MERS in California

2 Aug

From LivingLies:
I think that everyone is missing the #1 problem MERS has in CA.
MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent and cannot legally assign the Promissory Note, making any foreclosure by other than the original lender wrongful, for the following reasons.
1) Under established and binding Ca law, a Nominee can’t assign the Note. Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528
2) On most Notes, the term Nominee is not included and MERS never takes ownership, making it unenforceable and unassignable by MERS.
Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648
3) Ca Civil Code §2924, et seq. is exhaustive and a Nominee is never included as an acceptable form of “authorized agent” in a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure.
Finally, GOMES V. COUNTRYYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, IS FLAWED!
a) The Gomes case simply failed to address and apply the established and binding definition of a nominee.
b) The first thing the Deed of Trust does is (i) take away MERS right to payments and (ii) take away the right to enforce the Note.
c) REGARDLESS WHAT A BORROWER AGREES TO, a borrower cannot legally grant MERS the right to assign the note or any of the rights of the note owner.
________________________________________
MERS Fatal Flaws
MERS cannot legally assign a Promissory Note because, MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent under Established and Binding California Real Property Law and the borrower can't provide that power to MERS.
First, a Nominee is someone who is nominated potentially for a future position. Much like being nominated for President, yet a Presidential Nominee doesn't receive any powers until the person actually becomes President.
Second, in the Deed of Trust MERS is identified “Solely as a Nominee” and as the Beneficiary. Which is logically and legally impossible, because a party can only be either the nominated Beneficiary or the Beneficiary. You can’t “not be” and “be” the beneficiary at the same time.
Third, Ca Civil Code §2924, et seq. is exhaustive and a Nominee is never included as an acceptable form of "authorized agent" in a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure.
Fourth, MERS acts "Solely as a Nominee" for lenders, and under Established California Law a “Nominee” is a "Non-Authorized" form of agent, which fails to comply with California Civil Code §§ 2924 through 2924k, as a nominee inherently lacks the right to enforce or assign, the Note or real property ownership rights, per the following case.
“In Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438., Cisco could not enforce the land sale contract because he was not a party to it, the court, at pages 583-584, said: "The word 'nominee' in its commonly accepted meaning connotes the delegation of authority to the nominee in a representative or nominal capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in or ownership of the rights of the person nominating him."
Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528], see file below
Fifth, in addition to MERS’ inherit lack of authority, MERS is not a party to the Note and the Note fails to use the words, for example “ Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB or Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB Nominee”.
“The purpose of the document in question here was to offer an obligation to Harold L. Shaw alone and not to his nominee or any other person whomsoever.”
Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648], see file below
Finally, GOMES V. COUNTRYYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, IS FLAWED!
a) The Gomes case simply failed to address and apply the established and binding definition of a nominee.
b) The first thing the Deed of Trust does is (i) take away MERS right to payments and (ii) take away the right to enforce the Note.
c) REGARDLESS WHAT A BORROWER AGREES TO, a “Borrower” cannot legally grant MERS the right to assign the note or any of the rights of the note owner.
“It is no defense to deceit that false statement was made pursuant to some statutory scheme such as statutory procedures for trustee’s sale (§ 2924 et seq.).” Block v. Tobin (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 119 Cal.Rptr. 288, 45 Cal.App.3d 214.

“It is true, as Defendants repeatedly assert, that California Civil Code § 2924, et seq. authorizes non-judicial foreclosure in this state. It is not the case, however, that the availability of a non-judicial foreclosure process somehow exempts lenders, trustees, beneficiaries, servicers, and the numerous other (sometimes ephemeral) entities involved in dealing with Plaintiffs from following the law.” Sacchi vs. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. US Central District Court of California CV 11-1658 AHM (CWx), June 24, 2011
Therefore, without an endorsement on the Note and an assignment directly from the original lender, assignments by MERS; the substitution of the Trustee; and trustee sale are unlawful and void.

“The assignment of the lien without a transfer of the debt was a nullity in law.” (Polhemus v. Trainer, 30 Cal. 685; Peters v. Jamestown Box Co., 5 Cal. 334; Hyde v. Mangan, 88 Cal. 319;
Jones on Pledges, secs. 418, 419; Van Ewan v. Stanchfield, 13 Minn. 75.)
“A lien is not assignable unless by the express language of the statute.”
(Jones on Liens, sec. 982; Wingard v. Banning, 39 Cal. 343; Ruggles v. Walker, 34 Vt. 468; Wing v. Griffin, 1 Smith, E.D. 162; Holly v. Hungerford, 8 Pick. 73; Daubigny v. Duval, 5 Tenn. 604.)
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, DAVIS, BELAU & CO. V. NATIONAL SUR. CO., 139 CAL 223, 224 (1903)

“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”
CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872), U.S. Supreme Court
“California courts have repeatedly allowed parties to pursue additional remedies for misconduct arising out of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale when not inconsistent with the policies behind the statutes”
California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1053,1070
“(2) Whenever a court becomes aware that a contract is illegal, it has a duty to refrain from entertaining an action to enforce the contract. (3) Furthermore the court will not permit the parties to maintain an action to settle or compromise a claim based on an illegal contract”
Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc., 201 Cal.App.3d 832 (1988)

On April 11th, 2011,
The Honorable Judge Margaret M. Mann made very clear the following,
based upon California Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme court cases:
• Assignments must be recorded before the foreclosure sale
• Recorded assignments are necessary despite MERS’ role
• MERS’s system is not an alternative to statutory foreclosure law
Bankruptcy No: 10-17456-MM13 re: Eleazar Salazar,

see attached below Mann_order_salazar.pdf

2) Nothing under California Civil Code §§ 2924 through 2924k applies, unless there is a legal chain of title for the Deed of Trust with the Note from the original lender to MERS, and then to the foreclosing party.

The First Fatal Flaw – MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, Voiding the “Original” Deed of Trust.
Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note. MERS consistently claims to be only “Holding the Note” as a Nominee for the original lender, never “Owning the Note”.

Why MERS doesn’t have ownership of the Note:
1. There is no assignment or indorsement of the Note from the original lender to MERS.
2. The Deed of Trust is not a substitute for an Assignment or legal transfer of the Note from the Original lender to MERS.
“It is well established law in the Ninth Circuit that the assignment of a trust deed does not assign the underlying promissory note and right to be paid, and that the security interest is incident of the debt.” Rickie Walker case, see attached
3. MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don’t own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.
4. A Nominee in California cannot own the Note,
“The word “nominee” in its commonly accepted meaning, connotes the delegation of authority to the nominee in a representative or nominal capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in or ownership of the rights of the person nominating him.”
Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.
5. In California, a Note payable to the original lender is not a bearer instrument, the original lender must indorse or assign the Note to MERS.
See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204. and Rickie Walker case Order, and P&A pg6 attached below
6. MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a “Note-Owner”
MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below
7. MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes,
MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached below
8. Finally, Moeller v. Lien and CCC § 2924 DOES NOT “EXPRESSLY” EXCLUDE
OR SUPERCEDE CA Comercial Code § 3301, OR ANY OTHER CA LAWS!
In the case of California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1053, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 153, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 850 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008), the Appellate Court held that the remedies of 2924h were not exclusive.
9. U.S. Supreme Court decision, Carpenter v. Longan (Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 [1873])):
“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. Case law in virtually every state follows Carpenter.”

Deed of Trust is also void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:
1. MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below
2. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
RICKIE WALKER CASE, see attached below
Therefore, MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”;
California Civil Code section 2924 for foreclosure only applies if MERS owned the note.

The Second Fatal Flaw – MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.
When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.

Under California Law the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code §3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes §§3201, 3203, 3204.
see attached Rickie Walker Order.

“MERS Basics “Registration vs. Recording. (PPT Slide)
o MERS is not a system of legal record nor a replacement for the public land records.
o Mortgages must be recorded in the county land records.
o MERS is a tracking system. No interests are transferred on the MERS® System, only tracked.”,
MERS Southeast Legal Seminar – MERS Basics slide 7,
see attached below. or http://www.mersinc.org/files/filedownload.aspx?id=63&table=DownloadFile

“A mortgage note holder can sell a mortgage note to another in what has become a gigantic secondary market. . . . For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were bifurcated.”
MERSCORP President and CEO, R.K. Arnold, Yes, There is Life on MERS, Prob.& Prop., Aug. 1997, at p.16, see attached below

Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Taylor, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain:
“Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.” (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted).

This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated:
“It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.” (Emphasis added).

In Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1226, 1231 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 900 P.2d 601], the California Supreme Court concluded that:
“ ‘the antideficiency laws were not intended to immunize wrongdoers from the consequences of their fraudulent acts’ ” and that, if the court applies a proper measure of damages, “ ‘fraud suits do not frustrate the antideficiency policies because there should be no double recovery for the beneficiary.’ ” (Id. at p. 1238.)
Great Article source: http://www.exclusiveforeclosures.net/real-estate-foreclosures/doan-on-%E2%80%9Cproduce-the-note%E2%80%9D/

Therefore, any attempt to collect by other than the original lender may be impossible without a legal chain of title, because MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title.

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/

________________________________________
MERS Defense Flaw
Legal Disclaimer: All information contained on this website is alleged and general in nature, and should not be construed as legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. It was not written by an attorney and should only be reviewed by an attorney.

MERS alleged status as of November 18th, 2010

PROTECTION FROM VOIDABILITY IS ONLY PROVIDED FOR THE YEARS TAXES ARE PAID.

On July 21, 2010 MERS registered with the California Secretary of State.
MERS registration was necessary, and not retroactive for the following reasons:
1. MERS needed to register with the State of California, because MERS is Not a Foreign Lending Institution nor claims to be, therefore California Corporate Code § 191(d) does not exempt MERS from California Corporate Code §2105.
“the court cannot conclude that MERS falls within any of the five enumerated examples of “foreign lending institutions,” and the court declines to address sua sponte whether MERS otherwise satisfies subsection (d).”. . . “the enforcement of any loans by trustee’s sale, judicial process or deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. . .” “Accordingly, section 191(c)(7) does not exempt MERS’s activity.”
CHAMPLAIE v. BAC, No. 2:09-cv-01316-LKK-DAD (E.D.Cal. 10-22-2009) pg23,24, attached below
As a result of MERS intentional failure from obtaining a certificate of qualification from the California Secretary of State as a “Beneficiary”, including filing returns and paying taxes, MERS is not allowed the right to defend a lawsuit when named as or defending its actions in a “Beneficiary” capacity, pursuant to California Revenue & Taxation Code Section §§ 23301, 23301.6, 23304.1.
“A suspended corporation is not allowed to exercise the powers and privileges of a corporation in good standing, including the right to sue or defend a lawsuit while its taxes remain unpaid”
PERFORMANCE PLASTERING v. RICHMOND AM. HOMES, 153 Cal.App.4th 659 (2007) 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 537
2. MERS must first produce a Certificate of Relief from Voidability for the time prior to July 21, 2010, California Revenue & Tax Code 23305.1 and file with this Superior Court Clerk receipt of payment to the California Secretary of State for taxes and penalties, California Corporations Code §2203(c).
“UMML qualified to transact intrastate business, but failed to pay the necessary fees, penalties and taxes.
The trial court correctly dismissed the complaint without prejudice.”
United Medical Management Ltd. v. Gatto, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1732 – Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate
“we will dismiss a nonqualified foreign corporation’s appeal if we determine the nonqualified foreign corporation transacted
intrastate business in California.9 (Corp. Code, §§ 2105, 2203.) We believe this approach advances the policies of preventing tax evasion through the even-handed administration of the tax laws, while encouraging qualification of foreign corporations by prohibiting a delinquent corporation from enjoying the privileges of a going concern.”

“9 Pursuant to Corporations Code § 2203, subdivision (c), and as recognized in United Medical, supra, and Mediterranean Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, a nonqualified foreign corporation is prohibited from maintaining an action in state court only until it complies with Corporations Code section 2105, pays to the Secretary of State a penalty of $250 and the fees for filing the required statement, and files with the court clerk receipts substantiating payment of such fees and franchise taxes and any other business taxes. Since the tax liability will be the issue presented to us, we will allow a nonqualified foreign corporation to maintain an action before us if it presents evidence substantiating it has qualified with the Secretary of State and paid the $250 penalty pursuant to Corporations Code section 2203, subdivision (c).”
In the Matter of the Appeal of Reitman Atlantic Corporation, 2001-SBE-002-A, See attached below

3. MERS will very likely cite one of these two cases:
United Medical Management Ltd. v. Gatto 49 Cal.App.4th 1732 (1996),
or Perlas v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Systems, Inc., 2010 WL 3079262 * 7, an unpublished case as of 10/18/2010
Both of which are based upon this case:
“A nonqualified corporation subject to a misdemeanor prosecution and on conviction to a heavy fine for doing business without complying with the law, is permitted to qualify, be restored to full legal competency and have its prior transactions given full effect.” (Tucker v. Cave Springs Min. Corp. (1934) 139 Cal. App. 213, 217 [33 P.2d 871].
So demand MERS filing of receipts and that Certificate of Relief from Voidability!
191 CHAMPLAIE_v_BAC_HOME_LOANS_SERVICING_LP_E_D_Cal_10-22-2009
atto, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1732 – Cal_ Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 5th Div. 1996 – Google Scholar
bellistri-v-ocwen

Joseph Born v. Koop
mann-order_salazar
MERS RULES(June2009)
MERS Southeast Legal Seminar (11.10.04) final

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE – NE Supreme Court

Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association
Perlas v. MERS
R.K. Arnold, MERS Admits Bifurcation
Reitman Atlantic Corporation BOE
Reitman Atlantic Corporation BOE
Rickie_Walker_P_and_A
RickieWalkerOrder

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 689 other followers

%d bloggers like this: