Comments on: WHITE PAPER | LOSING THE PAPER – MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS, NOTE TRANSFERS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

By: Bobbi Swann

Bobbi Swann — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:55:45 +0000

In reply to To Tell The Truth. (To TTTT) NO, it shouldn't! Each state has it's own rules, laws and regulations regarding land titles and foreclosure processes. Just like Hell No & Peter Pike have posted, for in Florida this would not work at all!!! I don't know where or what state you are in, but this whole scenario is just plain WRONG and it seems to me that it would be in direct violation of our US Constitution. Who are these people that wrote this paper????????????

By: Peter J. Pike, Esq.

Peter J. Pike, Esq. — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:20:54 +0000

The author’s conclusion: “The first and most obvious step in moving to a reliable and authoritative electronic system protecting lenders, borrowers, assignees and other parties to property title is to combine the note and mortgage into a single instrument, with the full image of the instrument and all later modifications to its parties and terms updated in a single electronic registry” fails to take into account basic real estate law. For example, in the state of Florida (where I practice), homestead law requires both spouses to execute a mortgage, in order for a lender to obtain a viable lien on the property. However, there are many instances where only one spouse is to be liable on the actual debt. By combining the note and mortgage into one instrument, the ability to separate ownership from obligation is lost.
Another issue with the author’s thesis, to attempt to allow for electronic documentation, fails to address the idea that a Note is a negotiable instrument. In effect, the original Note is like cash. While we can make cash “electronic”, via use of debit and credit cards, the same cannot be said for a Note. The Note itself is like a $100.00 bill. You cannot photocopy that bill and claim that you have the right to spend it. It is only when notes become fungible (one note being exactly the same as another, which is the case with cash), that you can provide “paperless” notes. I do not believe that there is a solution at this time to this problem.

By: Hell NO! No More Bankster Bailouts!

Hell NO! No More Bankster Bailouts! — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:37:51 +0000

The article totally skips over addressing what is transpiring with mortgages that were originated naming a ‘strawman’ CORPORATION that did not exist. I am referring to the practice of intentionally naming a non-existent CORPORATION as the ‘LENDER” on all the mortgage documents.

Such deeds have no valid relationship with MERS even though MERS was typically named as the nominal Beneficiary and Nominee. But a nominee is usually defined as an ‘agent’ for the LENDER. Where the named LENDER did not actually exist, there can’t be any AGENT. Also, the MERS corporate resolution for these dealings will not actually name the ‘LENDER’ named on the deeds/notes, meaning that there is no authority for ANYONE to sign using MERS to do ANYTHING with such deeds/notes.

I wish that more people were really examining the status of the original lender named on the mortgage. Also, some mortgages have followed a path that put them into the supposed ‘ownership’ by companies such as ‘SAND CANYON” at a time that the president of Sand Canyon has testified that Sand Canyon did not own any mortgages.

Lots of mortgages were written naming “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” when it did not exist. Countrywide was the supposed SERVICER as a rule. Nothing showed Countrywide as being more than the servicer. Yet these mortgages usually have Countrywide slamming them into MERS. Later, another group formed that AWL Corporation. Countrywide tries to use the D/B/A it had as “America’s Wholesale Lender”. That is NOT the same thing as the “America’s Wholesale Lender Corporation” that is SHOWN on the documents, including origination documents. Judges that have REALLY LOOKED can not see any place that a relationship to Countrywide is shown on the DOT or Note. Also, if you have one of these loans, look at the part of CW with the MERS membership. Compare that to the part of CW that registered the D/B/As. Also look at the PSAs if your loan was securitized. They need two additional transfers prior to that.

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:25:29 +0000

Why don’t home owners and their lawyers fabricate documents and present them to the court. Who’s side is justice on then? Wanna bet the judge has the homeowner and his attorney arrested??

By: Pamela Edwards

Pamela Edwards — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:53:13 +0000

I agree this should be in the media full tilt.

By: To Tell The Truth

To Tell The Truth — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:46:05 +0000

Thank you, awesome…this should be sent to all courts…