View Full Version : Could 62 Million Homes Be Foreclosure-Proof?

08-19-2010, 01:35 AM

What would be the ramifications of this to the country?

Mortgages bundled into securities were a favorite investment of speculators at the height of the financial bubble leading up to the crash of 2008. The securities changed hands frequently, and the companies profiting from mortgage payments were often not the same parties that negotiated the loans. At the heart of this disconnect was the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, a company that serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, allowing properties to change hands without the necessity of recording each transfer.

Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic shortcut makes it impossible for banks to establish their ownership of property titles-and therefore to foreclose on mortgaged properties. The logical result could be

08-19-2010, 09:10 AM
I saw that same article. The irony is overwhelming. The one thing I did not see is how to tell if your mortgage was affected by MERS? And another thing - if the bank can't get posession, how can the individual? I guess that falls back to the old adage about "possession is 9/10 ths of the law"?

Makes you wonder how long it will be before people who were not in arrears will try to use this tactic to get their home free and clear?

08-19-2010, 09:34 AM
Title insurance may become more expensive? Given time, tough knots may be untied.

08-19-2010, 10:56 PM
I was actually thinking more along the line of Freddie and Fannie being federally backed, regarding the CDO's.
But then I got to thinking, that the US wasn't just par for this course, because the housing bubble was not just located here, so it could actually
have world wide ramification.
And then I got to thinking about it a little deeper,
If the banks had no rights to foreclose because of not being able to prove they own the title, then were they actually entitled to the monthly mortgage payment paid every month, and if so then what for? If they couldn't prove an ownership of title, then how could they provide one to you if you paid your mortgage loan off?

08-20-2010, 06:03 AM
Congress or the President will act "For the good of the Bankers..oops I mean Country"

08-20-2010, 11:01 AM
I believe the US govt wants people to use that as an excuse to stay in their homes to keep foreclosure rates down.

However its a moral hazard for anyone who has paid his mortgage faithfully on time or anyone who rents. If he sees himself having to work to pay his mortgage/rent while others get a free ride encouraged by govt, what kind of message is that sending out.

08-20-2010, 09:22 PM
I believe it would be a parting of the red sea if it took off nationally.
The Banks have been using MER since the early 90's. Isn't that when CDO's first made the scene? If you bought your home say around 91-92 your mortgage is caught up in it to. No title held by the bank. Why should you pay on something that the bank can never legally make yours?
It doesn't make sense to me.
MER was made for the banks convenience, and how convenient is it that it was meant to hide so much.
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
In this case they fell upon their own.
If people sent their now freed up income in to pay off the National debt and to fund back industry into our country, we might actually crawl out of this mess.
No Banks, NO FED

08-20-2010, 09:43 PM
anyone know how to find out besides defaulting?

08-20-2010, 11:13 PM
Here is what I learned from my reading from tbrnews.org:


-snip -
How to Find out if You’ve got MERS on Your Mortgage!

There is only one way to find out if the MERS problem affects you and that is to go to your County courthouse and do a title search on your home. All it takes is a little time. You will have to pay for copies should you want them, but simply knowing is enough. I would say a title company or bank can do this, but the only information that counts is in the Courthouse records. I have seen instances, albeit rare, where the title company and bank information isn’t current with the latest at the Courthouse.

2.) And then, from Christopher Story (yes, he was the horizontalized, IMO, and as alleged, publisher of the contoversial worldreports.org

(for better understanding, pls read his lengthy report at)


As Appendix A to this analysis, we cite the case publicised last November when the Ohio Federal Court voided foreclosures demanded by Deutsche Bank, ruling that the de facto holders of the property in question ‘owe nothing’. This case shows that it is not yet quite accurate to assert, as many aggrieved and severely injured parties do these days (with good reason), that the Rule of Law in the United States has collapsed entirely (and we ourselves need to modify such statements to take account, at least, of the Ohio ruling in question against Deutsche Bank).

The basis for that ruling was as follows.

A borrower signs loan papers when a loan is made. A representative of the bank signs as well, but the ONLY capacity in which the bank’s representative signs is so as to certify that the borrower’s signature is valid and correct. Put another way, the representative of the bank does NOT append his signature in a mode or manner that creates a contract between the borrower and the bank. The reason that the bank’s representative does not sign in order to create a contract is that the bank is aware that it is not giving the borrower ANYTHING AT ALL.

When the borrower signs the documentation, what he or she is doing is creating a new negotiable piece of paper which, provided the bank or another party accepts it as such, can be converted into a LOAN. But it is a loan to the bank, not to the borrower.

The bank’s books will show the transaction as a credit, as banks are privileged institutions which enjoy the right to create money by monetising promissory notes. The bank then places the amount that THE BORROWER loaned to them via the loan document into the borrower’s account (deposit account), or else issues a certified check or some other payment method from the transaction book entry account. That process creates a debit on the bank’s books.

In other words, all of a sudden, the bank’s books are balanced, since the bank possesses a credit and a debit that suddenly match. But that process does not create a contract, which is what the court requires to be filed, in order to support any request for foreclosure PROVIDED A CONTRACT IS REQUESTED BY THE PERSON BEING FORECLOSED UPON, WHEN THE FORECLOSURE IS BEING CHALLENGED IN COURT.

The crucial point here is that when the person being foreclosed upon requests the contract when challenging the foreclosure in court, he or she will be able thereby to demonstrate to the court that the bank cannot provide any such document.

In the case cited in Appendix A, Deutsche Bank could not provide the contract because it did not possess a contract (see above). Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the foreclosure process.

So the message to all who are vexed by this fraudulent finance offensive is that no loan can be foreclosed upon without a contract to back it up: and no contract exists in these cases. However it is essential for the foreclosure to be challenged at the hearing and that the contract be requested. This is usually done in America by means of a motion lodged prior to the date of the hearing

The Court will (perhaps surprisingly to some) usually do the right thing if the right documents are placed before it by means of the proper procedure, as it has no choice in the matter. On the other hand, the Court does not have to answer a question that it is not asked to adjudicate upon or to take into consideration. This means that even if the Judge may be aware that no contract exists to back up the foreclosure, UNLESS THE REQUEST FOR THE CONTRACT IS MADE, the foreclosure will be granted. Therefore those concerned must always ensure that a motion challenging the foreclosure and requesting the contract MUST be lodged prior to the hearing.

In the report cited in the Appendix, the author implies, but does not actually state, that the reason the bank did not possess the contract was that the contract had been collectivised as the bank had been a purchaser of some of the packaged subprime derivatives. It can now be seen that these so-called mortgage-backed, collectivised, synthetic derivatives that have been sold around the world which are based on loans, have nothing to back them up and are therefore worthless.

08-20-2010, 11:21 PM
Without a title how would a bank sell a foreclosed house?
Suppose this has anything to do with banks sitting on foreclosures?

08-21-2010, 12:05 AM
That is the $64.00 question.

My two nieces fully paid for their property in Arkansas and Missouri, paying the balance in full.

The banks did not give them any title, just a certification that their mortgage is now fully paid.

Being given the run around about the title.

03-01-2011, 01:09 PM
All the rules have changed in the last couple of months. Lending banks are now being held accountable for the trap they set, borrowing money they didn't themselves have, while using loose and illegal practices in the process. The massive lawsuit against Wells Fargo / Wachovia, Indymac / OneWest bank, Citibank, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, GMAC..............can actually, not only put a stop to your foreclosure, but also pause your house payments with no loss to you............