It looks like Meisels won the proverbial "death gamble", the
French translation of the word "mort-gage".
Gager=to wager, gageur=gambler, gageure=bet. The borrower put
up the deed, the bank put up the cash. Whoever "dies" first, loses. Most of the time it is the borrower, on a thirty year bet,
but once in a while the lender "dies" first as in this case.
MERS was specificly designed to prevent borrowers from "winning" the "death gamble". Kudos to the NY Courts for
realizing that MERS could not stand in for a "dead lender".
This is exactly what I have been saying for along time, I
call it the "death gamble" defense and my students have used it
successfully many times.
It looks as though Mike H. is using the occasion of justice Shack's ruling to resurrect completely imagined and specious arguments which serve solely as a pretext for Mike to swindle distressed borrowers.
Mike's "death gamble" nonsense has no foundation in law whatsoever and is simply an invented basis to trumpet vacuous wingnut theories to line his own pockets at borrower's expense.