Posted by: Timothy Ellis (The Tim)

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

49 responses to “Washington State Supreme Court: MERS May Not Foreclose Unless They Hold the Note”

  1. C Gladwell

    Curious to see how this would apply to Notes owned by FNMA or FREDDIE MAC as they are largest users of MERS and most Banks who are named on deed of trust were original lender who did the loan. Foreclosing Bank is generally servicer and assignments from MERS prior to foreclosure have hystorically been back to servicing bank ie foreclosing entity.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. Kary L. Krismer

    Tim, my post in the open thread at 9:32 didn’t get your attention? ;-)

    I don’t agree at all with your conclusion that there’s now a “clear path.” See my second post in that thread. The court stated a lot of potential problems and didn’t give any clear answers.

    I suspect we may start seeing more judicial foreclosures, which will skew your non-judicial data downward. Note that if they waive the deficiency, the redemption period is only 8 months, so the overall process could be fairly short if the homeowner doesn’t contest.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. Jill Schlicke

    Hi Kary,

    I didn’t see your open thread comments this AM but they are good and you should repost them here.

    If I’m a lender who decided to use MERS, and now I see this Court decision, why don’t I just transfer my deed interest from MERS back to the lender. Now I can foreclose in my own lender’s name…I’m not foreclosing in the name of MERS.

    Homeowners can decide to sue…I think under the Consumer Protection Act…those who were wrongfully foreclosed prior to Aug 16, 2012….via MERS but they’d have to prove harm.

    IMO I don’t think lenders will want to go judicial. It takes WAY to long to foreclose judicial v. non-judicial and now instead of paying W-2 wage earners to do my non-judicial foreclosure work, I have to pay the wage earners AND attorneys. In addition, the borrower gets to spend more time in the subject property prior to the trial, and the borrower has more rights in a courtroom v. at the auction. Yes the lender can get a judgment against the homeowner for the deficiency but then what’s stopping that person from making a stop in bankruptcy court to make the judgment go away? (Yes, I know there are BK rules about how many years you have to wait if you’ve recently filed BK.)

    I think lenders are going to want to just move forward and the best way forward is to just go back to the way we sold mortgage paper prior to the creation of MERS.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. Jill Schlicke

    C Gladwell, I remember reading something about a number of banks and Freddie directing their loan servicers to stop foreclosing in the name of MERS several months ago. Let me see if I can find the article. Here it is. About 18 months ago, from MERS:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49020588/MERS-Announcement-2011-01

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. Tim

    Interesting development. Lots of counties across the country are suing MERS as the entity created by lenders to “allegedly” avoid recording fees. We had a Bank of America subordination that showed MERS as the lender and the Title company rejected it essentially claiming prove your interest or assignment from the prior lender—the deal fell apart because the folks at Bank of America in their subordination debacle (I mean dept.) didn’t have a clue how to “fix it.”

    S-Crow

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. C Gladwell

    Thanks Jill for the link – I assumed so as have seen assignments of late pre- foreclosure

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. Haybaler

    RE: Jill Schlicke @ 3 – If I read the courts’ opinion correctly they actually discussed the tactic of Mers assigning their “alleged” interests back to the original lender. The court says that is problematic because Mers may have had no standing to claim an interest in the first place….so assignments out of Mers may be worthless or questionable. It looks like Mers having been on title is a huge problem with no quick, clean and easy fix.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. Bobbie

    A United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in 2011 that MERS does NOT have the power to assign the mortgage, that though they are the holder of the mortgage of record (NOT holder of the note), nowhere are they given agency powers which would give them the power to legally assign the mortgage back to the bank or anyone else.

    Be aware of the high (> 82%) of fraud, forged documents in foreclosure cases & assignment of mortgages. See the legal citation for the US Bankruptcy decision at http://www.alphamagic.org/fraud . Then you can track back to verify that is a proper citation, you can go to the court records and download the PDF of the court’s decision.

    The banks are drowning in a cesspool of their own making, and we should all thank them for paving the way to our being entitled to prevail in suits for quiet title, dismissal of all claims by the banks & services, and fully entitled to punitive damages stemming from the fraud on the part of the banks.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. Kary L. Krismer

    By Jill Schlicke @ 3:

    If I’m a lender who decided to use MERS, and now I see this Court decision, why don’t I just transfer my deed interest from MERS back to the lender. Now I can foreclose in my own lender’s name…I’m not foreclosing in the name of MERS..

    My second post in the open thread addresses that, where it copies a portion of the opinion, but they note that might be problematic.

    I can understand why the court couldn’t have reached a decision. The problem I have with the decision is it raises a lot of issues, but doesn’t give answers. And I understand why that is–courts don’t like to deal in hypothetical situations. It’s going to create some problems over the next year or two, unless maybe the legislature is called back to pass corrective legislation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. Kary L. Krismer

    Here’s my first post from the other thread:

    The Washington Supreme Court’s Bain decision came down on MERS today.

    http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=862061MAJ

    In a nutshell:

    1. Mers cannot be the beneficiary without holding the note. That decision is not terribly surprising.
    2. The court did not answer the question of the legal effect of MERS acting as beneficiary. That is extremely disappointing, but most likely due to the case having come up from the US District Court as a certified question to the Supreme Court. The record may not have been fully developed.
    3. There could be a Consumer Protection Act violation, but only if the grantor establishes injury from MERS acting as beneficiary.

    A few things to note:

    1. The court seemed very reluctant to grant any type of recession remedy and noted that nothing in the decision would prevent a judicial foreclosure of the deed of trust.
    2. The court noted that MERS could act as beneficiary if it were the agent of the holder of the note, but that there was no evidence of such an agency relationship. As an aside, I don’t believe MERS wants to be the agent.
    3. The court also discusses some ways to rectify the situation, but I’m not sure any of those are good remedies for lenders. This decision may lead to a lot of judicial foreclosures, which doesn’t really benefit anyone.
    4. Unfortunately the court didn’t quote any language from the deeds of trust at issue. I think there is more than one form of MERS deed of trust and that MERS may have different roles in different deeds of trust. This decision should apply though to all deeds of trust where MERS is listed as the beneficiary.
    5. Finally, I’ve only read the opinion once, and rather fast. My opinions on it may change on further review.

    Edit: On one of the legal forums I follow, and attorney described the opinion this way: “The Refs call a penalty, then punt.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  11. Kary L. Krismer

    By Tim @ 5:

    Interesting development. Lots of counties across the country are suing MERS as the entity created by lenders to “allegedly” avoid recording fees.

    Different states are different. There is no requirement in Washington that documents be recorded, with the exception of deeds and such subject to the real estate excise tax. Bad things can happen if certain documents are not recorded, but there’s no requirement that they be recorded.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. Kary L. Krismer

    By Haybaler @ 7:

    RE: Jill Schlicke @ 3 – If I read the courts’ opinion correctly they actually discussed the tactic of Mers assigning their “alleged” interests back to the original lender. The court says that is problematic because Mers may have had no standing to claim an interest in the first place….so assignments out of Mers may be worthless or questionable. It looks like Mers having been on title is a huge problem with no quick, clean and easy fix.

    They could do the limited agency thing I mentioned, but that still doesn’t deal with the potential for separation of the note and DOT as mentioned in the opinion.

    Clearly the title companies are going to require a lot more documentation now on MERS DOTs than they did in the past.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. Kary L. Krismer

    By Jill Schlicke @ 3:

    IMO I don’t think lenders will want to go judicial. It takes WAY to long to foreclose judicial v. non-judicial and now instead of paying W-2 wage earners to do my non-judicial foreclosure work, I have to pay the wage earners AND attorneys. In addition, the borrower gets to spend more time in the subject property prior to the trial, and the borrower has more rights in a courtroom v. at the auction. Yes the lender can get a judgment against the homeowner for the deficiency but then what’s stopping that person from making a stop in bankruptcy court to make the judgment go away? (Yes, I know there are BK rules about how many years you have to wait if you’ve recently filed BK.).

    Banks are already starting to experiment with going judicial where they want to get a deficiency. If they don’t want to get a deficiency, the process is at least four months shorter, probably a lot shorter though because it would be less likely to be contested.

    The thing people forget is that non-judicial foreclosure is supposed to be a fast process, but the Foreclosure Fairness Act made it a longer process. That makes judicial foreclosure a bit more attractive than it was. It’s still not as attractive, but if you through the MERS mess into the mix, I think it will become the route of first choice for many banks. At that point they will take a serious look at going the deficiency route.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  14. Kary L. Krismer

    By Jill Schlicke @ 3:

    I think lenders are going to want to just move forward and the best way forward is to just go back to the way we sold mortgage paper prior to the creation of MERS.

    I think the best solution would be to call the legislature back in session to pass retroactive corrective legislation. Although nationwide you may be right. What I’ve said in the past is the idea of coming up with a system like that that works in all 50 states is rather problematic. Note the problem with MERS in Oregon is entirely different than the problem with MERS in Washington, and several other states. That’s part of the reason that the court didn’t find decisions from other states compelling.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. softwarengineer

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 2

    I Agree Kary

    The Washington Supreme Court also outlawed child support after a divorce if the children were step kids to the ex spouse.

    Then the lower Washington State courts made some of these divorced spouses pay child support on step kids anyway, later on.

    It ain’t over until the fat lady sings on your specific case.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. Jill Schlicke

    Thanks, guys. MERS is used in so many states I wonder if we need a fix that would cover all states. It makes sense to somehow grandfather all foreclosures in the past that involved MERS and from this point forward make the lender the beneficiary. If I’m a title company I’d want to except this out of my policy and/or get an indemnity of some kind. Perhaps the American Land Title Assoc http://www.alta.org will step in to help their members with a 50 state solution.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: Jill Schlicke @ 15 – I don’t think there’s that much exposure on past foreclosures, at least at the title level. The party foreclosed might have a CPA claim, but if they did they probably would have already tried that.

    There is the recent decision, the name escapes me, where the deed of trust trustee foreclosed after the allowed 120 days, where the court did undo the sale. Most people view that as being a very unusual exception.

    What will be interesting is seeing what happens on MERS foreclosures set to sell today or next Friday. Those will be past the 10 day period for the homeowner to enjoin the sale. Will the title companies allow those sales to go through, or will they ask that they be continued to allow them to process what needs to be done?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  18. Marc

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 16 – Bingo! The foreclosures that are already complete are not going to get set aside due to the statutory requirement that the borrower seek to enjoin the sale 5 days before the sale (11 days is for the right to pay up and reinstate the loan). CPA claims will have a chance but that will just get money damages not the house back. Especially where the house was subsequently sold to a third party BFP (bona fide purchaser).

    The big take away that I see from all this is that MERS standard practice is shot here in Washington and lenders will quickly see that short sales are by far the best option for them. Enjoining a nonjudicial is now too easy and judicial takes too long plus the risk of borrowers trashing the house while they live rent free for the year after the sale is too high.

    As it turns out Ray may be prescient after all – anybody in default right now just got a major increase in their leverage over the first lien holder. I expect those relocation assistance payments they’ve started offering to homeowners to do a short sale will become larger and more frequent.

    I’d love to know what’s going on at today’s foreclosure auctions across the state. I bet a lot got canceled.

    Disclaimer: If you’re reading this on a blog, I’m not your attorney and this is not legal advice.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. ChrisM

    *Fascinating* take on the WA MERS foreclosure decision here:

    http://www.socialapocalypse.com/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: ChrisM @ 19 – Not sure what’s fascinating about it. It’s not entirely accurate. MERS can assign, it’s just not clear when and how! ;-)

    Also, I don’t think MERS has been doing much foreclosure activity in their own name over the past year, other than perhaps assigning their interest to start things off. They used to do a lot more. So that statement is also a bit misleading.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. Kary L. Krismer

    By Marc @ 18:

    The big take away that I see from all this is that MERS standard practice is shot here in Washington and lenders will quickly see that short sales are by far the best option for them. Enjoining a nonjudicial is now too easy and judicial takes too long plus the risk of borrowers trashing the house while they live rent free for the year after the sale is too high.

    As it turns out Ray may be prescient after all – anybody in default right now just got a major increase in their leverage over the first lien holder. I expect those relocation assistance payments they’ve started offering to homeowners to do a short sale will become larger and more frequent.

    The first point is a very good point. Given Washington is now “different” maybe our short sales will get the attention they deserve!

    The second point is a bit of an overstatement, in that not all DOTs are MERS DOTs. But for those who are . . .

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. Marc

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 21 – Agreed MERS is big player but certainly didn’t handle all deeds of trust in Washington. However, I’d bet dollars to donuts the large majority of residential loans were securitized then sliced and diced such that the identity of the true note holder may not be easy to determine thereby making a nonjudicial foreclosure riskier than it has traditionally been. If that’s the case, then a short sale becomes an even more appealing alternative (relatively speaking).

    I still don’t see why MERS fights so hard against identifying the current noteholder and having it initiate the foreclosure. You would think they could do that without bending over backwards. If they figure it out an efficient way to do that then this whole issue could become a minor inconvenience and back to business as usual.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  23. Jill Schlicke

    I just returned from the Trustee sale at NW Trustee Services over in Bellevue. There were 142 homes scheduled for auction today and it was business as usual. Lots of investors, people bidding and buying to hold or flip. Picture posted here:
    https://twitter.com/jillayne

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  24. ChrisM

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 20 – I’m being subtly sarcastic… I don’t think you’ve fully grokked the wisdom of the owner of the website.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  25. Kary L. Krismer

    By Marc @ 22:

    I still don’t see why MERS fights so hard against identifying the current noteholder and having it initiate the foreclosure. You would think they could do that without bending over backwards. If they figure it out an efficient way to do that then this whole issue could become a minor inconvenience and back to business as usual.

    I hope you’re right, but given the language of the opinion I’m not sure it is. Seemingly they might not be able to just assign their beneficial interest to the note holder.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  26. Marc

    RE: Jill Schlicke @ 23 – Well, that answers that question. The business of America is business, come hell, high water, or adverse court rulings.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  27. Kary L. Krismer

    RE: Marc @ 26 – I can see why they would do it. The homeowner’s chance to object has past. They too could have spend money on attorney fees, like the owners in the Bain case.

    Many of them probably want the house foreclosed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  28. Social Apocalypse

    Interesting discussion, for sure.
    MERS was, and is still, a curtain of secrecy for the true holders of the obligations of the borrowers which benefits the holders for various, debatable reasons. This is the reason MERS balks at divulging the beneficiaries in many cases. What we DO know is that in Washington State we have the following laws that haven’t changed:
    1. Only a beneficiary can transfer beneficial interest in a DOT
    2. Transfers are not required to be recorded, but if challenged, THEY MUST EXIST and be able to be produced. In judicial foreclosure the transfers are called out. In non-judicial, they are not unless the borrower sues.
    3. If the physical signed transfer did not happen, then it “did not happen”, it cannot be retroactively re-created, especially with trusts.
    4. MERS does NOT fit the criteria of a beneficiary, and never did.

    I have no idea how they will work this out, because MERS was always the “bridge” between the originating lender and the foreclosing entity in non-judicial foreclosure. That bridge has now been removed. MERS will NOT be able to transfer beneficial interest “back to” the foreclosing entity because they are not a beneficiary. The chain of title will need to be reconstructed, just as it is in judicial states. MERS foreclosures will necessarily be judicial, and that’s going to really clog the pipes.

    While the decision is very much in keeping with Washington’s Deed of Trust Act, it will likely GREATLY slow down the housing recovery if lenders do not mitigate it some how.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  29. Kary L. Krismer

    By Social Apocalypse @ 28:

    1. Only a beneficiary can transfer beneficial interest in a DOT
    2. Transfers are not required to be recorded, but if challenged, THEY MUST EXIST and be able to be produced. In judicial foreclosure the transfers are called out. In non-judicial, they are not unless the borrower sues.
    3. If the physical signed transfer did not happen, then it “did not happen”, it cannot be retroactively re-created, especially with trusts.
    4. MERS does NOT fit the criteria of a beneficiary, and never did.

    I do not agree with the third point. I think that’s web folklore.

    I would agree with the other points, for the most part, but as to 1 and 4 note that the court did indicate that MERS could be acting as an agent of a beneficiary.

    Similarly, MERS argues that lenders and their assigns are entitled to name it
    as their agent. E.g., Resp. Br. of MERS at 29-30 (Bain). That is likely true and
    nothing in this opinion should be construed to suggest an agent cannot represent the holder of a note. Washington law, and the deed of trust act itself, approves of the use of agents.

    It then goes on to explain how the principle was never disclosed and that agency was not proven. But they seem to indicate that would be an easy out. As I noted earlier though, I don’t think MERS wants to be an agent.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  30. Kary L. Krismer

    Interesting that the consumer attorneys quoted by the Times (Mellisa H. and Fred C.) don’t see the decision creating that much turmoil.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2018934163_mers17.html

    Contrast that with the industry opinion at the bottom of the article, and that expressed elsewhere.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  31. ray pepper

    Contrary to many Bubbleheads on this site and rehashing what I have said for what seems years now….Those who bought during the BUBBLE BOOM and who have both intellect and education of what is transpiring around them will reap the BIGGEST FINANCIAL REWARDS of their lifetime. It has began with many years of living for free and will will conclude with FINANCIAL INCENTIVES that will seem VERY unfair to millions but VERY JUST to the educated.

    The RE Attorneys will be great benefactors of this “Crisis of Credit” and housing debacle. Their day is still on the horizon. The continued losers will be those in denial, those who already let their home go for 3000 via short sale, and those who stood “morally correct.” Those who have seen their homes illegally foreclosed will stand to reap rewards that have yet to even materialize.

    Furthermore, an untold amount more will have a residence for years upon years for FREE and the only question that will arise is how many years will the “hamster wheel” turn for all those who were originally castrated as “morally irresponsible” but now viewed with even more anger and jealousy.

    The best is yet to come friends.. For all those with upside down mortgages, who have yet to take any action , while crying to their friends and family, its time to WAKE UP and realize just how VERY fortunate you truly are……..

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  32. Passed Doo

    SHAKESPEARE WAS RIGHT.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  33. daniel

    Woah!

    if they can find the note at all. The promissary note is seperate from the mortgage/deed itself. The servicer of your loan may not hold it. It could be held in some bank vault somewhere, lost, sold on, bundled up in a MBS, etc. Wow. This really puts a spanner in the works. MERS itself may not know.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  34. Paul

    I am facing a trustee sale of my home with a paper trail that involves MERS. The trustee does have a copy of the original deed of trust that I signed and recorded at my local county courthouse but this is not the same trustee that is foreclosing on the behalf of my servicer and I have yet to see the promissary note. Is this matter something worth pursuing with an attorney? Keep in mind that this is a non-judicial foreclosure in Washington state. What options do I have? What are my best options at this point if any?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  35. Bankers Hit Jackpot in Nevada, Supreme Court Rules 7-0… YES ON MERS | Mandleman News – Nevada

    [...] a month ago, the Supreme Court in the state of Washington ruled against MERS being the lawful beneficiary, ruling that, “if MERS does not hold the note, it is not a lawful [...]

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  36. Jillayne Schlicke

    Paul I was researching the MERS case tonight and I’m seeing your question. I highly recommend you pursue mediation via the Foreclosure Fairness Mediation program. At the mediation table the lender will be required to show proof that they hold the note and deed of trust. Here is the link to the official website. You must be referred to mediation by a Housing Counselor (free) or by an attorney.
    http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Programs/housing/Foreclosure/Pages/default.aspx

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  37. Howard

    By Paul @ 34:

    I am facing a trustee sale of my home with a paper trail that involves MERS. The trustee does have a copy of the original deed of trust that I signed and recorded at my local county courthouse but this is not the same trustee that is foreclosing on the behalf of my servicer and I have yet to see the promissary note. Is this matter something worth pursuing with an attorney? Keep in mind that this is a non-judicial foreclosure in Washington state. What options do I have? What are my best options at this point if any?

    Ask your question at loansafe.org

    Lots of good info there.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  38. Scotsman

    “MERS will need to record a deed back to the bank that actually holds the note, who must then initiate foreclosure proceedings themselves.”

    This is apparently what happened with the foreclosed home I bought last year, but the recorded paperwork took 5 months to catch up. Talking with an attorney at the time he wasn’t certain whether title would actually be clear, but as a practical matter there was no one left with an interest in challenging it. I doubt this will clear it up either. At some point national legislation may be required as a patch. Fun times.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  39. ChrisM

    RE: Scotsman @ 38 – Can you speak to what the resulting issues were, if any?

    I’m watching some properties (out of perverse interest) in Clark County that appear to have legal issues (before they hit the auction). Seems like this entire mess would make a Great American Novel but I’m dodging that title…

    I’m very curious about title claims – is it a potential morass, or OTOH, is it totally overblown?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  40. Kary L. Krismer

    By Jillayne Schlicke @ 36:

    Paul I was researching the MERS case tonight and I’m seeing your question. I highly recommend you pursue mediation via the Foreclosure Fairness Mediation program. At the mediation table the lender will be required to show proof that they hold the note and deed of trust. Here is the link to the official website. You must be referred to mediation by a Housing Counselor (free) or by an attorney.
    http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Programs/housing/Foreclosure/Pages/default.aspx

    I would back up and first try to determine an overall goal. If you’re in default and have no chance of curing the default, or simply don’t want to cure, then getting the original note would only be a delaying tactic. While delay can be good, it can also be bad. Real live advice from an attorney who represents you would be far better than seeking answers off any Internet site.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  41. Kary L. Krismer

    By Scotsman @ 38:

    “MERS will need to record a deed back to the bank that actually holds the note, who must then initiate foreclosure proceedings themselves.”

    This is apparently what happened with the foreclosed home I bought last year, but the recorded paperwork took 5 months to catch up. Talking with an attorney at the time he wasn’t certain whether title would actually be clear, but as a practical matter there was no one left with an interest in challenging it. I doubt this will clear it up either. At some point national legislation may be required as a patch. Fun times.

    I’ve not read the Bain v. Mers case for a few months, but I’m pretty certain the solution isn’t recording a deed. I’m not even sure it requires the recording of anything, as opposed to merely getting the proper assignments executed and making sure the right party is taking action.

    That said, I still have yet to see any reports on how Bain v. Mers has changed anything!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  42. corndogs

    RE: Paul @ 34 – “What options do I have? What are my best options at this point if any?”

    The best thing to do is stop being a be-otch. Apologize to your friends and family on social media for being a leach on society. Pack your bags and begin your life as a renter. Save your money for a few years and try again once you get your sh#t together.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  43. Ray pepper

    RE: Paul @ 34 – call me Paul.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  44. Linh Minh Thi Tran

    Jill: Can I ask you question? If you signed a quit claim deed for someone at county, can you come back? Note holder sold or transfer mortgage to many investors and now it is not original lender anymore, I don’t think court can accept Mers goes back to note holder because Oregon State requires any assignments transferred must be recording at county but original note holder did not record any assignment has been transferred for many years that means note holder admitted they used MERS avoid recording fees at county and they also admitted to avoid record all benefical or interests from any assignments transferred or sold to many investors that means note holder acted fraudulently, violated national and state law, evasion tax many years? Please tell me do you live in country having law or not? May I ask you, if someone did not report their income or interest to IRS, they should go to jail or penalty or not? lenders used MERS and now if state does not recognize MERS as beneficiary but original lenders used MERS sold and transferred to many investors and how banks can use MERS to transfer back deed to original holder, if MERS can do that, why MERS can not be authorized to transfer to other banks? Your question is opposite with State ruled that MERS is not beneficiary, note cannot be separated and must be secured by deed of trust. Original note holder used MERS many years and now state ruled MERS is not beneficiary and how banks used MERS to transfer back deed to note holder? State ruled MERS is not beneficiary and note cannot be separated and must be secured by deed of trust really clear but now you against with state ruled by said MERS transfer back deed to original note holder that means you against with state ruled? Do you think anyone in public or court dumb or stupid? I don’t think so? If someone made errors, they can avoid punish or penalty by go back? if anyone can do that, you should free for all people who are living in prison and we don’t need law or court anymore because after people made errors or mistakes, they can go back without punish or prison. Thanks Jill everyone get free from your quotes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  45. Linh Minh Thi Tran

    State ruled really clear: Since MERS is not beneficiary, note has been separated from deed of trust and not not secured by deed of trust anymore. Banks do not have standing or authority to use MERS foreclosure or transfer deed anymore? Jill are you American? I am Vietnamese but I understand really clear what state ruled. Now you said MERS can transfer back deed to original note holder that means you against law or against court ruled Banks cannot use MERS to foreclosure or transfer????????????????????note cannot be separated by deed of trust and note must be secured by deed of trust? Please read carefully before you posted something to scare anyone?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  46. corndogs

    RE: Linh Minh Thi Tran @ 45 – Linh Minh Ti tO Tran … I lovey you long time no?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  47. Bankers Hit Jackpot in Nevada, Supreme Court Rules 7-0… YES ON MERS | Mandelman News – Nevada

    [...] a month ago, the Supreme Court in the state of Washington ruled against MERS being the lawful beneficiary, ruling that, “if MERS does not hold the note, it is not a lawful [...]

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  48. To the Students from the June 21, 2013 Foreclosure Field Trip at SKCAR Bellevue | ceforward.com

    [...] On Aug 16th, 2012 the WA State Supreme Court handed down an opinion on MERS (Mortgage Electronic Recording System.)  This will effect the way lenders foreclose. Read more over here. [...]

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  49. Foreclosure Timeline in Washington State • Seattle Bubble

    […] time, but if there is a valid legal argument (e.g. predatory lending, illegal foreclosure process, MERS issues etc.), the court may approve a restraint of the […]

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Do you want a nifty avatar picture next to your name, instead of a photograph of Tim's dog? Just sign up with Gravatar, and make sure to use the same email address in the form below. It's that easy!

Please read the rules before posting a comment.

You have 1 comment remaining on this post.

Archives

Find us on Google+