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
MSF Admin
This entire post and thread was accidentally deleted.

Here is the link to the Consent Order in: 

In the Matter of:  

MERSCORP, Inc., and the   
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,   
Reston, Virginia

Quote 0 0
     A perfect art form of "legalese" meant to cover up the real function of
MERS which is to hide the fact that multiple different investors own the same
Note and that MERS is a key player in the biggest "Ponzi scheme" since the
Florida land scandal of the 1920's. Back then Ponzi was selling  multiple
deeds to the same Florida swamp land to multiple different gullible investors up North.
      In the modern version, MERS holds the "mortgage deed" while multiple
different investors own the COUNTERFEIT NOTES which correspond to that
"mortgage deed". MERS prevents an investor from realizing that there are
multiple Notes on the same property. Without MERS, using the old OFFICIAL
RECORDS system maintained by each County, only one Note would correspond to each mortgage deed and it would be easy to identify who owned the "loan".
       The "originators" who used MERS were selling the same COUNTERFEIT
note, multiple times to different gullible investors. Part of the proceeds of
these fraudulent sales were deposited with the SERVICERS so they could
make monthly payments to the investors with essentially their own money.
The servicing rights to the borrowers payments was sold to the servicers
because this was "chump change" to the originators. Servicing rights means
in "real speak", the right to foreclose, so the servicer can obtain a "free house".
        How do I know all this? By examining hundreds of Court files, examining
all the counterfeit Notes being submitted and applying simple logic to the
history of major Ponzi schemes in the past, especially the 1920's.
        To really blow the lid off this scandal, the AG's would have to subpoena
all the records of MERS and the major servicers, and match up each mortgage to its correspondent Note or Notes as the case might be. The
resistance to such an audit will be extreme because it could result in all
MERS mortgages being declared fraudulent and let the borrowers off the
hook by returning the property to them "free and clear". Ie, return to the
victims what was essentially stolen from them to perpetrate the biggest
securities fraud in American history.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Communicating With Members About Adverse Decisions


From the OCC consent decree with MERS:

ARTICLE VI
COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
(1) Within sixty (60) days of this Order, MERS and MERSCORP shall jointly develop and submit to the Deputy Comptroller a plan for communicating with Members concerning significant legal proceedings or issues. The plan shall include:
(a) a process for notifying and informing Examined Members concerning significant legal proceedings and legal issues that relate to the functioning of MERS, MERSCORP, or the Examined Members’ interests with respect to MERS or MERSCORP, including, but not limited to significant favorable or adverse decisions, within a short time period after the issue arises or a decision is issued;
[at page 12]

Of course, there is NOT a word about the Residential Funding LLC v. Saurman decision at the MERS web site (as of the date and time of this post)!

 

See:

 

"MI Court of Appeals Shuts Down MERS in Michigan: Residential Funding LLC v. Saurman"

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5200292

Quote 0 0
Angelo

Does this decision really matter, MERS has already gone public and said that nobody is to foreclose in MERS' name anymore.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Angelo said:
Does this decision really matter, MERS has already gone public and said that nobody is to foreclose in MERS' name anymore.


Angelo:

You are absolutely CORRECT that the Saurman decision prospectively precludes foreclosures in MERS' name that MERS has already now prohibited by its recently enuciated Rule Change, altering MERSCorp Rule 8 to PROHIBIT either judicial or non-judicial foreclosures in MERS' name.

The significance of Saurman is primarily in respect of the foreclosures already COMPLETED.  In a non-judicial foreclosure, the title is conveyed non-judicially and really never gets a judicial blessing (except in Maryland).  The validity of the title is totally dependent on the verity of the private sale process.  If the sale was conducted properly in conformance with the mortgage or deed of trust and in conformance with the law, the buyer at the private sale has a good title. 

But when the seller is a stranger to the title, the deed is VOID and conveys NOTHING AT ALL.

After the completion of a non-judicial sale, the purchser of the property (usually the servicer or some shill of the servicer) typically brings a forceable detainer or other ejectment action to obtain possession of the property.  This is very often a summary proceeding, not unlike a landlord-tenant eviction.

In many places, the court hearing the ejectment action doesn't even have jurisdiction to determine the validity of title, though if the title can be shown to be defective, the ejectment action would usually FAIL.  But the ejectment action does NOT usually determine the title or clear a cloud on the title. 

Moreover, very often borrowers are intimidated into abandonment of the property without any ejectment at all.

*

So now we have a situation in Michigan where thousands of borrowers have been dispossessed of homes THEY STILL OWN!

The buyer is in possession of these homes.  But the borrower still OWNS the home.  And the borrower has been dispossessed and rendered homeless through an illegal foreclosure process!

*

You are correct that this ruling might have no significance in respect of FUTURE foreclosures.  MERS isn't allowing foreclosure in its name any more, so the decision would seem to be MOOT going forward.  But to Michigan's dispossessed, the ruling seems to show that they still OWN THE HOUSE after all and that they may have a valid cause of action against the mortgage servicer, foreclosure mill law firms, mortgage investor and MERS!

The buyer of one of these foreclosed properties has NOTHING but a cause of action against the title insurer and/or the seller.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...