I have to agree with the above post regarding MERS.
If anything, Mr. Roper’s arrogance brings him pretty darn close to making a fool of himself. What’s even funnier is that when Mr. Roper utters complete nonsense, other members thank him for “clarification”, as if he was dispensing manna from heaven.
Let me explain. Let’s assume that Mr. Roper got his term “title to the deed of trust” from some court cases. Such cases probably don’t exist (I’d like to see an example), but cases using the term “title to the mortgage” probably exist. So, in his “authoritative” post, Mr. Roper implicitly adopts such (erroneous) decisions when he coins the term “title to the deed of trust”. Is that a reasonable thing to do as a homeowners advocate? Does he have his own critical thinking skills?
Just think about this. When you buy a car, you get “title” to it, which is formal evidence of your ownership. If you can’t pay for the car and have to finance it, you won’t have the title in your possession, but your lender will hold on to it. Does your lender then have “title to the title” of the car? Do you see the absurdity? You still hold title to the car, and the lender has possession of the title instrument. The lender doesn’t have “title to the title instrument” because no such thing exists or has been created.
Now, on to real property. A deed of trust itself is nothing more than an instrument of title -- an instrument evidencing one’s rights in the property. Instead of being a title to a car, it's a title to a house.
When you buy a house, you get title to the house in fee simple. That is evidenced by a recorded “deed”. But because you can’t pay the entire purchase price, you immediately give most of your fee simple interest in the property to the trustee under the deed of trust, for the benefit of your lender. This is accomplished by executing and recording a "deed of trust".
Thus, the deed of trust is itself an instrument of title. That is why it is recorded – as evidence of title, evidence of the trustee’s interest in the property and the other parties’ respective interests. Plain and simple, a deed of trust is in itself a title instrument. Does the trustee hold title to your property? Yes. What is the evidence of trustee’s title? – The deed of trust, an instrument of title.
So saying that a party (such as MERS) has “title to the deed of trust” is like saying that the party has “title to a title”, which is absurd. Maybe some courts inadvertently embrace such a concept, but why buy into it?