May 11, 2011

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

PLAINTIFFS USING DATA OBTAINED FROM LIVINGLIES/LUMINAQ

SEE LIVINGLIES/LUMINAQ COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s really very simple. The securitizers on Wall Street decided that MERS had the least amount of assets so it was a remote vehicle that would not kick back to them if the foreclosures exploded. After all, they didn’t own the loans, MERS certainly didn’t own the loans and even disclaimed publicly its interest or claim to any liability, note or mortgage as part of its marketing campaign. So they had MERS file tens of thousands of foreclosures and guess what? Everything went through smooth as a baby’s behind — until now.

The plaintiff’s are saying they were damaged by MERS and they were, for sure. They are claiming $100 million in damages because MERS didn’t have any right to FORECLOSE, WAS NOT A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, AND WAS NEVER A CREDITOR, THE HOLDER OF ANY DOCUMENTS NOR DID IT EVER HANDLE OR ACCOUNT FOR ANY MONEY IN ANY TRANSACTION.

Of course damages would be mitigated IF the court simply did the right thing after the proof was admitted into evidence — tell the Plaintiffs that they still own the property and that while they maybe entitled to lots of money in compensatory and maybe punitive damages, they still have legal title to the property and without any encumbrance. Yes, a “free” house if you can call it free after being forcibly evicted from your home over a loan that was already paid off.

Merscorp Electronic Mortgage Registry Is Sued Over Michigan Foreclosures

By Margaret Cronin Fisk – May 10, 2011

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. “illegally prosecuted” non-judicial foreclosures in Michigan and owes more than $100 million to people who lost their homes, lawyers for three homeowners said in a lawsuit.

The homeowners said Merscorp Inc.’s MERS, which runs an electronic registry of mortgages, used Michigan’s so-called foreclosure by advertisement process illegally and “misappropriated” their homes. Any foreclosures by MERS using this process in Michigan should be voided, they said in their complaint filed in federal court in Detroit.

Michigan is one of 27 states where banks don’t have to get a court’s permission to seize a property, meaning homeowners have to bring their own lawsuit to halt a foreclosure. Michigan law lets mortgage lenders or servicers foreclose after advertising a default in a newspaper for four consecutive weeks.

MERS “lacked the authority to foreclose by advertisement” because it didn’t own or have any interest in the underlying debt and “was not the servicing agent of the mortgage,” Maryla Depauw and Sharon and Terrance Lafrance, the homeowners said, in their complaint filed yesterday. MERS “knowingly, fraudulently and illegally” foreclosed on homes for years using a law it “had no authority or right to utilize,” they claim.

MERS is required to take foreclosures to court, their lawyers said, citing an April 21 decision by Michigan’s Court of Appeals. The decision, which voided two property seizures, said state law requires a foreclosing party to own the legal title to the debt.

Janis Smith, a Merscorp spokeswoman, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment today.

Servicing, Ownership

Merscorp’s MERS tracks servicing rights and ownership interests in mortgage loans on its electronic registry, allowing banks to buy and sell the loans without having to record the transfer with a county.

Depauw and the Lafrances filed their suit as a class action, seeking to represent all other Michigan property owners “whose property was illegally foreclosed upon by MERS.” They’re asking for more than $100 million in actual damages on multiple counts including fraud and wrongful foreclosure, as well as more than $300 million in punitive damages.

Depauw, who lives in Oakland County, Michigan, and the Defrances, who live in St. Clair County, said their homes were illegally foreclosed on and sold at sheriff’s sales.

The suit is Depauw v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., 2:11-cv-12032, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit).

To contact the reporter on this story: Margaret Cronin Fisk in Detroit at mcfisk@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net