Comments on: In re: KATHLEEN THOMAS | More Mortgage Morass for MERS

By: Maggie

Maggie — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:11:08 +0000

Congratulations to the winning ticket!
For CA is very similar – we have Deed Of Trust and MERS is listed as a beneficiary, at least on my deed. In one and the same day transfers the DOT to my serveser Chase and files a substitute of trustee to the Chase’s own CA Reconveyance and files the Notice of Default. Funny, they are signed by one and the same person (for MERS and Chase) and this is not considered conflict of interest 🙂
Here’s a link to check if you have a MERS loan: https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/search (lease copy+paste)
but in my case did not show the right investor on the loan, who’s suppose to be the only holder in due corse with the rights to foreclose. Now MERS is foreclosing on me.
You can also check the http://www.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/ and https://ww3.freddiemac.com/corporate/ for the other two participants, but who’s the future owner when Obama closes these???

Good luck to all of you and please share as I will. Bless the ones that step the path.

By: 3032oak

3032oak — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:32:34 +0000

Ahhhhh, the sweet glory of success at last!

“I am in earnest…I will not equivocate…I will not excuse…I will not RETREAT a single inch and I will be heard!”
William Lloyd Garrison, 1831

Thanks to all those that keep fighting the good fight, so that those of us still ‘in battle’ have a resounding victory to cite in our own up and coming cases.

By: Elaine S

Elaine S — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:01:41 +0000

Who’s on first? Love it. A wonderful distinction is in this. In some states’ laws,( and raised in the Ibanez case in Massachusettes) the mortgage automatically follows the note.

HOWEVER, that is not the same as the note following the mortgage/deed of trust! The defendants, lenders et al, tried to establish that the note followed the mortgage? That’s backwards, and of no effect. By MERS own language of their business model, the note and mortgage are deliberately separated. If note also followed the mortgage then there would be a conflict of the law in those states, as both can’t be true, as both parties, each holding one document, could lay claim to both docs.

This is all just my non-professional personal opinion.

By the way a good way to find out if MERS is involved in your papers in non-judicial states is to go to the originating paper filed with the public trustee that has the jurisdiction. For example in Colorado its called the “Notice of Election and Demand” also known as “NED.” And in El Paso County foreclosing entities have been listing MERS as the “beneficiary” in that document. I jusrt go the the public trustee site and look at the documents, and scan for the one with NED within the file title.

Funny thing, from my reading, professionals say MERS strictly states they are not the beneficiary. And this is done even though Colorado law in their definition excludes any electronic registry from being a “holder” A good story sits right there for a good investigative journalist. ( See around Colorado Revised Statutes 38-38-100)

The “In Re Ferrel L. Agard” ruling is also a must read from page 21 on. See “Time to Put a Fork in MERS” on this site. It is one of the most important rulings to come down. It’s a federal bankruptcy case rulling. I think it could be used in evidence in any court nationally.