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
As many judges have recently ruled, MERS does not have any ownership stake in a mortgage, and the transfer of the mortgage note to the servicer via MERS is erroneous, then who owns title to these properties?  Shouldn't it be the homeowner?

As a homeowner, I have been making my mortgage payments faithfully to Citimortgage, after they purchased my mortgage from ABM Ambro.  I am not in foreclosure and I am not late in my payments.  But couldn't I sue for an injunction and claim title the the property outright, since Citimortgage never had proper claim to my title in the first place?
Quote 0 0
Maybe a quiet title action.  http://www.cloudedtitles.com
Quote 0 0

David wrote:
As many judges have recently ruled, MERS does not have any ownership stake in a mortgage, and the transfer of the mortgage note to the servicer via MERS is erroneous, then who owns title to these properties?  Shouldn't it be the homeowner?

As a homeowner, I have been making my mortgage payments faithfully to Citimortgage, after they purchased my mortgage from ABM Ambro.  I am not in foreclosure and I am not late in my payments.  But couldn't I sue for an injunction and claim title the the property outright, since Citimortgage never had proper claim to my title in the first place?

there's no assignment from ABM to CITI? 

Quote 0 0
Pat
We need more people  who are not behind in their mortgage asking this very question tell your friends and direct them to this site, LivingLies.Wordpress.org and Cloudedtitles.com!  It makes no difference if you are behind or making your payments homeowners are all in the same ponzi scheme and they do not even know it!
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
David said:
As many judges have recently ruled, MERS does not have any ownership stake in a mortgage, and the transfer of the mortgage note to the servicer via MERS is erroneous, then who owns title to these properties?   Shouldn't it be the homeowner?

 
David:
 
You seem to be muddling the concepts of legal title to the property and legal title to the mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument.
 
It is easy to see how one muddles these ideas, in part because the ideas are somewhat merged in the non-judicial foreclosure states.
 
Usually, and particularly in most mortgage states, the legal title to the property is vested in the owner of the fee interest of the property (the borrower).  But in deed of trust states, the title to the property may be vested in a trustee who holds the property in trust subject to the express provisions of the deed of trust.
 
Even in so-called mortgage states, the status of the legal title of the property depends upon whether the state is a title theory state (Massachusetts) or a lien theory state.
 
Separate from the idea of ownership of the legal title to the property is the legal title to the mortgage, deed of trust or other mortgage security instrument.
 
MERS claims to hold the legal title to these while the beneficial owner is the owner and holder of the promissory note.  (See MERS' allegations within the MERS Appellants' Brief in the Nebraska case.
 
Some courts have gone along with the idea that MERS holds the legal title, while others have found that it doesn't.  Interestingly, under either result, problems for MERS can emerge.
 
Read carefully the starkly different results of the Oklahoma case of BAC Home Loan Servicing v. White and the Maine decision in Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Saunders, both devastating to MERS and its business model:
Bac Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. White, Case No. 108,736, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION ONE, 2010 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 132, December 3, 2010, Filed,  This Opinion has been Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals.

Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Saunders, Cum-09-640, SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE, 2010 ME 79; 2 A.3d 289; 2010 Me. LEXIS 83, June 15, 2010, Argued, August 12, 2010, Decided.

Quote 0 0

TITLE PROBLEMS - TAKE TWO

Nearly a year ago, I was doing everything I could to alert the public about the impending title problems resulting from foreclosures being processed too quickly. The New York Times and USA Today wrote stories about it, here, and several Florida reporters did so as well, contemporaneous with my blogs, here, here, here, and here. But basically the issue went away quietly.

Now, it’s re-emerged, finally and appropriately, in two key ways.

First, MERS announced it changed its procedures to require that an assignment of mortgage be filed prior to the start of any foreclosure suit. To me, this is a tacit yet glaring admission of the huge title problems that have existed in a huge percentage of foreclosure cases. This isn’t a complicated issue, either – it’s just one that everyone has ignored.

Take your standard MERS mortgage – a mortgage recorded in the public records with MERS as nominee for XYZ Corp. Invariably, when the foreclosure lawsuit is filed, it’s not filed in the name of XYZ Corp., it’s filed in the name of Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase or some securitized trust – an entity with no relationship to XYZ Corp.

In most foreclosure cases, banks’ lawyers argue the plaintiff has standing if it is the “holder” of the Note, i.e. if it possesses the original note with a special indorsement or indorsement in blank. Many judges accept this position, no questions asked. In other words, an assignment of mortgage is often viewed as irrelevant/superfluous.

But I’ve often asked “what about title?” Remember, the ultimate purpose of a foreclosure lawsuit isn’t merely to foreclose, it’s to convey title to someone. Has that been happening? Unfortunately, no. Even if Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, or the securitized trust has standing (a huge if, but that’s a whole other blog), without an Assignment of Mortgage in the public record, XYZ Corp. is still the mortgage holder of record. This means that even if Bank of America, JP Morgan, or whoever prevails in the foreclosure is the high bidder at the auction, acquires title, and sells the property to a third party, XYZ Corp. is still the mortgage holder of record. What does that mean? Essentially, the entire foreclosure case was like a wild deed – it took place, but XYZ Corp. can still institute a foreclosure lawsuit in its own name, as it would have priority over the bona-fide purchaser who acquired title from the bank.

That sounds crazy, I know. But think about it. If XYZ Corp. is the mortgage holder of record, and it’s not named as a party in the mortgage foreclosure suit, and there is no Assignment of Mortgage, then the mortgage in favor of XYZ Corp. still exists, even after the foreclosure, even after the auction, and even after the sale to the third party. Yes, the foreclosure happened, but as far as XYZ Corp. is concerned, the foreclosure is irrelevant – it still has the mortgage.

There are only two ways to prevent this – join XYZ Corp. as a defendant in the lawsuit (meaning the final judgment of foreclosure would be res judicata as to any subsequent claim on the mortgage), or record an Assignment of Mortgage in the public records.

In my view, MERS finally caught on to this problem, hence the change in its procedures. But what about the hundreds of thousands of foreclosure cases that were completed or remain pending (prior to this change)?

It’s up to all of us to educate judges about this problem. “Yes, judge, the plaintiff may have standing. But even if it does, XYZ Corp. is an indispensible party, and you cannot enter a final judgment of foreclosure without it.” When the judge acts confused, explain that since XYZ Corp. is the mortgage holder of record, it can prosecute a foreclosure lawsuit even after the plaintiff acquires title and sells the property to a third party. And since that defeats the purpose of a foreclosure, subjects homeowners to two lawsuits on the same debt, and will cause indescribable title problems (for innocent third parties), we cannot allow that. Apparently, MERS now realizes as much, hence the change in procedures.

Old Republic is starting to feel the impact of title problems, announcing it may have to stop issuing title policies. Is the timing of this announcement a coincidence, coming right on the heels of MERS changing its policies? Maybe, but I doubt it. Apparently … hopefully … the title insurance industry is finally catching on to the huge, widespread title problems that are emerging as a result of foreclosure cases being pushed through in a sloppy, haphazard manner.

Mark Stopa

http://www.stayinmyhome.com

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...