Hooker vs MERS / Bank of America

Note: MERS is a defendant, not a plaintiff in this case.

“While I recognize that plaintiffs have failed to make any payments on the note since September 2009, that failure does not permit defendants to violate Oregon law regulating non-judicial foreclosure.
..
A party conducting a non-judicial foreclosure must demonstrate strict compliance with the Act.
..
The MIN Summary raises an additional concern relevant to numerous records pending before me. As noted above, GN [Guaranty Bank] is listed as Lender on both the trust deed and the note. The MIN Summary, however, makes no mention of GN.
..
“Certain documents were recorded out-of-order.”
..
Foreclosure by advertisement and sale, which is designed to take place outside of my judicial review, necessarily relies on the foreclosing party to accurately review and assess its own authority to foreclose.  Considering that non-judicial foreclosure of one’s home is a particularly harsh event, and the numerous problems I see in nearly every non-judicial foreclosure case I preside over, a procedure relying on a bank or trustee to self-assess its own authority to foreclose is deeply troubling to me.
.

I recognize that MERS, and its registered bank users, created much of the confusion involved in the foreclosure process. By listing a nominal beneficiary that is clearly described by the trust as anything but the actual beneficiary, the MERS system creates confusion as to who has the authority to do what with the trust deed. The MERS system raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness and validity of foreclosure by advertisement and sale outside of any judicial proceeding.”

..

The MERS system greatly increased the number of investors stuck with worthless notes. 

..

Judgement and costs for Plaintiffs.    It is so ORDERED.

~

4closureFraud.org

~