You are far better off getting an attorney to explain the pros and cons to quiet title than listen to Mike H's garbage. He has no idea what he is talking about. The requirements of quiet title are determined by your local jurisdiction and vary from state to state. To incorrectly file a lawsuit in court can be a very costly endeavor. You will be required to pay the oppisiton's fees which can be substantial. In a suit that you file, YOU will have the burden of PROOF. Mike H NEVER posts a case to support any of his garbage. He is regurgitating wing-nut theories off the web and some even more crazy theories of his own that are NOT based on ANY statutes or cases. Run away.
BUT, lets take a look at Mike H's post anyways.........
What you are missing is that the lien may not have ever been perfected
because the entity named on the loan documents was not the "real" lender.
The entity that closed your loan and is named on the Note and Mortgage is the lender. It does not matter where they got the money from. Many business use lines of credit and obtain financing to give you financing. That's how banks stay in business. Banks even "borrow" money from the government to make loans. This argument will get you laughed out of court and a bill for the oppisition's attorney fees.
Feel free Mike to post a case or two that show I'm wrong.
Ask yourself this question, "If somehow I had the cash to pay off the loan,
who would I pay it to? And "Who would issue the satisfaction?"
You make your payments to the lender on the note. If the lender decides they want you to make the payments to someone other than the lender (ie. a servicer) they will give you documents to sign (usually at closing) so you understand that you should pay a 3rd party. The satisfaction would come from the owner of the Note.
Many times the entity named on the loan documents was an "unlicensed
straw man" standing in for the "real lender", which preferred to remain hidden
from the investors on the secondary market who would eventually buy the
While this would give you an interesting defense if the lender was conducting business in your state without state authority, it just isn't happening.
Could you post 1 (one) entity that was an "unlicensed straw man" and was creating mortgages in a state? Just one of the "many".
Did MERS ever lend any money? So how can it
be the mortgagee? Inquiring minds want to know!
MERS is NOT the mortgagee. MERS is the NOMINEE for the lender (the true mortgagee) and holds bare legal title (see Landmark). The courts have caught on to this and are starting to issue decisions that ADVERSELY affect MERS. They are holding, as the court did in Landmark, that if you send notice to the note holder/original lender you do NOT have to send notice to MERS. This is supported in many of the Fanny/Freddie standard mortgage forms. This is VERY problematic to the current note holder if it is anyone other than the originator.