So what is the latest on this. Now that Nevada is going to set a precedant on going after the robosigners, let’s hope it rubs off in Washington State

@Judge…I’ve been reading a few article that go to your point. Appellate courts in several States have ruled that the note holder (typically MERS), despite having notes being assigned in blank, do indeed have a security interest in the underlying mortgage note and loan, and therefore have standing as it relates to bringing and enforcing foreclosure actions.

I do not necessarily agree with those positions as the banks have invented new mechanisms (MERS) that thwarts the ability for County agencies to enforce their provisions requiring all title exchanges to be publicly recorded and fees paid. Indeed, some Appellate courts have ruled in the opposite direction. Uncertainty exists. This is obvious. And, until these matters are negotiated and settled, as the 50 AG’s are presently doing, this mess will continue. The banks are reported to be playing “hard-ball” as this process is being played out. One thing we can all expect is that these matters will not be settled any time soon.

Every State is different. What constitutes fraud in one State, doesn’t hold true in other States. MERS is not State-centric. They operate nationally. As a result, any one court result does not necessarily oblige another court from issuing judgments or opinions, often in stark contrast to previous decisions and opinions. I often wonder why all the issues are not combined, creating a super-issue that can be argued in Federal court. I suspect the reason is that Federal laws pertaining to how MERS operates, and specifically to the issues being argued in State courts, does not exist.

MERS relies on this ambiguity, this black-hole of corporate governance to continue the scam. Add our budgetary woes to the mess and you’ll quickly understand why Federal legislators will not provide meaningful monetary relief to homeowners. Sure, they start programs like HAMP and MHA, but the banks are not required to participate in any of those programs. And indeed, they don’t. BAC, which services over half the mortgages in America, is a prime example of this. It’s all smoke and mirrors!

Why are only a few modifications made? A couple reasons. One, because the underlying MERS securities have default insurance policies that will pay the banks more money if they foreclose, rather than agreeing to a modification. Simply put, the banks are protecting their own interests and they have huge legal budgets distressed homeowners do not have. David vs. Goliath. Two, it may be illegal for the bank to modify a MERS securitized loan because that would be contrary to their existing institutional investor contracts. And those inst. investors have a big legal budget, too.

So what are distressed homeowners to do? In many instances, they’ve been defrauded not only through robo-signing, but also through unfair and illegal market manipulation related to poor underwriting guidelines that super-heated the real estate market causing prices to rise at a record breaking pace. Even Alan Greenspan warned the Fed of this “market condition” years ago. And, the States have a mixed record of granting relief. Mass joinder law suits have appeared that go to these issues. And, individual homeowners have to [initially] pony up several thousand dollars to join them. If the suits continue, it is very likely the Plaintiff’s will have to invest even more money to continue the suit, that can go on for years without any guarantee the foreclosure process will be halted as the case winds its way through the court systems. The only deterrent to the banks is the filing of a Lis Pendens, a “cloud” on the title of your home that MIGHT inhibit buyers of distressed properties while the mass joinder or bankruptcy trials goes on.

Our legislators have let us down…big time!

Just because something is signed by a robot doesn’t mean it’s fraudulent. Where the signature is authorized and the substantive (rather than procedural) facts behind the documents are true, there is no fraud and there is no detriment.

The thing is, if parties to a loan sale contract intend to transfer the loan, their intent will be given effect even if thy mess up the transfer process somewhere. Yes, there may be fraud in some select instances, but it’s not a simple as saying that every act of robo-signing is fraudulent.

Jeff Stenman with his chicken scratch signature signed the Appointment of Successor Trustee with NO date that he signed it. The notary did sign and dated her part. He also signed the Trustee’s Deed, there was a date he signed. What about Vonnie McElligott from NW Trustee Services, would this person also be considered a robo-signer? Routh, Crabtree, etc did the paperwork to lift our BK stay. They produced an Allonge To Note signed by another robo signed of Herman John Kennerty. I am glad to hear that a depo will be taken–do you know when and by whom? Very interested.