Feb 3, 2010

ASK THE EXPERT:IS IT BETTER TO GO AGAINST THE GRAIN

WHAT IS WITH DEFENSES AND DEFEAT MERS. READ THE JUDGES COMMENTS, FROM JUDGE BOYKO TO JUDGE JUDY!

Okay, lets do it again. MERS is an accommodation to a post event recording. We used to call it a sub escrow.

The word nominee is a play on vernacular. A nominee is the holder of the "security" as in stock certificates. A nominee acts solely on behalf of the beneficial interest (in stock securities). But we know its all gibberish. Again they are a recording accommodation company.

So did they record the assignment, and did MERS endorse it, or does MERS have a beneficial interest. *S*T*O*P* If you or anyone else is facing foreclosure know this.

1) California waives the need to enforce an assignment. Note - But that pertains to a race to record.
2) Counter a lender possession complaint with an action. - Put a lis pendants on the property as a back up

WRONG! I have never gone against the grain for purposes of being always to the contrary of public opinion. The public is not listening to the message and some here will survive and the rest will walk away from their homes.

Don't fight MERS join them in an action. At least depose them and know what to ask. And don't file an action for lis pendants. Do the opposite and remove all clouds from title. That includes any unenforceable liens of records.

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com

For more expert witness information FIRST contact the publishers of this site or contact the webmaster for livinglies for more information. [Not an attorney and remember that only a lawyer can assist you in protecting your home and enforcing your rights]
Posted by Mortgage-Mess at 6:24 AM

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Google Analytics

Search This Blog

Loading...

Ask the Expert

TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE 1) the grantee herein was the foreclosing beneficiary. 2) The amount of the unpaid debt was..... $2,020,589.63 3) The amount paid by the grantee was ....$1,096,500.00 4) The documentary transfer tax is .......... $0 Item 1) states the parties bringing the foreclosure are in possession of the rights of a holder in due course and selling to themselves the property. We will show this not to be the case. Item 2) can they verify the balance and how the breakdown of interest and fees are distributed? It is likely the numbers do not add and constitute grounds to rescind the sale. Item 3) how can the lender, who sold the loan into a bulk pooled asset and for due consideration upon which it has lost its rights to the asset, bring a foreclosure? It cannot! Only by first repurchasing the asset is the party foreclosing in a position first. Loans sold that were securitized into a closed end fund for which many layers of stock certificates were issued is an indication foreclosure is an impossible proposition. What stands out to me most of all is a claim of bid rigging and manipulation of a trustees sale for which a borrowers right to tender is removed. Where the trustee’s deed transfers by credit bid, the tender of the full debt is not appropriate. Credit bids are distinguished from purchase money bids. California Civil Code 2924h (b) provides: (b) At the trustee’s sale the trustee shall have the right (1) to require every bidder to show evidence of the bidder’s ability to deposit with the trustee the full amount of his or her final bid in cash, a cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code Stay tuned