2009-04-24 — nytimes.com
"MERS, a tiny data-management company, claimed the right to foreclose, but would not explain how it came to possess the mortgage notes originally issued by banks. Judge Logan summoned a MERS lawyer to the Pinellas County courthouse and insisted that that fundamental question be answered before he permitted the drastic step of seizing someone’s home."
source article |
permalink |
discuss |
subscribe by:
|
RSS |
email 
Comments:
tvsterling at 20:36 2009-04-24 said:
This is a prime example of runaway revisions to the Uniform Commercial Code by the big guys. Who ever said that one party to a contract has no right to know who he is doing business with? One of the prime rules of common law is that the playing field between the big guy & the little guy will be leveled. This has been altered by the Supersuits into the rule of "My way or the highway". These inequities are ruining the country. This is what the attempt at credit card reform is all about too. I wish this judge well in his attempt to restore common law to the people. Permalinkkindandgentlejd at 21:48 2009-04-24 said:
I agree with tvsterling. I would add this, if you read the article, consider this statement: "MERS has considered making information about secondary ownership of mortgages available to borrowers, Mr. Arnold said, but he expressed doubts that it would be useful. Banks appoint a servicer to manage individual mortgages so “investors are not in the business of dealing with borrowers,†he said. “It seems like anything that bypasses the servicer is counterproductive,†he added. " Thats what this is truly about. It is counterproductive for the investors and lenders for consumers and their attorneys to have access to the true owner of the obligation for them to litigate or enforce their contractual rights. I am reminded of the case of Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 11/04/2002), which happens to be Countrywide. This borrower had rescinded within the 3 year period and notified Countrywide. However, the court ruled that Countrywide was merely the servicer and that the notice on them was not an effective rescission on the lender or assignee even though the consumer had no idea who the lender was. So, in effect, they have created a "freedom zone" in which they "claimed" MERS is a convenient and cost effective method to handle assignments (I agree a worthy method to do so, if that was all they did) but they have also protected themselves from legal liablity or make it so expensenive for consumers to exercise their rights they have in effect "foreclosed" the consumers from exercising their consumer rights. In my opinion, that is very very wrong. Permalinkadd a comment | go to forum thread
Note: Comments may take a few minutes to show up on this page. If you go to the forum thread, however, you can see them immediately.