I-Team: Nevada Supreme Court Case Could Impact Homeowners

I-Team: Nevada Supreme Court Case Could Impact Homeowners

LAS VEGAS — A case before the Nevada State Supreme Court next week could have far-reaching impact on Nevadans struggling to stay in their homes. Among the issues before the justices is what proof lenders must provide to show they own the property they seek to foreclose.

This is the first time the state supreme court will consider issues related to the use of MERS, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. During the housing boom, banks created MERS to serve as the mortgagee of record for lenders which allowed properties to change hands without publicly recording each transfer.

But in order to foreclose, banks must be able to establish the chain of title on a property and often use MERS which has no financial interest in the loan to show ownership. Whether that is legal is among the questions before the court.

Rest here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
8 Responses to “I-Team: Nevada Supreme Court Case Could Impact Homeowners”
  1. Tee says:

    How did MERS ever get approval in being able to record without the use of County Registrar? Did they just take it upon themselves to interupt the traditional means of recording? Who let them get away with this? Must be one of those I have so much money we can do what we want issues eh?

    • Fact: That MERS was instrumental in changing state law in some locations to effect their scheme. A look at the deposition of Mr. Arnold will confirm at least one such instance. Our Nevada law, as I read it, states that a property interest “may” be recorded with the county recorder. It should shine all sorts of light on the situation if anyone has time to research which assemblymen voted that one in!
      See Circuit Court Montgomery Alabama CV-08-900.805.00 Debera Henderson v Merscorp
      Deposition of AK Arnold
      September 25, 2009

      MERS is a member corporation. It is not for profit. The US has an extensive history of corporations formulating both state and national law. In fact it was a corporation, the PENN RR that was instrumental in having restrictions on corporate ownership removed through the work of Tom Scott. The US has a long history of its congress selling out to corporate interests. While we watch the score at the football game and argue about Democrat v Republican, our heritage is stolen from us by corporate interests including the world banking interests.
      What is the answer?

  2. talktotennessee says:

    It will depend on whether the judiciary is conservative to the law or activists. In this case, conservative to the law would see MERS without legal standing, I would think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *