Source: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/tag/mortgage-electronic-registration-systems-inc/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:16:06+00:00

Document:
Tag Archive | "MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC."
In 2012, when we think Wall Street we think: MF Global theft, JPM criminality, Goldman naked shorting, DTTC failures to deliver, precious metals manipulation, fractional reserve banking, Comex games, HFT trading and endless derivatives. But don’t forget about MERS and mortgage fraud – because according to Vermont Trotter, the National Director of ‘Protect Americas Dream’ it’s all tied together in one giant Ponzi scheme. The worst part is, the bank you pay for your mortgage probably does not even hold the title to your home. It’s a mess – and we are ALL victims.
Posted on 19 April 2012. Tags: foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.
Instead of putting a temporary halt on foreclosures, District Judge Rosemary Collyer, gives the banks 90 days to develop a plan to adhere to the new standards and 180 days to implement those plans. Until then, Americans losing their homes to foreclosure have little assurance that the seizures and sales are proper.
This might be equivalent of giving a burglar enough time to select & steal the high priced items in your home. Very well knowingly they are already inside. Unfreakingbelievable!
I suppose the title could have also been called Foreclosure Mills and The 4 Minute Foreclosure, in which I wrote briefly about back in 2010.
In a quiet office in downtown Charlotte, N.C., dozens of Wells Fargo’s foreclosure foot soldiers sit in cubicles cranking out documents the bank relies on to seize its share of the thousands of homes lost to foreclosure every week.
They stare at computer screens and prepare sworn affidavits that are used by lenders in courts across the country to seize homes. Paid $30,700 to start, these legal process specialists, the title that goes with the job, swear an oath under penalty of perjury that they’re corporate vice presidents. They’re peppered with e-mails from managers to meet daily quotas of at least 11 files day.
Posted on 18 April 2012. Tags: e-sign, enotes, esign, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.
04/18/12 — eSignSystems, a division of Wave Systems Corp. (NASDAQ: WAVX), announced today that Medallion Analytics has licensed and implemented the SmartSAFE electronic vault for use in its web-based mortgage audit and analytics solutions. SmartSAFE provides lifecycle management of electronically signed, legally-binding documents and records, meeting ESIGN and UETA compliance. The combination of Medallion and eSignSystems’ technology gives loan originators a break-through solution to automate the entire pre- and post-close loan origination audit and compliance process.
Medallion has also licensed the SigningRoom application from eSignSystems to simplify the entire eDelivery and eSigning process. Users can now electronically sign and “seal” electronic documents securely with user name and password, making it convenient for all parties to remotely access and electronically sign important documents related to closing a loan. In addition, Medallion has also incorporated eSignSystems’ SmartCLOSE, an optional module that extends the power of the SmartSAFE to include electronic integration to the MERS® eRegistry to register and track eNotes. MERS® is the industry-endorsed tracking tool for electronic mortgages.
Eva Friedman, JACOB FRANKFURTER, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, and “JOHN DOE”and “JANE DOE”, the last two names being fictitious, said parties intended being tenants or occupants, if any, having or claiming an interest in, or lien upon the premises described in the complaint, Defendants.
Upon the foregoing papers, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage in which plaintiff PNMAC Mortgage Co., LLC. (hereinafter “plaintiff”) alleges that defendants Eva Friedman and Jacob Frankfurter (hereinafter “defendants”) are in default as a result of their having failed to make the required payments since June 1, 2008. To the extent relevant, defendants executed a mortgage in favor of nonparty Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (hereinafter “MERS”) as nominee for American Brokers Conduit (hereinafter “ABC”) as security for a note in the principal sum of $440,000 given to fund their purchase of the premises known as 502 Weser Avenue on Staten Island (see Defendants’ Exhibit “C”). Both the mortgage and an “Interest First Adjustable Rate Note” (hereinafter “note”) in favor of ABC were executed on August 29, 2005 (id.).
It is undisputed that the above note was thereafter endorsed to nonparty Wells Fargo Bank, NA (hereinafter “Wells Fargo”). However, plaintiff contends that this endorsement “was erroneous”, and that the note in question either was never delivered or was returned to ABC (see Affirmation of Daniel H. Richland, Esq., para 10). Insofar as it appears, the note was subsequently endorsed “en [*2]blanc by allonge” and physically delivered to nonparty CitiMortgages, Inc. (id. at 11), which acquired ABC’s interest in the subject mortgage via assignment by MERS on behalf of ABC on January 27, 2009 (id. at 12; see Plaintiff’s Exhibit “B”). Following these transfers, MERS sought to foreclose on the subject mortgage, but its action was dismissed with prejudice, as it was the holder of neither the note or mortgage at the time the action was commenced.[FN1] The ensuing order of dismissal, entered on August 4, 2010, also directed the County Clerk to cancel the notice of pendency (see Plaintiff’s Exhibit “C”). CitiMortgage, Inc. subsequently assigned its rights under the above mortgage to plaintiff on March 15, 2011 (see Plaintiff’s Exhibit “B”), which commenced the instant foreclosure action on or about June 21, 2011 (see Defendants’ Exhibit “A”).
In a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, defendants maintain, inter alia, (1) that plaintiff lacks standing; (2) the action is barred under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata; and (3) the complaint fails to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a], , ). In addition, defendants seek an order directing the County Clerk to cancel the notice of pendency and to enter an order pursuant to CPLR 6514(a) declaring the mortgage to be unenforceable because “it has become bifurcated from the note”.
A prima facie case in foreclosure is established by the mortgagee’s production of the mortgage, the unpaid note and evidence of the mortgagor’s default. However, where, as here, a plaintiff’s standing has been placed in issue, it bears the initial burden of proving same before it is entitled to any relief (see Citimortgage, Inc. v. Stosel, 89 AD3d 887 [2nd Dept 2011]).
A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is the holder or assignee of both the mortgage and underlying note, “either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action” (id. at 888 [internal quotation marks omitted]). While the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident thereof (see US Bank NA v. Sharif, 89 AD3d 723, 725 [2nd Dept 2011), the reverse is not true, i.e., an assignment of the mortgage without the underlying note is a nullity (id., see Citimortgage, Inc. v. Stosel, 89 AD3d at 888).
In the instant case, plaintiff asserts its ownership of the note by claiming that the erroneous endorsement to nonparty Wells Fargo was properly voided when the endorser, ABC, subsequently added an “allonge endorsed en blanc” while in possession of the note (see Affirmation of Daniel H. Richland, Esq., paras 23-25).[FN2] The “allonge” submitted by plaintiff provides that “[t]his Note Allonge is attached to and made a part of the Note, for the purpose of Noteholder Endorsement to evidence a transfer of Interest”. It names “American Brokers Conduit” as the originator and is made payable to “to the Order of Without Recourse American Brokers Conduit by: Roger Kistler, Assistant Treasurer” (see Plaintiff’s Exhibit “A”). The document is undated, but must have been added after the erroneous endorsement to Wells Fargo. According to plaintiff, this endorsement was sufficient under Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) §3-208, which provides, in relevant part, that “[w]here an instrument is returned to or reacquired by a prior party he may cancel any indorsement which is not necessary to his title and reissue or further negotiate the instrument”.
Nevertheless, there is no proof in the papers presently before the Court as to when the subject note was negotiated or transferred to plaintiff. As a result of this failure to establish that it was the [*3]lawful holder of both the note (whether by delivery or assignment) and mortgage prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiff has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating its standing to commence this foreclosure action (see US Bank NA v. Sharif, 89 AD3d at 725; Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co v. Barnett, 88 AD3d 636, 637-638 [2nd Dept 2011]). Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
So, too, is that branch of defendants’ motion seeking to cancel the notice of pendency. In this regard, since the matter does not appear to involve issues of faulty service of a summons, bad faith, or any of the other grounds enumerated in CPLR 6514(a), (b) (see generally Lessard Architectural Group, Inc., PC v. X & Y Dev Group, LLC, 88 AD3d 768 [2nd Dept 2011]; Deans v. Sorid, 56 AD3d 417 [2nd Dept 2008]), the notice of pendency will be cancelled in the exercise of the inherent power of the Court (see generally Ewart v. Ewart, 78 AD3d 992 [2nd Dept 2010]; Coleman v. Coker, 66 AD3d 812 [2nd Dept 2009]); Congel v. Malfitano, 61 AD3d 807 [2nd Dept 2009]).
The action being dismissed for lack of standing, there is no occasion for the Court to consider any further issue.
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to cancel the Notice of Pendency filed in connection herewith and mark his records accordingly.
Footnote 1:See Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as Nominee for American Brokers Conduit v. Eva Friedman, Jacob Frankfurther, et al., Index No. 131345/2009.
favor based on fraud and pla111tiffs lack of standing is denied.
allegedly defaulted on their loan payments due on August I, 2009 and thereafter.
plaintiff became the servicing agent for their mortgage loan.
withdrew her modification request one day prior.
Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 926 NYS2d 532 [2d Dept 2011]).
Illv. Co., Illc. v Jacksoll, 38 AD3d 704, 834 NYS2d 198 [2d Dcpt 2007]).
supra). Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is denied.
modification transaction (see Airel’ll v Shepherd, 89 AD3d 1046,933 NYS2d 597 [2d Dept 2011]) .
cross-motion for summary Judgment are denied.
The US Federal Reserve has issued a punishing court order to Morgan Stanley, as it prepares to fine the bank over the use of automated ‘robo signing’ of documents relating to foreclosures for struggling US mortgage payers. It ordered the bank to make significant process, data and systems improvements.
The issue relates to a troubled electronic mortgage registry created by a range of the largest banks, which is allegedly plagued with errors. Those that have brought claims against the banks have said access to the database was deliberately restricted by the banks, and that mortgage foreclosures were often based on incorrect data entered by the banks as they rushed to offload the loans.
The court order issued this week concerns the Saxon business, which Morgan Stanley has sold to mortgage servicing group Ocwen Financial. The Fed said Morgan Stanley retained responsibility for the impact of Saxon’s actions. Saxon had issued over 225,000 residential mortgage loans.
Robo-signing typically involves employees of mortgage servicing companies automatically signing off foreclosure papers without checking them, in the interests of fast processing the papers.
He’s at again – and we’re glad. A lot of smart people are dedicating their lives to fighting the corrosive effect of Wall Street on our economy and our democracy, but the best spokesman for that cause comes from Wall Street itself.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is still the poster child for today’s morally degraded, self-entitled banker mentality. I don’t know why he keeps talking, but he’s the gift that keeps on giving.
At every major junction in the post-crisis debate about banking, Dimon has stepped in with a perfectly tactless remark that illustrates both the vacuity and the moral corruption of his industry. This week was no exception.
Plaintiff Nancy O. Robertson (“Robertson”), acting in her official capacity as probate judge of Barbour County, Alabama, and on behalf of all probate judges in the State, brought suit in state court against defendants MERSCORP, Inc. (“MERSCORP”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), claiming that the defendants failed to record certain assignments of interests in mortgages. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, the defendants removed this case to federal court on a diversity-of-citizenship ground. Robertson moves to remand to state court because the defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction has been met in this case. For the reasons that follow, Robertson’s remand motion will be granted.
Where, as here, a defendant seeks to remove a case on a diversity-jurisdiction ground and the damages have not been specified by the plaintiff, the removing defendant “must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement.” Leonard v. Enterprise Rent A Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). “A removing defendant bears the burden of proving proper federal jurisdiction.” Id. The court may not “speculate in an attempt to make up for the notice’s failings.” Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1215 (11th Cir. 2007).
“MERS is a private electronic database, operated by MERSCORP, Inc., that tracks the transfer of the `beneficial interest’ in home loans, as well as any changes in loan servicers. After a borrower takes out a home loan, the original lender may sell all or a portion of its beneficial interest in the loan and change loan servicers. The owner of the beneficial interest is entitled to repayment of the loan. For simplicity, we will refer to the owner of the beneficial interest as the `lender.’ The servicer of the loan collects payments from the borrower, sends payments to the lender, and handles administrative aspects of the loan. Many of the companies that participate in the mortgage industry—by originating loans, buying or investing in the beneficial interest in loans, or servicing loans—are members of MERS and pay a fee to use the tracking system.
“When a borrower takes out a home loan, the borrower executes two documents in favor of the lender: (1) a promissory note to repay the loan, and (2) a deed of trust, or mortgage, that transfers legal title in the property as collateral to secure the loan in the event of default. State laws require the lender to record the deed in the county in which the property is located. Any subsequent sale or assignment of the deed must be recorded in the county records, as well.
“This recording process became cumbersome to the mortgage industry, particularly as the trading of loans increased. It has become common for original lenders to bundle the beneficial interest in individual loans and sell them to investors as mortgage-backed securities, which may themselves be traded. MERS was designed to avoid the need to record multiple transfers of the deed by serving as the nominal record holder of the deed on behalf of the original lender and any subsequent lender.
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
In her role as probate judge of Barbour County, Robertson is responsible for compiling and maintaining an accurate index of grantors and grantees of interests in real estate. Robertson also collects fees for the assignment and recording of mortgages.
Robertson alleges that the MERS system illegally circumvents Alabama’s recording statutes for interests in real estate. Robertson seeks an accurate accounting and index of all transfers in real estate involving the MERS system for the past ten years, an injunction ordering the defendants to comply with Alabama’s recording statutes, and reimbursement for any fees that should have been paid.
The defendants posit two theories of potential liability that they believe push the amount-in-controversy above the $75,000 threshold. They are uncertain which theory Robertson intends to pursue in this litigation, but base these theories on a reading of the complaint. As the defendants have the burden of establishing this court’s jurisdiction, the court focuses on these two theories to ascertain whether removal jurisdiction is proper.
First, the defendants put forward a Note Transfer Theory: any sale or transfer of notes constitutes an assignment of mortgages that must be recorded under Alabama law. According to the defendants, approximately 3,475 mortgages naming MERS as mortgagee of record were recorded in Barbour County for the past ten years, the relevant time period in Robertson’s complaint. The defendants argue that these mortgages were transferred at least 2,693 times. The Barbour County Probate Court charges a $16.50 fee to record the first page of an assignment and $2.50 for each additional page. Assuming that each assignment is one page, the defendants would owe $44,434.50 in recording fees for the past ten years.
Acknowledging that this figure falls short of the jurisdictional threshold, the defendants extrapolate the cost of recording fees ten years into the future. They presume that the number of note transfers would be the same, thereby reaching an amount-in-controversy of $88,869.
This methodology, however, ignores that the past ten years witnessed an unprecedented housing boom followed by the worst recession since the 1930s. It is simply unrealistic to assume that the number of note transfers in the next ten years would mirror the past decade. The defendants have put forward no evidence to back up their assumption about a constant rate of note transfers over the next ten years. This court cannot speculate as to future-note-transfer rates. Lowery, 483 F.3d at 1215 (“The absence of factual allegations pertinent to the existence of jurisdiction is dispositive and, in such absence, the existence of jurisdiction should not be divined by looking to the stars.”). Because the Note Transfer Theory cannot surmount the amount-in-controversy requirement without resort to hypothetical future costs, the defendants have failed to meet their burden.
The defendants’ alternative theory of liability is the False Mortgage Theory: the listing of MERS as the mortgagee of record is a false designation and concealment. Under this theory, MERS would have to re-record approximately 3,475 mortgages in Barbour County to update the mortgagee of record. According to the defendants, a standard mortgage is 15 pages long and the Barbour County Probate Court charges $16.50 for the first page and $2.50 for each additional page. The total cost to re-record these mortgages would be approximately $178,962.50.
While this figure is above the amount-in-controversy threshold, Robertson expressly disavows any reliance on the False Mortgage Theory. Rather, Robertson claims that the “mortgage, as recorded, does not conceal the real parties in interest.” Robertson’s Reply Brief (Doc. No. 18) at 9. Robertson’s complaint concerns actions taken after the mortgage is recorded, “when the security interest is bought and sold under cover of the Defendants’ operation.” Id. Robertson seeks an accounting of the interests in real estate, not an invalidation and re-recording of mortgages. Given Robertson’s representations to this court, the defendants would not be liable for $178,962.50 under the False Mortgage Theory.
Finally, in their notice of removal, the defendants comment that the costs incurred by them to provide an accurate index would be substantial. They provide no monetary estimate of these costs, however. But even if the defendants were to calculate this figure, “the costs borne by the defendant in complying with the injunction are irrelevant” because “the value of an injunction for amount in controversy purposes must be measured by what the plaintiff stands to gain.” Morrison v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1268 n.9 (11th Cir. 2000).
To the extent that there is any uncertainty as to the theory of liability in this litigation, “uncertainties are resolved in favor of remand.” Burns v. Windsor Insurance Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). The defendants, therefore, have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing the amount in controversy.
Accordingly, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that plaintiff Nancy O. Robertson’s motion to remand (Doc. No. 12) is granted and that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama for want of jurisdiction.
It is further ORDERED that all other pending motions are left for resolution by the state court after remand.
The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate steps to effect the remand.
DONE, this the 2nd day of April, 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1447