Karl, you're a monster reading & absorbing all this stuff.

The AZ situation brings new levels of stenchiness to an already fetid situation. These lawmakers were given quid pro quo ~~50% mortgage principal reductions, it couldn't be any more blatant.

This stinks to high heaven.

There's a good Mandelman article on Hawaii foreclosure bill too. Link below. Also, Arkansas has passed recent foreclosure legislation. Ohio Supremes are deciding on a landmark case (could go either way). Bet the bankster/MERS lobbyist-mofo's are frantic & shoveling cash out by the truckload.

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/05/....

http://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/01/ohio....

and the news just keeps getting better and better...95% of Countrywide/85% of GMAC rated as JUNK! (well, we already knew THAT, right?)

http://4closurefraud.org/2011/05/02/thri....

How are the bankster trash going to quash all of this?

"She alleged that she owns a certain tract of land subject to a lien secured by a deed of trust “accepted and recorded” by MERS."

But she wants the deed of trust invalidated? Which it appears they did. What does this mean? That she HAD a mortgage on this property, but now owns it free and clear? Not because it was paid off, but because MERS **uck**ed up the paperwork?

It appears that way Bill.

You know, there's this old saying: "ripped up the contract." Well, it kinda means what you think it does.

This is in Texas too. There probably isn't a state in the union where there is more settled property rights cases. The rights of ownership in oil and gas follow the same laws as the right of ownership of the surface. There were literally no Federal public lands in the state, thus the majority of these issues have been settled according to established law.

This is big here, because no state save maybe California grew faster than Texas during the boom. DFW has added 1.5 million people since the boom started in the early 1990's. You would be hard pressed to name 5 states that added that many people and most of the rest of the state added people as well. There is a huge supply of MERS held mortgages here.

The banks are sitting on a huge pile of delinquent loans here. I saw this fact in a posted comprehensive report on housing about a month ago. I don't have the link, but whereas most of the property eligible for foreclosure in Florida has been foreclosed, less than 20% of the property in Texas has been. This could force the issue, especially, if the lawyers get hold of this ruling. I would venture the banks have been slow here because there wasn't a massive price bubble and they are waiting out the market.

MERS is a total screw up by the banks. It has no standing to convey title. contrary to what the banks allege. It has shown absolutely no standing of ownership in any paper it holds. There is no evidence that it ever paid a dime at closing to own the deed. It has shown no evidence it received any payment since the mortgage was in force. It does not at this time own any interest in the mortgages it holds, thus has no power of assignment to foreclose. It might make sense, if upon closing and receipt of the deed, it immediately conveyed title to property through assignment to the new owner of the paper, another trust, but I doubt it. As it stands, the trust that holds the paper at this time would have to show equitable ownership in MERS, something that cannot be proven. It has done nothing to prove ownership that would come from the very covenants of the note or deed of trust itself. It is not the trustee, the person that actually holds title in trust.

Being that MERS paid no compensation for the deed of trust, conveyance to MERS could only be deemed a gift. There were no gift taxes paid and for that matter, because MERS received no compensation for the sale of the mortgages, it has no valuable consideration received. There is nothing timely to show that it actually owned, conveyed or received payment for what it proposes to own. It clearly has no standing in court.

http://www.sourceoftitle.com/blog_node.a....

"According to Dave Krieger, author of "Clouded Titles", Genpact is headquarted in the Bahamas and apparently operates in India.Yes, India. In addition to the most egregious insult to most egregious injury, some fear this is an effort at spoilation. It will also likely serve to add yet another layer and another party to legally 'haggle' with, in efforts to get at the truth of MERS' 'records'. What is going on here? This private 'record-keeping' wasn't and isn't brutal enough? Now it's leaving our shores? As Patrick Henry said, "Forbid it, Almighty God!"

So the burger-king robo signers here botched the job and MERS thinks outsourcing to India will produce a better result?

bill I read it more like ms groves doesn't want to owe money to wrong creditors. That is the crux of the dilemma with mers. Who is legally owed the money? Imagine paying the creditor and the real steps up. Do you pay them too? I'd want the lien struck too if in that situation. That has the potential to destroy on financially and personally.

Karl, I read the judgement but remain a tad fuzzy. Does this case indeed separate the note from the deed of trust - meaning the woman's mortgage is now effectively an unsecured loan? If that is the case and we assume the loan was securitized, WTF protects the investors? It would seem to me there will be a daisy-chain of litigation to work this through. If I were an investor, I would sue the servicer for failing to protect the trust's interest in the assets underlying the bonds. The servicer should then sue MERS for failure to deliver the collateral to the trust. In the end, the lawyers get rich, MERS blows up, MBS fall in value, and the servicing banks get scalped. To be honest, I expect an effort at a political fix. It would be billed as "necessary to keep the American Dream alive," just like TARP. Only, the American people have figured out that the American Dream is code for the "banksters wet-dream" and they have had enough of it. Let the games begin!

I suspect that she still owes the debt. It appears to be no longer secured by the property, meaning the debt is unsecured.

My assumption would be the security interest has been stripped - the debt is thus unsecured.

Since this was a decision on appeal, does that set precedent for other States?
If so, is it only in the Fourteenth Circuit?

Sorry if I'm dense, but realistically what is the benefit of quieting title if the debt remains? Won't the lender still sue if the property owner stops payment? Unless she declares bankruptcy, what did she gain through this?

They can sue, but they can't foreclose.

What's it change? Well, quite a bit. In some states you can't garnish wages either, and in others a primary residence is bankrupt-exempt.

I wonder if the debt remains exempt from cram-down in the event of a bankruptcy.

Cram-down definition
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cram....
Mortgages on primary residences are, by federal law, exempt from cram-down.

Karl - does the messages posted roll-over at 100,000?

LOL... no.

secured->unsecured->default->collections->pay it .50/dollar or less. Still have house, still have everything else, (except totally blown credit). Is that a possible outcome? Sort of a back-door cramdown? It may make the banks want to deal on the front side for principal reductions. (not that I like that, since I've been too financially responsible to "qualify")

The danger to MERS is that the STORY of this case is not kept "quiet".

Is it not likely that similar arguments are being made all over this country?

If I was a lawyer, I would certainly appreciate being able to cut and paste language from this case into my own arguments and thus make more affordable the cost of proving at least some (illegal) adverse interest could be deemed capable of interfering with the "enjoyment of the property" my client worked for years to pay for. It is unfair and unethical treatment to be squeezed by fast talking bully lawyers and bankers when life gets tough all of a sudden due to macroeconomic pressures.

The value added here is in simply establishing that this needs to be spread around ASAP and it could be effective. The perpetrators are assuming that bribery will quiet down the talk between people (lawyers included) enough that the bullies lose only a few of their cases before our govt rides to the rescue.

The internet can change this assumption into a false one. It goes way past an issue confined to individual cases. I hope the bill in Arizona gets introduced into the Senate again, and in every State as well, with this added evidence that the claimed "Hope" is far from "false"!

I may have found a competent, ethical attorney in Las Vegas to take my case, to either sue for quiet title, or fight foreclosure - I forwarded this case today, and expect to teleconference with them within 72 hours.

This is from a Texas attorney who took a look at the circuit court dockets after hearing about this case. He found several other similar cases pending. Here is his list.

Quote:

I searched the other appellate courts for cases involving MERS.
Houston's 1st dist has one pending - MERS v. Khyber Holdings, LLC
2nd (FW) has several - Karen Robeson v. MERS
MERS v. Mark DiSanti (transferred)
3rd (Austin) - MERS v. Patrick McMorrow and Gail McMorrow
7th (Amarillo) MERS v. DiSanti
14th (Houston) - the case you provided http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.u...p....

Hopefully this goes up to the State Court of Appeals to provide a statewide precedent. This is important as Texas is a non-judicial state and many unsupported foreclosure claims have been rushed through.

Still no answer here...
Does this coming from an appelate court set precedence, and, if so, is it just in that Circuit, or does it apply outside that circuit?