tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449116309625060278.post8883513418445545856..comments2023-08-12T21:49:49.776-04:00Comments on Washington Outside: Does the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS") Legally Work?Norman Carletonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15579375601892383189noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4449116309625060278.post-60532992257082559392010-11-05T02:11:43.008-04:002010-11-05T02:11:43.008-04:00MERS Fatal Flaws in California
The First Fatal Fl...MERS Fatal Flaws in California<br />The First Fatal Flaw - MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, Voiding the Deed of Trust.<br />Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note. <br /><br />Why MERS doesn't have ownership of the Note:<br /> 1. MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don't own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.<br /> 2. A Nominee in California cannot own the Note, Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.<br /> 3. In California, the Note is not Bearer paper, the original lender must indorse or assign the Note to MERS See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204. and Rickie Walker case attached below<br /> 4. MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a "Note-Owner" MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below<br /> 5. MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes, MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached below<br /><br />Deed of Trust is void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:<br /> 1. MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below<br /> 2. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent. RICKIE WALKER CASE, see attached below<br />Therefore, MERS definition of "Holding the Note" is not the legal equivalent of "Owning the Note";<br /> California Civil Code section 2924 for foreclosure only applies if MERS owned the note.<br /><br /><br />The Second Fatal Flaw - MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.<br />When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.<br /><br /><br />For a full list of MERS flaws in Ca go to: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/MERS-Fatal-FlawsMERS Fatal Flaws in CAhttps://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/noreply@blogger.com