Tag: MERS

Who is Responsible for the Conduct of Foreclosure Mill Law Firms?

Who is Responsible for the Conduct of Foreclosure Mill Law Firms?

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Here is the analysis, which comes word for word from the Interagency review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices in 2010 (available here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/InterAgency_Review_4900701.pdf).

The Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), referred to as the agencies, conducted on-site reviews of foreclosure processing at 14 federally regulated mortgage servicers during the fourth quarter of 2010.

This report provides a summary of the review findings and an overview of the potential impacts associated with instances of foreclosure-processing weaknesses that occurred industrywide. In addition, this report discusses the supervisory response made public simultaneous with the issuance of this report, as well as expectations going forward to address the cited deficiencies. The supervisory measures employed by the agencies are intended to ensure safe and sound mortgage-servicing and foreclosure processing business practices are implemented. The report also provides an overview of how national standards for mortgage servicing can help address specific industrywide weaknesses identified during these reviews. Continue reading “Who is Responsible for the Conduct of Foreclosure Mill Law Firms?”

Idaho Takes a Big Bite Out of MERS

Idaho Takes a Big Bite Out of MERS

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Idaho takes a big bite out of MERS in this ruling.  Summary judgment for the homeowner is granted, summary judgment for the MetLife Home Loans is denied.  Check out this (rather long) excerpt:

B. Defendant Lacks Statutory Authority to Maintain a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Under I.C. 45-1505(1) the trustee may foreclose a trust deed if “The trust deed, any assignments of the trust deed by … the beneficiary … are recorded in mortgage records in counties in which the property described in the deed is situated”. The only recorded assignment of the trust deed is by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to MetLife Bank, N.A. dated February 23, 2009. That document purports to transfer all beneficial interest MERS had to MetLife. Continue reading “Idaho Takes a Big Bite Out of MERS”

Deed of Trust Example Language

[Picture: MERS Shareholders]
Deed of Trust Example Language

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC System, Inc.

I have read numerous cases including appeals court cases (both Federal and State).  It appears to me that the actual language from the Security Instrument regarding MERS is being brought up or argued in a very general way and without a thorough analysis.  I am not an attorney and will not provide legal advice to anyone.  This is not legal advice but provided only for educational and informational purposes only.  This is simply what a standard CALIFORNIA-Single Family-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT WITH MERS Form 3005 looks like, in relation to the main MERS language (not all inclusive).

  • This security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower’s covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note.
  • For this purpose, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale, the following described property […]
  • “MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
  • MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument
  • MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. 
  • The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS.
  • Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument 

    •  

Culhane vs Aurora Loan Services

Culhane vs Aurora Loan Services

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Note the following from this United States District Court case from the District of Massachusetts:

It is clear beyond peradventure that Culhane is substantially behind in paying her mortgage and appears unable to remediate her default.  This, however, does not render her an outlaw, subject to having her home seized by whatever bank or loan servicer may first lay claim to it.

Notice this from the case also:

 Nationwide, courts are grappling with challenges to MERS’s power to assign mortgages as well as its practice of deputizing employees of other companies to make assignments on its behalf. The present case is distinct only in that it is this Court’s first encounter with MERS and with the question whether its involvement in the origination and assignment of a mortgage loan clouds record title to the mortgaged property. The public has an interest in ensuring the liquidity of the mortgage market. Thus, even if Culhane is unable to exercise her equitable right of redemption and foreclosure of her mortgage loan is inevitable, title must pass free of cloud and not subject to challenge in any future action for summary process or to try title on the ground that the foreclosure process was conducted unlawfully. See Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 460 Mass. 762, 772 (2011); Bank of N.Y. v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327, 333-34 (2011).

Order: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Culhane-vs-Aurora-Loan-Services.pdf

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following was just posted on Neil Garfield’s blog, livinglies.wordpress.com.  It is reposted here with the following comments.  These are fabricated documents placed into the title record at the county recorders.  In non-judicial states these documents do not need to be recorded to foreclose as those foreclosing can instead file a judicial foreclosure and prove their claim.  Because they have no claim and cannot prove it, they knowingly, willingly and without any regard for the consequences, choose to corrupt the land title records instead.  To read about this choice, read the Hooker vs. BofA ruling from a Federal District Court judge out of Oregon: Hooker-v-BofA_and_MERS – Congratulations to Oregon Attorney James Stout for his work on this case.

From Neil Garfield and Lynn Szymoniak (see Lynn Szymoniak in action on 60 Minutes here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20049744-10391709.html)

EDITOR’S NOTE (Neil Garfield): We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If you are talking about one big bank you are talking about all the megabanks. Continue reading “Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent”

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Due to the volume of requests, here is a listing of all known Cease and Desist Consent Orders issued in April 2011 in regards to the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices.

Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices

Cease and Desist Consent Orders Department of Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OTS Board of Governers for the Federal Reserve System FDIC FHFA
Bank of America x        
Citibank x        
HSBC x        
JPMorgan Chase Bank x        
US Bank x        
PNC Bank x        
MetLife Bank x        
Wells Fargo Bank x        
Aurora Bank   x      
EverBank   x      
EverBank Financial Corp   x      
IMB HoldCo LLC   x      
OneWest Bank   x      
Sovereign Bank   x      
MERSCORP and MERS x x x x x
LPS Default and DocX x x x x  
SunTrust     x    
Ally Bank / Ally Financial / Residential Capital / GMAC Mortgage     x x  

County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents

County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The news release from Massachusetts speaks for itself:  County Recorders Surprised to Find Acknowledgements Cannot be Relied Upon.

New release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 Salem, MA

June 7th, 2011

Contact:

Kevin Harvey, 1st Assistant Register

978-542-1724

[email protected]

Jeff Thigpen, Register of Deeds

336-451-5300

[email protected]

Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brien is first in the nation to say no to recording robo-signed documents; North Carolina Register of Deeds, Jeff Thigpen agrees. Continue reading “County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents”

L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS

L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics and Research Director for the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri-Kansas City posted an article on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com) that I somehow missed.  The MERS design was woven in fraud.  Professor Wray points out the two main issues with MERS.  The first is that most foreclosures are illegal because those doing the foreclosing do not have legal standing.  Second the practices that create the foreclosure problems also mean that the mortgage backed securities are actually unsecured debt.  Professor Wray says that this means the banks must take them back, so they are toast.  He also states that it all comes back to MERS business model: it destroyed the chain of title.

Continue reading “L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS”

Oregon Does it to MERS Again

Oregon Does it to MERS Again

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Once again MERS is hammered, this time in Federal District Court by the Honorable Owen M. Panner.  This judge understands clearly what is going on and has some serious questions.  Read this case to understand securitization and foreclosures.  Here are some highlights (there are many others):

Should the beneficiary choose to initiate non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, the Act’s recording requirements mandate the recording of any assignments of the beneficial interest in the trust deed.

Nobody held a gun to the head of the servicers and required them to use non-judicial foreclosure.  They have the right to choose which action they wish to use – non-judicial or judicial.  The problem in this case (and almost all other cases), is that the servicers are making the wrong choices.  Why?  Money, what else?.  It is not their concern that they don’t qualify to use non-judicial foreclosures.  It is not their concern that they have to strictly comply with statutes.  In 90% or more of all cases the homeowners are walking away so nobody will know anyway right?  Oops, now the titles have to be cleaned up because of the mess left behind by the servicers, which have all but destroyed the title records for foreclosed properties.  This means that in the future, somebody else will have to file a judicial lawsuit to clean up the title for a property because the servicer made the wrong choice and failed to strictly comply with non-judicial statutes.  By the way this problem is understated and far worse than anyone actually imagines or understands at this point.

Continue reading “Oregon Does it to MERS Again”

The Internal Revenue Service is Investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs

The Internal Revenue Service is investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Reuters has announced that “The Internal Revenue Service has launched a review of the tax-exempt status of a widely-held form of mortgage-backed securities called REMICs.”  This comes after many years of homeowners, lawyers and securitization experts having discussed the shenanigans of Wall Street.  The standard industry practice is that loans were never perfected into these REMICs, which required the loans as “qualified mortgages” to be in the REMIC within 90 days of the “startup day”, which corresponds with the trust “closing date”.  However, in nearly every case we have seen, the REMIC servicers are doing an assignment of the security instrument into the trust after the loan is in foreclosure in order that whoever is foreclosing has the right to foreclose.  Unfortunately once a loan is in default it is no longer a “qualified mortgage” under REMIC laws, not to mention that it is years past the REMIC “startup day”.  Nor as Judge Arthur Schack puts it in New York, why is the trustee accepting the conveyance of a non-performing loan into the trust?

Specifically the article says “These banks’ transgressions, confirmed in court decisions and through recent action by federal bank regulators, include the failure to formally transfer ownership of mortgages to the trusts that invested in them and the subsequent creation of fraudulent mortgage assignments and other false documents.”  Cease and Desist Consent Orders were just issued against Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank, Wells Fargo, Aurora Bank, EverBank, EverBank Financial Corporation, IMB HoldCo LLC, OneWest, Sovereign Bank, DocX, LPS Default and MERS.  Just wait until the Securities and Exchange Commission decides to investigate Sarbanes-Oxley legislation against the statements these entities have made under oath with what the bank regulators found actually happened with them. Continue reading “The Internal Revenue Service is Investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs”