MERS, Banks Call A.G.’s Suit Factually, Legally Deficient

MERS, Banks Call A.G.’s Suit Factually, Legally Deficient

MERS and several banks who were sued by New York’s attorney general for allegedly initiating faulty foreclosure actions have struck back in the high-profile litigation by strongly defending their practices and discounting the office’s assertions as factually and legally deficient.

In February, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued MERS—Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems—and several major banks and mortgage servicers, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. The action contended the defendants’ use of the MERS system resulted “in the filing of improper New York foreclosure proceedings, undermined the integrity of the judicial process, created confusion and uncertainty concerning property ownership interests, and potentially created clouds of title on properties” across the state (NYLJ, Feb. 6).

Defendants fired back on April 20, seeking dismissal of the suit and claiming that their practices—such as having MERS commence a foreclosure or using a private registry to track loan ownership rights—were not deceptive and stressed that the attorney general never pointed to a single case where an action was initiated against a homeowner who was not in default.

Rest here…

Copies of their responses below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Mers Motion to Dismiss

[scribd id=91259519 key=key-771jjkuekt59q26v44h mode=list]

Banks Motion to Dismiss

[scribd id=91259502 key=key-l3bikayx3es0t4m7tgd mode=list]

Comments
5 Responses to “MERS, Banks Call A.G.’s Suit Factually, Legally Deficient”
  1. frankie says:

    my loan with WFHM is not in default, I am current, however my certificate of satisfaction is robo signed by four people, and I have two deeds of trust for the same loan, just one has a “Magic paragraph: in which they added some nonsense about november 2006. that is when I noticed something not right with the paperwork, I have been writing them back and forth since then to no avail. now they are refusing YES REFUSING to talk to me if I mention “robo-signing” the two deeds of trust, what do you do? I have sent the information to : FBI, OCC, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, MY LOCAL AG, MY CONGRESSMAN, BOTH SENATORS, PLEASE HELP ME…..

  2. indio007 says:

    ” stressed that the attorney general never pointed to a single case where an action was initiated against a homeowner who was not in default.”

    You know the saying…. Watch what you wish for you because you just might get it.

    Not to mention whether someone is in default is irrelevant to the issue of the basic right to sue.

  3. talktotennessee says:

    Yes, well if they can get by with it they set precedent unfortunately. My case against Countrywide/B.of A was dismissed by a judge that held similar conservative views. It apparently does NOT MATTER how illegal the banks are in their deception in circumventing property law as long as the homeowner defaults on his obligation. Homeowner default is all that matters to the courts to justify fraud, deception and predatory loans. Amazing that we have allowed our courts to become so conservative that they rationalize wrong doing not by law but in their own bias that the borrower defaulted. It is a little like blaming a rape victim because her dress was too short. How short does it have to be to justify rape? Did she deserve punishment for her error in good judgment despite the circumstances? It is similar with homeowners, despite ARMs, double loans where there should have been one, balloon notes, pre-pay penalties, excessive interest rates and origination fees, discounts, overcharged appraisals etc etc etc. Despite, death of the breadwinner, loss of job, medical illness, divorce, etc. Despite defrauding municipalities of transfer fees, resulting in clouded titles and questionable ownership issues. The bottom line is the homeowner defaulted so he or she deserved to lose their home falsely promised modification, denied justice and then foreclosed by someone with absolutely “:no skin in the game” did not loan the money, did not collect the money, yet retains a right to steal your home, in TN without ever stepping into a courtroom! When you take these crooks into court, if you find an attorney who can or will handle it, the judge dismisses in hand and never hears anything but the default!
    Yeh, RIGHT!
    Time to appoint judges for limited terms, not allow big business to fund their election. Limit them to terms to discourage bias. Time to establish judicial panels with lay members to review judicial complaints. Time for WE THE PEOPLE took charge in courts & congress.

Leave a Reply

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