CALIFORNIA Decisions Against MERS, NOT A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, NOT A FOREIGN BANK MAKING MORTGAGES!

From B.DaviesMd6605

MERS IS LOOSING BIG TIME. THEY ARE A SCAM PRODUCED TO CHEAT AMERICANS AND THOSE WHO WORK IN REAL ESTATE RECORDS FROM MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BY NOT DOING ASSIGNMENTS. THIS FACILITATED CORRUPTION AND PREDATORY LENDING BY BUILDERS, THEIR LENDERS, AND OTHERS., THIS NEEDS TO END, WE WILL MAKE SURE IT DOES. THOSE PREDATORY ATTORNEYS WHO KNOW THIS FRAUD WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THE DOJ IS INVESTIGATING AND THE END WILL COME.

Open Letter Jennifer Van Dyne DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY Trustee Administrator RAST 2007-A5

Where are the NOTES?

THE TRUSTEE OF A TRUST HOLDS THE ACTUAL RECORDS. THE HIDDEN TRANSFERS IS WHAT ALLOWS THESE PEOPLE TO DO ILLEGAL ACTS AND TRANSFERS.

OTS Consumer Complaint Form BANK REGULATORS

THE OCC IS THE BEST FOR THE DBNTC TRUSTS. This is a helpful way to get the masses to contact the regulators.

Letter for Meet and Confer with Attorney Masumi Patel regarding the loan file of the RAST 2007-A5 5-3-10

Extra Special Delivery…via Brian W. Davies

MERS Good Information Foreclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERS, VP MERS, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

Via: b.daviesmd6605

Included here is a short excerpt that discusses the way MERS allows nearly any member have MERS authority to sign documents. The article says that some states require the signor to be a VP of the actual member. Evidentially some states allow them to be an authorized signatory despite not being an employee. If any late assignments apply to you this is then a must read.

Lawsuit Tied to Loan Commitment: Siller v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION CA4/1

REVERSED : OVERTURNED

“Play it back and rewind”

Related Stories:

FORENSIC MORTGAGE AUDITS AS TOOLS TO SAVE FORECLOSURE HOMES

NO STANDING: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., APPELLANT, VS. SOUTHWEST HOMES OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

 

The Kansas appellate court noted that MERS received no funds and that the mortgage required the borrower to pay his monthly payments to the lender. just as in the case at hand, that the notice provisions of the mortgage “did not list MERS as an entity to contact upon default or foreclosure.” declaring that MERS did not have a “sort of substantial rights and interests” that had been found in a prior decision and noting that “a party with no beneficial interest is outside the realm of necessary parties,” the Kansas court concluded that “the failure to name and serve MERS as a defendant in a foreclosure action in which the lender of record has been served” was not such a fatal defect that the foreclosure judgment should be set aside. at 331, 192 P.3d at 181-82.

It is my opinion that the same holds true in the instant case. Here, Pulaski Mortgage, the lender for whom MERS served as nominee, was served in the foreclosure action. But, further, neither MERS’s holding of legal title, nor its status as nominee, demonstrates any interest that would have rendered it a necessary party pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 19(a).

For these reasons, I concur that the circuit court’s order should be affirmed.

IMBER and WILLS, JJ., join.