Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
William A. Roper, Jr.
Well before the mortgage meltdown, when the MERS debacle was only just getting underway, a particularly forward thinking and courageous county Clerk from Suffolk County, New York, Edward P. Romaine, began to REFUSE to accept MERS mortgages for filing.  This resulted in a lawsuit, first in the NY State Supreme Court for Suffolk County, and later in the New York Appellate Courts.

The three appellate decisions were generally styled Matter of MERSCorp v. Romaine.  The intermediate appellate court -- Supreme Court Appellate Division, 2nd Department -- rendered its first decision in teh matter on June 10, 2002:
Matter of MERSCorp v. Romaine, 295 A.D.2d 431, 743 N.Y.S.2d 562 (NY App. 2nd Dept. 2002).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11328666019260257302
The first decision concerned an injunction.  The matter made its way back to the appellate court where the Appellate Decision decided the matter on its merits on December 19, 2005:
Matter of MERSCorp v. Romaine, 24 A.D.3d 673, 808 N.Y.S.2d 307 (NY App. 2nd Dept. 2005).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13849882717334438481
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
When MERSCorp prevailed in the intermediate appellate court, Suffolk Clerk Edward P. Romaine appealed the decision to the New York Court of Appeals:
Merscorp, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 N.Y.3d 90, 861 N.E.2d 81, 828 N.Y.S.2d 266 (N.Y. 2006).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10251615121567378367
The decision in MERSCorp v. Romaine is one of two decisions MERS has actually WON in state supreme courts.  (The NY Court of Appeals is New York's highest appellate court.)

The other decision won by MERS was the Nebraska case.

Neither case pertained to MERS right to either bring a mortgage foreclosure suit OR to assign an MERS mortgage.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
In my view, a reading and understanding of the Romaine case is rather central to an understanding of the MERS debacle.

In his concurring opinion within Romaine, Justice Ciparick anticipates the Silverberg decision:
I concur with the majority that the Clerk's role is merely ministerial in nature and that since the documents sought to be recorded appear, for the most part, to comply with the recording statutes, MERS is entitled to an order directing the Clerk to accept and record the subject documents. I wish to note, however, that to the extent that the County and various amici argue that MERS has violated the clear prohibition against separating a lien from its debt and that MERS does not have standing to bring foreclosure actions, those issues remain for another day (see e.g. Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY 44, 45 [1867] ["a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it"]).
Merscorp, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 N.Y.3d 90, 99-100, 861 N.E.2d 81, 828 N.Y.S.2d 266 (N.Y. 2006).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10251615121567378367
And this language in the concurring opinion was expressly noted in the Silverberg decision.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
At some peril of boring everyone, I have posted the various briefs to the first of the three New York Romaine appeallate cases.  The material is admittedly dated (2001-2).  But some of the arguments are the same as those now being resolved in New York courts.

Moreover, these briefs, taken together, give Forum participants, and particularly those from New York, a sense of how arguments are developed and presented on appeal.

I will candidly tell you that I have NOT thoroughly read this material myself.  Right now, I am finding the new information on the MERS and mortgage fraud meltdown to be gushing at a rather startling flow.  In the Intel world, we describe this as "drinking out of a firehose".

I could keep the information to myself, but by posting it, perhaps someone with a little more time and focused interest, particularly in New York, can identify for use some overlooked tidbit amidst the past filings.  This might be a case presented or an argument made in 2001 or 2002 that has since been overlooked, or it might just be the insight into how MERS has continued to talk out of both sides of its mouth and to decieve both the courts and its members in its criminal enterprise.

Here are the briefs from the first MERSCorp appeal:

MERSCorp Appellant's Brief (21 Nov 2001)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58034349/MERSCorp-v-Romaine-Appellants-Brief-21-Nov-2001

 

Edward P. Romaine's Respondent's Brief (17 Dec 2001)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58035117/MERSCorp-v-Romaine-Respondents-Brief-17-Dec-2001

 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Amicus Brief (25 Jan 2002)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58035372/MERSCorp-v-Romaine-Amicus-Brief-25-Jan-2002

(Yes, your tax dollars have subsidized this criminal enterprise!)

 

MERSCorp's Appellant's Reply Brief (05 Feb 2002)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58035787/MERSCorp-v-Romaine-Appellants-Reply-05-Feb-2002

Quote 0 0
Angelo
I put up an article awhile back about romaine, He is now a county legislator who is now trying to go after MERS with legislation, instead of the courts!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/asking_for_mers_zB7ZOfZQ3xituLGKyr0cWN#ixzz1KSEzmTqn
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...