Does the controversy that’s surrounding MERS and the foreclosure process signal a death knell for the firm or is it much ado about nothing?
In an article here last week a New York State Appellate Court decision was discussed which held that the foreclosing entity needs to be in possession of both the mortgage and the note in order to have the proper “standing” to foreclose. This is an excerpt:
“… Finally, the recent New York State Appellate Court ruling upholds the idea that the entity foreclosing needs to be in possession of both the mortgage and the note! Because MERS was a mortgage registry and not a holder of the note, in essence this ruling says that MERS cannot assign the right to foreclose because it was never in the possession of the note – Strike Three?
Said the judge in the case: “… This matter involves the enforcement of the rules that govern real property and whether such rules should be bent to accommodate a system that has taken on a life of its own…”
While this ruling appears to be extremely detrimental to the operations and longevity of MERS, at HousingWire there is an article that offers a different view.
It provides the opinions attorney’s who feel that while MERS is down it is definitely not out. This view stems partially from the fact that there are so many different courts around the country coming to different conclusions concerning the legality of foreclosures that MERS is involved in.
While the fix won’t be quick, cheap or easy, they feel that MERS will ultimately survive.
It is an extremely informative article at HousingWire you can find here.
For email or feed delivery of new articles published by The Hallmark Abstract Sentinel the sign-up forms are below:
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner