Quote: Lender A goes out of business. MERS is the beneficiary on the DOT for lender A. Lender A's assets are divided between two entities; FDIC and Lender B. Which successor will MERS be the beneficiary, as nominee, of the DOT? Is the DOT split between the successors?
It is axiomatic that the equitable right to the mortgage or deed of trust follows the note without any express assignment.
The legal title to the mortgage or deed of trust remains vested in the entity that is specified in the instrument as the grantee and/or a subsequent grantee under a valid written assignment consistent with the statute of frauds.
As Moose points out, it would be rare for an entity to cease to exist as a corporation while still validly owning or holding notes. These will have been sold and negotiated. It is possible that there was a failure to execute a valid written assignment of the legal title to the mortgage or deed of trust.
What becomes of the legal title would depend somewhat upon the corporation laws of the state of domicile of the extinct corporation and the precise level of corporate decay or extinction. It might also depend upon the escheat laws of the state where the property is situated.
Extinction of the corporation would essentially never result in a voiding of the legal title to the mortgage or deed of trust. This is simply a myth propagated by the debt elimination scam swindlers. It sounds plausible and forms the basis for one of many scams.
The owner of the equitable title to the mortgage or deed of trust could almost always seek the equitable reformation of the mortgage or deed of trust or otherwise add a count or cause of action to establish its legal ownership of the mortgage or deed of trust. In a non-judicial foreclosure state, this might require affirmative court action rather than simply relying upon the private right of sale.
You are generally thinking about the problem incorrectly. Suppose that A sells B his vintage 1970 Ford Mustang, but B neglects to execute a transfer of title. B pays A. A delivers the Mustang to B. A gives B a bill of sale memorializing the transaction. But A neglects to give B his endorsed title to the vehicle.
Who owns the Mustang?
Further suppose that A is beheaded by terrorists and is unable to correct this defect. Or perhaps A is abducted by revolutionaries and cannot be found.
How can B get a valid title to the vehicle?
The answer would typically be found in the statutes of a particular state relating to vehicle titles. In most places, at least for older vehicles, A might simply be able to present the bill of sale. The circumstance of a lost title is so common that the state usually provides an abbreviated administrative remedy for the more common sorts of situations.
But under such circumstances where there wasn't a clear mechanism, in most places B might bring some sort of legal action in a court with equitable jurisdiction naming either the person (or entity) shown to be the owner of legal title or that persons' executors, administrators, assigns or heirs. These might be individually named and served or more generally named and served by publication (e.g. "The unknown heirs of A", etc.).
B could ask the court for a judicial declaration and order establishing B's ownership and legal title to the vehicle. B already has possession of the vehicle. B paid for the vehicle. B has a bill of sale memorializing the transaction.
B pretty clearly has some substantial rights in the vehicle and it seems unlikely that anyone will appear, intervene and oppose the suit. B gets a judicial order and now B has legal title to the vehicle, as well. This might prove mildly problematic is A is dead at the date of the order, while naming only A rather than A's heirs, etc. (possibly rendering the order VOID).
But if B gets his written title, someone is going to need to probably bring another action to establish some superior title or ownership.
Overall, you need to disabuse yourself of any illusion that you have stumbled across some arcane or unusual situation not previously addressed or well understood under the law.
You seem not to be the bountiful winner of some largess by virtue of some accident by the Lender any more than you are the winner of some foreign lottery or a candidate to pose as the beneficiary of a dead foreign potentate. Rather, you seem to be the target of a debt elimination scam artist who has persuaded you -- either directly or indirectly through re-posts of legally questionable material -- that you can get a "free house" by following some formula set out by the scam artist.