself and that entity will be named on the Deed; or

2.      MERS is the only foreclosing party and there is recorded documentation that MERS holds not only the security interest but the underlying debt as well.

On April 21, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals rendered the decision of Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Saurman, 2011 Mich. App. LEXIS 719 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2011) which invalidated certain foreclosures by advertisement initiated by the Mortgage Electronic Registration Service (MERS). The Court also indicated that such proceedings were “void ab initio” and thus enforcement of foreclosures which have already occurred will also be suspended. If the Michigan Supreme Court or the Michigan Legislature takes some action to reverse or modify the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, this Office will revisit these issues.

For more information, contact James Damron at 734-973-4937.

SOURCE: Washtenaw County, Michigan



7 Responses to “Washtenaw County MI | Sheriff Jerry L. Clayton Ceases Sales & Enforcement of MERS Foreclosures”
  1. SHOTGUN says:

    Michigan is WINNING! It takes one to start anything. I am currently awaiting the dreaded knock of my own sheriff – to whom notice has presumably been given by both my presiding Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins and the Plaintiff (Residential Funding Company, LLC) – issuing independent of one another in yet another anomaly of jurisprudence which is becoming the norm in this racket. Fighting off the hounds for 2 years, I am now living in my house in a Mexican stand-off. My April 9 hearing went well – Judge Perkins calling us into chambers for an entire 3 hours – 2 1/2 of which I spoke, breaking not only my particular case down for him, but also trying to educate him about the most rudimentary elements of what by now to those of us enduring this maelstrom of deceit and treachery is commonplace and everyday stuff. Though I pointed out to him my foreclosure deed was rife with fraud, including 4 signatures of GMAC foreclosure mill regulars in the now infamous Montgomery County, PA office where Jeffrey Stephan plied his trade, providing what seemed more than enough to raise at the very minimum reasonable doubt as to the document’s validity, he stared stunned and uncertain. His candor was appreciated at the time, as he listened generously, attention riveted on the details I attempted to convey with the kind of measured pace necessary to articulate effectively to a first-timer….He was clearly aware that the allegations being made were not random or frivolous, stating that my foreclosure suit’s contents were “voluminous” and if a trial were held it would be necessary for me to begin preparation with the utmost diligence. At the end of the hearing he told us to provide him with a brief within 2 weeks, and he would rule in a month whether my counterclaim I had attached with my first Magistrate hearing would proceed or I would begin anew with a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit. He then added that he was ruling in favor of Residential Funding’s motion for me to pay fair market rent into the registry, going back to October, when the FC sale was held. This amount was to be paid within a month – totalling over $1000. At the time I considered paying it as a kind of “good faith” effort, but the more I meditated on it the more I sensed it was not the right action to take and therefore ignored the matter of rent, sent in a brief – pro se – and waited. The plaintiff (Residential Funding Co./O’Kelley & Sorohan’s greenhorn atty David S. Klein) filed a motion for immediate writ of possession, the matter of fair market rent apparently unimportant – and my judge issued an order granting their motion. I have not seen the order but I heard that it did exist from an “informant” within the clerk’s office circle of insiders. I expected the sheriff to come knocking 2 weeks ago but no one has come. I have not received any notice. I have considered going to speak with my sheriff. The intention of this all-nighter was to make up my mind about what to do….If anyone has any bright ideas, feel free. Georgia unfortunately has a long-cultivated system of dishonor – difficult to explain, yet important now more than ever to do so and with enough torque to change the direction entirely….

    Thank you, Michiganders. Leading by example. Beautiful stuff. It’s like a Disney movie.


  2. Officer of the Law says:

    Isn’t it great when someone actually enforces the law?

    Sheriff Clayton and the judges on Michigan’s Court of Appeals deserve a lot of respect. If only there were more like them, more Americans’ homes would be safe from the banksters.

    Of course, if Sheriff Clayton would make some arrests of some banksters and their mill attorneys who committed fraud, that would really make the banksters straighten up.

  3. Beth A. says:

    From what I’ve seen in MI, foreclosure notices started to omit MERS a few months back in many cases. Likely the foreclosure attorneys knew the court decision in connection to MERS was forthcoming.

    In ours, MERS was the original foreclosing entity….the sale was delayed. It was postponed. It was refiled later w/a holding bank we’d never heard of (and not filed w/county, of course). Foreclosure delayed again by bank. I seriously believe they know that weknow the original mortgage was a fraud (after a QRO resulted in some very interested copies). We also know that the mortgage is a part of investments involved in a class action suit by at least one union pension plan.

    I think this is just a minor delay – these companies will re-file and not care if the proper ownership is on the foreclosure doc (unless the homeowner is represented by counsel in a suit)…because they know Michigan regulators absolutely, positively do NOT care. Sadly, if a company wants to rape and pillage – MI is the state to do it. If you’re a MI resident – you’re entirely on your own in trying to dig up loan research. Very sad.

  4. indio007 says:

    void a initio means everyone who touche the damn thing is liable, judges, clerks, lawyers, sheriffs, everybody!

  5. Readdocs says:

    Looks as though the use of MERS has gotten it locked in a box. If taken to court, MERS cannot be the sole
    holder of the note or deed of trust as they are not a banking entity.

  6. Pamela says:

    Well finaly it looks like some people in law enforcement are not all bought and paid for and it appears some one in some states are getting a clue.Now if the rest could ,should,and would pay attention we might just have a fighting chance.This needs to become pervasive in the industry before we have a civil war on our hands!!!!

  7. l vent says:

    Go Michigan!!!! You and your Sheriff, keep hanging tough!!!!!!! MERS IS A SHAM AND A FRAUD.

Leave a Reply