60 million mortgage effected-court ruling

60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/21/2009 9:41:25 PM)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/landmark-decision-promise_b_292333.html MUST!! lolol. what a can of worms. /excerpt-> By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt ... Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust. /snip. LOL Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/landmark-dec

DomKen -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/22/2009 12:35:35 AM)
That should put an end to almost all foreclosures in Kansas. If other states follow suit it could become a real mess.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/22/2009 1:20:51 AM)
That's crazy stuff. Essentially, it is saying, if I'm reading it correct, if you have a mortgage and it says MERS as the holder, they essentially can't foreclose, ever, if the Kansas interpretation holds, which it read like it should. Thus, if this takes off, the banks are toast for writing bad contracts and liable. In other words complete unstoppable banking collapse. If my interpretation is correct and the article is correct. I will have to watch this. I'm not familiar with that stuff, I've never even had a mortgage through a bank, only through personal loans.

hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/22/2009 5:15:18 AM)
Don't count on that actually being backed up in court, when the mortgage companies, banks, and such are just as likely to deliberately falsify evidence in order to get a forclosure to go through - and when the courts, and the majority of lawyers, are frequently less informed than the people fighting the multi-million dollar coporates. Don't believe that's the case? Then you likely haven't been following what's going on with UN.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/22/2009 5:55:39 AM)
It was the Kansas Supreme Court

DomKen -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/22/2009 8:21:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou That's crazy stuff. Essentially, it is saying, if I'm reading it correct, if you have a mortgage and it says MERS as the holder, they essentially can't foreclose, ever, if the Kansas interpretation holds, which it read like it should. Thus, if this takes off, the banks are toast for writing bad contracts and liable. In other words complete unstoppable banking collapse. If my interpretation is correct and the article is correct. I will have to watch this. I'm not familiar with that stuff, I've never even had a mortgage through a bank, only through personal loans. Basically the Kansas SC ruled that MERS, since it isn't actually the note holder, cannot foreclose on properties. It is possible that someone could acquire full legal ownership of the note and seek foreclosure but at this point in Kansas MERS is no longer going to be able to show up with documentation saying they securitized the loan and have standing to foreclose. Some banks could be on the hook for billions in loans that they securitized but its unclear if the security holders would have standing to try and require the banks to repay them.

pahunkboy -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/22/2009 8:26:36 AM)
The notes as a asset were sold like hamburgers. I sell one burger to John- and I sell the same burger to Jane- and I sell the same 100% of the same burger, at the same time- to Jack. So 3 people expect 100% of the same hamburger each "owns" it- but has no knowledge that others own the same "asset" at the same time. See? So 3 people show up at my door to claim their burger. Lets suppose I paid- John his money in lew of the burger. Well- that leaves Jane and Jack who could still show up and demand payment. This sloppiness happened because they did not bother to title the lien properly- so- suppose you never had a title to your car- it may or may not be your car. So when a question came up- what the registrar says is the party who is considered the owner. But this is not possible when the title is not recorded with the county. (properly)

NeedToUseYou -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/22/2009 12:35:42 PM)
I think I understand. Essentially MERS acts as a broker for Mortgages, except it never changes the title to the mortgage when internally traded, and lists itself as the contact. Once in MERS, it is traded, maybe several times, but doesn't register the changes the old fashioned legal way. It then acts like it owns the Mortgage when time to foreclose, even though it has no actual ownership thereof, and since the Mortgages disappear behind the trading wall of MERS, there is no way without refering to MERS as the record holder of importance, to determine ownership. If that is correct, I think the Kansas Supreme Court decision is the only valid view. As they failed to legally register the transfers, and instead appear to be trying to circumvent the traditional methods of determining ownership. It seems to be the same thing as buying and trading a Car and failing to register the title change with the state, and acting up in arms when the court doesn't recognize your internal systems accounting of ownership. edited because didn't even notice PA used virtually the same example, before I did. I'm reading it the same way essentially. quote: This sloppiness happened because they did not bother to title the lien properly- so- suppose you never had a title to your car- it may or may not be your car. So when a question came up- what the registrar says is the party who is considered the owner. But this is not possible when the title is not recorded with the county. (properly)

pahunkboy -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/22/2009 1:52:32 PM)
--some house flips did not allow enough time - suppose 6 weeks to process all the papers. Just like they chopped up and securitized the note- they also sold the same item more then once - at the very same time. If we did this- it would be fraud. But somehow when they did it - that was legal.

cloudboy -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/23/2009 8:36:17 PM)
That is some jaw dropping stuff.

MrRodgers -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/24/2009 10:19:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/landmark-decision-promise_b_292333.html MUST!! lolol. what a can of worms. /excerpt-> By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt ... Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust. /snip. LOL Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/landmark-dec I have been in the business for 18 years and my experience has always been that the deed is collateral ownership for the note with the property being the guarantee. Without the deed a mortgage becomes a personal or 'signature' loan only and I have never ever seen the two separated as this hypothetical suggests. There never is any...'event.' There is no mortgage without a deed of trust.

pahunkboy -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/24/2009 10:37:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/landmark-decision-promise_b_292333.html MUST!! lolol. what a can of worms. /excerpt-> By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt ... Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust. /snip. LOL Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/landmark-dec I have been in the business for 18 years and my experience has always been that the deed is collateral ownership for the note with the property being the guarantee. Without the deed a mortgage becomes a personal or 'signature' loan only and I have never ever seen the two separated as this hypothetical suggests. There never is any...'event.' There is no mortgage without a deed of trust. That is how it is suppose to be. I don't know how widespread that it is. But I have heard that in some cases the lien was not properly registered at the courthouse.

kiyari -> RE: 60 million mortgage effected-court ruling (9/25/2009 6:46:42 PM)
If one lends and gains a lien against real property collateral, it needs to be recorded. No matter if the date of said investment would be prior to others, the 'date' in terms of being a 'secured' creditor, comes from the date of filing.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125