Yet Another Judge Clues In to Foreclosure Fraud

Common Dreams has a blogpost up that is worth a read, if only for all the useful links. It points out that MERS registration may have fatally flawed the 62 million mortgages in its data base.

Remember a year ago when I asked if Mortgage Fractionalizations and MERS registration might invalidate mortgages? That was in response to a Kansas court ruling that said that MERS did not have standing to be the plaintiff in foreclosure.

Now, a recent Calfornia bankruptcy court ruling In Re: Rickie Walker, Case no. 10-21656 – E – 11, declares that

Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.

The court then goes on to hold that the assignee, Citibank has failed to establish the right to payments. MERS can’t foreclose, Citibank can’t collect. They brought this all on themselves.

I half wonder if that judge reads us here at FDL because the decision is based on the same cases we have been telling you guys about as they developed. Anyway, go read the Common Dreams and click through the links which take you to blogs by other lawyers, all seeing the same things we have been seeing.

Pups, our view of the law is gaining traction.

[Earlier posts in this series and related links at FDL’s Foreclosure Fraud Resources]

Comments are closed.