Back in April, we mentioned the The Mortgage Netherworld of MERS — the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.
MERS is the firm that (technically) holds 60 million US (securitized) mortgages on behalf of the actual buyers. They were created by a consortium of lenders in part to save money (on paperwork and recording fees) every time a loan changes owners. In the era of securitization, these savings amounted to billions of dollars.
But MERS also acts as a shield, making it all but impossible for many borrowers to deal directly with whoever happens to be holding their mortgage at the moment. As the NYT noted, it has “made life maddeningly difficult for some troubled homeowners.”
Now, the Kansas Court of Appeals has called foul. In Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834, the Kansas Court held that a nominee company called MERS has no right or standing to bring an action for foreclosure. (Other than GlobalResearch.ca, I have yet to see any MSM coverage of the issue). The Court stated that MERS’ relationship is not that of a true party possessing all the rights given a buyer. Hence, the court ruled:
“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.” (emphasis added).
What does this mean for the 60 million people — over half of all US mortgages — whose loans have been securitized, sliced and diced, and are now held by MERS?
To start, it potentially gives a powerful weapon to homeowners who are being foreclosed upon. If their mortgage is held by MERS, they certainly have a strong basis for challenging the action on the grounds of standing. (Note that this was a Kansas COURT OF APPEALS decision, and while it is not binding on other states the way a US Supreme court ruling would be, it is likely to be influential). I also think the Kansas Court of Appeals could also review this case
I don’t quite agree with Ellen Brown, who in an extensive legal analysis of the decision, writes: “The significance of the holding is that if MERS has no standing to foreclose, then nobody has standing to foreclose.” It may be possible for trustees for the securitized loans to somehow perfect standing, i.e., develop the ability to claim loan ownership (perhaps via a purchase) and then move to foreclose. (Brown also calls it a Kansas Supreme Court decision, but it appears to be the intermediate 3 judge panel of the Court of Appeals that heard the case, not the full Kansas Supreme Court).
But Brown is correct when she states this is a very significant legal development, one that might dramatically impact foreclosure litigation.
This ruling could send the lenders who work with MERS scurrying to resolve this in their favor. Look for a lobbying effort to get some favored congresscritter to pass legislation granting them standing to sue on behalf of loan holders (Congress may be able legislate that legal right, although there are state laws to be contended with).
As foreclosures continue to ramp up, I expect a lot of rhetoric about why we need to stop them (I disagree) and modify mortgages (which have been mostly unsuccessful).
Last, you never know what someother state supreme court might rule. (Any lawyers out there know what is on upcoming dockets involving MERS ?)
Bottom line: It just got a lot harder to foreclose on homes with securitized mortgages in Kansas, and quite probably, the rest of the nation.
The Mortgage Netherworld (April 2009)
Landmark National Bank v. Kesler
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
September 12, 2008
Landmark Decision: Massive Relief for Homeowners and Trouble for the Banks
GlobalResearch.ca, September 23, 2009
Six Degrees of Separation
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.