IN NON-JUDICIAL STATES, MERS HOLDS AND OWNS NOTHING

Without going into detail about the fiction of splitting title and about each type of title, suffice it to say that there can be no more than one “legal title” to a single piece of property.  What that means is that when the homeowner as grantor (while retaining “equitable title”) conveyed the “legal title” to his property to the trustee under the deed of trust, there was no “legal title” left in any of the remaining interests (which are the homeowner’s equitable title and the creditor’s beneficial title).

Thus, the language in the deed of trust that “MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted” is a nullity because the “interests granted” involve (1) the grant of the legal title to the trustee and (2) the grant of beneficial title to the creditor (by virtue of the trustee holding the legal title “for the benefit” of the creditor).  There can be no conveyance of the “legal title” to both the trustee and to MERS.  Since the trustee’s ownership of the legal title is undisputed, that leaves no legal title to be held by MERS.  Thus, MERS holds absolutely no interest, legal, beneficial, or otherwise under a typical deed of trust from the very beginning (or, in legalese, ab initio).

You can check out Gregory’s post in full here…

~

4closureFraud.org