9th CIRCUIT AFFIRMS MERS WITH INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO DEFEAT FORECLOSURE
Posted on September 8, 2011 by Neil Garfield
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
HOW CERVANTES COULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED THE OTHER WAY
SIGNIFICANT QUOTES FROM CERVANTES CASE, 9TH CIRCUIT:
- “In the event of a default on the loan, the lender may initiate foreclosure in its own name, or may appoint a trustee to initiate foreclosure on the lender’s behalf. However, to have the legal power to foreclose, the trustee must have authority to act as the holder, or agent of the holder, of both the deed and the note together. See Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158, 167 (Kan. 2009).” 16985
- “The deed and note must be held together because the holder of the note is only entitled to repayment, and does not have the right under the deed to use the property as a means of satisfying repayment.” 16986
- “the holder of the deed alone does not have a right to repayment and, thus, does not have an interest in foreclosing on the property to satisfy repayment” 16986
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Federal) has issued a decision in Cervantes that will no doubt be cited by pretender lenders all across the country. BUT, if you read the decision carefully, you can see that there were errors in pleading perceived by the Court. Correcting those errors might change the result completely.Beth Findsen, Esq., one of the foremost scholars and legal writers of the country believes that the decision points the way to a successful action against the use of MERS. “There is some helpful language among the detritus here,” she said. “The legality of MERS’ role as a beneficiary may be at issue where MERS initiates foreclosure in its own name, or where the plaintiffs allege a violation of state recording and foreclosure statutes based on the designation. Para. 7″. The obvious point here is that if MERS is the forecloser or if the homeowner alleges that the designation of MERS violates state recording statutes or alleges a violation of state foreclosure statutes, the analysis would clearly be different.She points out that the Court thought it important to state that “The plaintiffs’ allegations do not call into question whether the trustees were agents of the lenders. Para. 8″. This is an important signal from the Court of Appeals. They see the point. If the Trustees were agents of the putative lenders, then the analysis would also be different. How? Because if the trustees were agents of the pretender lenders who initiated the foreclosure, it would obviously mean two things: (a) the trustees did not qualify as trustees because they were not serving in the capacity designed by the legislature to protect borrowers and (b) the more direct point would be that the implication would clearly point to the fact that the pretender lenders are forming entities for the purpose of designating themselves as trustees (through nominees — there is that word again).Findsen also points out that the Court seemed to think it was important that”The plaintiffs have not alleged violations of Arizona recording and foreclosure statutes related to the purported splitting of the notes and deeds. Para. 8.” Here again. The Court is signalling us as to where to go with this. See the briefs and filings of Ron Ryan and Beth Findsen in connection with this issue. It relates to the UCC Article 3 and Article 9 which requires the OWNER of the obligation to be the one claiming the right to foreclose, not some holder or other agent. Lawyers have shied away from the Splitting the note and mortgage” under the simplistic notion that the general rule is that the note follows the mortgage and vica versa. It doesn’t actually work that way and the appellate court here is telling us just that. What is clearly happening is that the pretenders are foreclosing on the mortgage without (a) perfecting the lien in the first place and (b) without even asserting that any money is due them from the borrower. There are virtually no decisions anywhere that support such a notion.To have the legal power to foreclose, Findsen says, the trustee must have authority to act as the holder, or agent of the holder, of both the deed and the note together. She’s right and the 9th Circuit says she is right. The deed and note must be held together because the holder of the note is only entitled repayment, and does not have the right under the deed to use the property as a means of satisfying repayment. Conversely, the holder of the deed alone does not have a right to repayment and, thus, does not have an interest in foreclosing on the property to satisfy repayment.EDITOR’S NOTE: The only other thing I would point out is that we may be missing the forest for the trees. Why do we assume the original mortgage represents a perfected lien? We know that the money came from an undisclosed creditor, we know that the creditor was not named or even described, and we know that the creditor was given a bond with many more terms than the note itself.If you want a satisfaction of mortgage, you need to get it from the party who is the one to whom the money is owed — not some self-appointed agent. And if the self-appointed agent is claiming agency rights, then they must show the documents supporting that contention AND the facts to show that the documents were followed with respect to the conditions and restrictions for transfer of the loans. We already know that wasn’t done, and so we know that the claim of agency cannot be true. Thus the placeholder at the closing of the loan was merely that and no more. It can’t claim agency and it wasn’t the lender. Somebody explain to me how that could result in a perfected lien!
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | 9TH CIRCUIT, bankruptcy, borrower, cervantes,countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures,fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, MERS, MERSCORP, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA,securitization, splitting note and mortgage, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
11 Responses
His response was basically, ‘I don’t have to talk to you, I represent the beneficiary who has both the note and an interest secured in your home’. Or something similar.
Well by his statement he was not the holder. The Lender went away without assigning the Deed of Trust, so it would make it very difficult for him to be the agent of the holder.
Most trustees only had copies.