MERS Statement on Washington Supreme Court Ruling

Statement from Janis L. Smith, Vice President for Corporate Communications MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. on the Washington Supreme Court Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Jason Lobo
Phone: 703.652.1660
Email: jasonl@mersinc.org

Reston, Virginia, August 16, 2012 – Today’s Washington Supreme Court opinion held that if Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is not the promissory note-holder, then it is not considered to be the beneficiary for purposes of non-judicial foreclosures in Washington. The court does not find that deeds of trust that name MERS as beneficiary are invalid and states that there is nothing in this opinion that prevents the parties from proceeding with judicial foreclosures. Nor does it prohibit MERS from acting as mortgagee in the land records or a lenders’ use of the MERS® System to track changes in mortgage servicing and ownership of the promissory note.

As we have maintained consistently, MERS is an agent of lenders and their successors and assigns. In fact, the opinion written by Justice Tom Chambers states: “nothing in this opinion should be construed to suggest an agent cannot represent the holder of a note. Washington law, and the deed of trust act itself, approves of the use of agents.” The opinion also states: “MERS notes, correctly, that we have [the Court has] held ‘an agency relationship results from…consent by one person that another shall act on his behalf…’”

MERS ceased commencing foreclosures in its name over a year ago, so this opinion does not impact its current operations. The opinion will, however, create confusion for Washington homeowners while the trial courts consider its effect on pending cases. We remain confident that MERS’ role in the U.S. housing finance system is valid and will withstand legal challenges.

For descriptions of cases and other materials pertaining to MERS’ business model and role in U.S. housing, please visit www.mersinc.org.

SOURCE: www.mersinc.org

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
7 Responses to “MERS Statement on Washington Supreme Court Ruling”
  1. Ron Moss says:

    Confusion is the whole card for MERS. It has been working for several years now but if it keeps out the confusion most people can think fror themselves. Tyeir after the finding comments only tries to ad more confusion back into the issue

  2. Ron Moss says:

    Sure if MERS wants to come up with the money and stop pretending and really become the beneficiary and register with the county audtore and pay all the fees it has been avoiding it sure can become the beneficiary.

  3. Dan C. says:

    1. TBTF Banks create MERS. Circumventing 400 years of common law property rights without one vote.
    2. TBTF Banks then add MERS paragraph to Trust Deeds and Mortgages.
    3. MERS hands out Corporate Seals for $25 each which creates 25 thousand + Certifying Officers.
    4. TBTF Bank wants your Home and Property so they draw up Assignment document which is then executed
    by one of its employees and somewhere in Southern California a Notary Public executes an
    Acknowledgement and enters it into his or her journal withuot ever seeing the Assignment or the person
    who executed it.
    5. TBTF Bank then electronically submits the Assignment for Record with the Clerk and Recorder for the
    appropriate County and State, or they have their legal lackies submit it.
    6. TBTF Bank then has the Trustee schedule the foreclosure sale and in most cases the Bank is the winning
    Bidder followed up by the submission of a photocopy of the original Note (not even in the Banks name) to
    to the Trustee as note in lew of payment for the Trustee’s Deed.
    7. Not once in this process did any of these documents pass through the hands of MERS, not once in this
    process did anyone take delivery of the original note and trust deed or mortgage that would have been
    required to exhibit all necessary signatures required of each and every assignment, transfer or sale.
    8. TBTF Bank has put another family on the streets, acquired for themselves a nice piece of American real
    estate with very little expense and probably even made money in the process. Remember the bailout?

    TBTF Banks created corporation that claims to own rights to property, who certified officers, who executed assignments, that were acknowledged by Notaries who never saw the documents, that were then recorded with the clerk and recorder who sold the property back to the bank in trade for unverified piece of paper, hot off the copy machine. That just about covers it.

    • Dan C. says:

      It took me 15 minutes to work out the trail of lies and deceit and there is no justification on earth that could make these actions legal in any society, save one or two that aren’t worth mentioning.
      Yet, our Courts of Law (snicker, snicker) continue to carve out exceptions to long standing property laws in order to justify what has and is taking place in every state in the union, the systematic conversion of every privately held piece of real estate in America into the hands of those who created the housing crisis in the first place.
      I recently had what is known as a Rule 120 foreclosure hearing in Jefferson County, Colorado, a non-apeallable hearing for an order authorizing sale prior to a non-judicial foreclosure. The Petitioning Bank and its Attorney didn’t show up or answer my Brief, the Judge decided to advocate for the Bank in their absence.

      Carpenter v. Longan was one of the cases I cited to and as most of us know this 140 year old Supreme Court decision is still effective today and has been cited to in just about every foreclosure case that has gone before the courts in the last 5 or 6 years.

      The Judge in my hearing pointed out that the case was over 100 years old and even though he stated for the record that there were no signature on the copy of the note submitted to the court by the Bank (remember the bank didn’t show up, curious how the Judge came by that document) as proof of its claim, the Court would not follow the dictates of the 100 year old supreme court ruling because the Bank was foreclosing on my Trust Deed, not my Note. And so it went and my 15 page brief, 11 evidence submissions with 5 subparts and 2 certified copies of documents form the clerk and recorders office meant nothing at all.

      When I show up next week with my Petition pusuant to Colorado’s Spurious Document Statute and I remind him that the decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court 140 years ago originated in Jefferson County when Colorado was still a Territory……

      • talktotennessee says:

        Sadly the Courts are not cooperative. You should have had a default or no less than a continuance if they did not show. Isn’t this normal or typical procedure? If you had not shown wouldn’t it have gone their way? At least this is what I am led to believe. When the Courts are corrupted or in the pocket of banking for their campaigns, elections, there is little you can do. Judges need to be appointed for terms in my opinion. The Courts are inconsistent in their rulings, legislating from the bench where they have law to the contrary!
        If you are not subjected to this grave injustice personally you have no comprehension of the despair one feels when, knowing you have truth, a valid cause, yet are rejected because of prejudice or bias against the borrower.
        We have become too complacent in this country, allowing our elected officials, legislatures and politicians free reign to remove our rights and circumvent our access to legal remedy!

  4. talktotennessee says:

    Once again banks win. MERS is a sham or agency or whatever but they retain rights when we assigned that right at closing, without reading the note or realizing the risk. This assignment allows MERS to foreclose on your house. You never thought the Courts wouldn’t legitimize this process did you? You will never know who owns your mortgage, nor does it matter. We are at the mercy of banks and their processes. The public is sufficiently dumbed down now to accept atrocities because someone tells us we have no choice.
    And. . . it seems we don’t.
    I have been in two lawsuits attempting to modify loans. I have yet to discover who owns them other than the servicer and their agent, MERS. The mystery note owner hired the most expensive law firm in Memphis to ensure their identity remains secret. Their attorney defies the Court claiming I do not qualify to modify an existing loan, although I am paying a monthly note or sum to the defense attorney’s trust also sanctioned by the court. Am I receiving credit for a principal payment or a deduction credit for the payment, taxes, insurance? Can I deduct interest from my income tax? Nothing is divulged in the qualification process as the time extends, the attorney bills his deep pocketed client lazily resisting my efforts extending the process over months! I am being told I do not qualify despite the fact I pay ongoing monthly payments on a loan for which I DID qualify!!!!

    We have lost our legal rights in this country, property law is meaningless. The sad thing is the majority of people don’t know it or don’t care! The standard response is if you did not default, or you are compliant you have nothing to fear, right?
    Try balancing that with loss of job, death of a family member, disability, illness!
    Have we returned to the little Nells on the RR tracks, the mad banker stealing our homes?

Leave a Reply