[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Business Title: MERS, the law, and the State Trotter told me that the “true horror” of MERS [1818 Library Street, Suite 300 Reston, VA 20190, 1-800-646-6377] was what it could do to homeowners who were current on their mortgage payments: The “good” homeowners who still had a job and weren’t facing foreclosure. If there was no legal record of which bank owned their debt [see below if you haven't been following NC on MERS], and the MERS-mortgaged homeowners had been making payments, then who exactly was the homeowner paying? The checks, clearly, were going out every month, cashed by a bank that claimed to own the note. But without the legal record to certify the owner of the note, it followed that the bank could not legally issue the homeowner a clear title to the home. In effect, a homeowner with MERS on his mortgage could spend thirty years paying a lender that wasn’t the owner of the note. …. “[Y]ou’d always be looking over your shoulder,” said Trotter. “Some other lender could come and say ‘No, we owned that note. You paid the wrong guy.” “WIth MERS”, he said, “nobody owns anything. You’re only paying rent.” That’s not a bug. It’s a feature. At least for a rentier, although not necessarily for Trotter. Second, Ketcham offers a lucid and succinct explanation of how this MERS feature came to be implemented: [Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems] was created in 1995 as a privately held venture of the major mortgage-finance operators… Its stated purpose was to manage a confidential electronic registry for tracking of the sale of mortgage loans between lenders… No longer would the traffickers in mortgages have to document their transactions with county clerks, nor would they have to pay the many and varied courthouse fees… This centralized database facilitated the buying and selling of mortgage debt at great speed and greatly reduced cost. … Without the efficiencies [dread word] of MERS there probably would never have been a mortgage bubble. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3. Your comments are almost perfectly opposite of reality. This article is crap, exactly backwards from reality. If the ownership of the note is in doubt, because the chain of custody is broken (as happens when the docs are shredded and the data is typed into MERS), than the mortgage is null and void. That is why they had robosigners- to create the illusion of an unbroken chain of custody. No clear ownership of a payable note? Then the note is moot. This my first look at that site, BTW. I see now, where you get your inane talking-points. Talk about intellectual lightweights! LMAO!
#3. To: Capitalist Eric (#2) (Edited) If the ownership of the note is in doubt, because the chain of custody is broken (as happens when the docs are shredded and the data is typed into MERS), than (sic) the mortgage is null and void. In your dreams Perry Mason, Jr. A promissory note is a promissory note and is wholly enforceable. Just because the "chain of custody (was) 'broken'" - whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean in this instance - it does not forgive or otherwise ameliorate any liens that are on the title to the underlying property. What the issue becomes, whenever there may be a cause of action between the lien holder and the debtor, the lien holder can be forced to show that he has received actual and legal custody of the lien and is thus entitled to take custody of the property through foreclosure. I'm having that very issue with Bank of America right now. They are the 4th mortgage servicing agent I've had on my mortgage. Over 3 years ago, I asked them, through my attorney, to PROVE that they hold the actual lien on the property. So far...nothing. That has not lessened my obligation to pay my mortgage one cent.
Replies to Comment # 3. A promissory note is a promissory note and is wholly enforceable. Just because the "chain of custody (was) 'broken'" - whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean in this instance - it does not forgive or otherwise ameliorate any liens that are on the title to the underlying property. I've posted several articles about this issue already. So has Brian S. Here are the links to my articles, so you can educate yourself, pops. For other sites where they discuss the significance of "chain of custody" versus "chain of ownership," there are 671 results at this google search. Now that I've given you almost 700 links specifically devoted to this exact question, please do some reading. You can thank me later, for providing the information to you. Oh, and BTW... if they can't provide proof as you demanded, than... you may be in very good shape. :)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 3. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|