Posted on 05/02/2011 1:35:54 PM PDT by Kartographer
Groves requested relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as well as “other and further relief to which [she] may be justly entitled.” The trial court’s judgment does not indicate that it granted her request to “quiet title” exclusively under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Accordingly, no error appears on the face of this record. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30; Alexander, 134 S.W.3d at 848.
We overrule MERS’s first issue.
.....
Groves alleged in her petition that MERS’s deed of trust “purported to create a lien for security purposes on Plaintiff’s property as described.” This alleged lien constitutes an adverse interest to Groves’s title, which, if enforced, would interfere with her enjoyment of the property. See id. Therefore, a justiciable controversy existed, and the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184; Mauro, 386 S.W.2d at 826–27.
We overrule MERS’s second issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.org ...
PING!!
Might help if this was written in English.
I followed the link and here is an excerpt from a poster there named Mannfm11:
“MERS is a total screw up by the banks. It has no standing to convey title. contrary to what the banks allege. It has shown absolutely no standing of ownership in any paper it holds. There is no evidence that it ever paid a dime at closing to own the deed. It has shown no evidence it received any payment since the mortgage was in force. It does not at this time own any interest in the mortgages it holds, thus has no power of assignment to foreclose.”
It means that MERS, the phony system that claims to have title to deeds of mortgages across this country, in fact maybe most mortgages since 2000, does not have the legal standing to foreclose on a home.
They don’t have the right to foreclose, by their own admission. They claim to be only a “nominee” for the mortgage, and not the party to whom the debt is owed.
That’s the first requirement to being able to foreclose: Does the borrower owe YOU money?
In the case of MERS, no, the borrower does not owe them money. MERS isn’t the collecting agent of the payments, either, so there was no transfer of responsibility to perfect or collect collateral to MERS from the lender either.
MERS has said this, on the record, in multiple cases in multiple states now. Why they’d persist in trying to bring a foreclosure action in some states after admitting in other states that they have no power to do so baffles me.
Thank you for the clarification.
So, in your opinion, does this recent court loss for MERS mean?
I try to keep up with all of this, but I am not a lawyer, or even in real estate. Thanks.
I must admit that the thought of these huge banks suing each other for the next couple of decades has a certain charm. Too bad that lawyers by the busload will be enriched.
MERS = Clouded Title
Inability to convey clear title is the issue because of the flawed legal existence of MERS. They knew from the beginning that the very essence of the arrangement was not legal, but proceeded anyway.
How far will this go?? No human knows.
Basically, this was an appeals court rejecting an appeal by MERS to a case they lost.
The case originally started as Groves bringing a case saying that the deed of trust on her property was invalid and she asked the court to grant a quiet title to her property. The county records showed she owned the property, and the deed of trust under which MERS asserted an interest in the property that interfered with Groves’ title. Groves argued that the deed of trust was invalid and had no force in the law.
MERS lost the case, in part because they didn’t show up in court, and the court granted her a quiet title.
MERS then files this restricted appeal, because they didn’t participate in the trial court case, and the appeals court issued this finding that the trial court was correct in their judgement.
MERS and whatever lender they were acting as “nominee” for on this property are SOL. Groves now has the property free and clear.
ping
It means that in Texas, I think that MERS (and mortgage lenders) will need to re-think the whole “nominee” thing. In other words, bankers might want to go back to handling mortgages the old-fashioned way, where they have to record their deeds of trust at the county clerks’ offices and they have to record all transfers and assignments of mortgages likewise.
It is another chip out of MERS’ ability to exist. If they cannot put MERS on the deed of trust or title to property and subsequently enforce any interest for the bankers who used MERS, then MERS is useless for the purposes of perfecting collateral in the property.
I’m not a lawyer either, but these property law cases are fascinating to read.
In this one, the arrogance of MERS came back to bite them in the buttocks... good and hard.
Thank you. Excellent deployment of the English language.
It's an excellent blend of color and substance that obliterates MERS, Domestic Savings bank, Credit Northeast, Countrywide, BAC, and FNMA.
It's like a "legal IED"...the defendants will fold and settle. This is bigger than Ibanez.
$nip>
"Further, the relief sought by the Plaintiff has been characterized as "sweeping" and based upon an unconnected series of arguments about MERS that appear to be based upon complaints available on the internet and not on the facts of their loan.
The Defendants' gratuitous comments are well noted but erroneous in all regards. The relief sought by the Plaintiff was set forth clearly in his complaint. The arguments relative to MERS are all well supported and documented by case law, law review articles and other scholarly articles that seem to be published on a daily basis. The fact that the internet is used as a platform from which to download these documents is freely admitted.
For MERS, a company that operates an electronic secret mortgage society, it seems ironic that it would be concerned about the use of the internet to obtain information about its actual nature and purpose."
$nip>
“I must admit that the thought of these huge banks suing each other for the next couple of decades has a certain charm. Too bad that lawyers by the busload will be enriched.”
Yeah, but it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
” Too bad that lawyers by the busload will be enriched “
If we could get enough lawyers on enough buses, we might be able to do something ;-)
The greater issue is MERS' lack of standing to assign anything - it holds nothing, is an empty box. That's where the courts are heading - MERS' creation was/is/and always will be a huge FUBAR for the mortgage industry.
Interesting, thanks!
The greater issue is MERS’ lack of standing to assign anything - it holds nothing, is an empty box. That’s where the courts are heading - MERS’ creation was/is/and always will be a huge FUBAR for the mortgage industry.
*******************************************************
WF generally did not rely on MERS but had their own copycat system for recording and documenting that bypassed the public record system... since they serviced vertically integrated companies they may have some legitimacy to their assignments and such... Time for the courts to strike down any system that isn’t publicly accessible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.