MERS alleged status as of October 18th, 2010 On July 21, 2010 MERS registered with the California Secretary of State. MERS registration in California is not retroactive until its complete for the following reasons: 1. As a result of MERS intentional failure from obtaining a certificate of qualification from the California Secretary of State as a Beneficiary, including filing returns and paying taxes, MERS is not allowed the right to defend a lawsuit when named as or defending its actions in a Beneficiary capacity, pursuant to California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 23301, 23301.6, 23304.1. A suspended corporation is not allowed to exercise the powers and privileges of a corporation in good standing, including the right to sue or defend a lawsuit while its taxes remain unpaid 2. MERS must first produce a Certificate of Relief from Voidability for the time prior to July 21, 2010, California Revenue & Tax Code 23305.1 and file with this Superior Court Clerk receipt of payment to the California Secretary of State for taxes and penalties, California Corporations Code 2203(c). UMML qualified to transact intrastate business, but failed to pay the necessary fees, penalties and taxes.
Both of which are based upon this case:
So beware and demand filing of receipts and that Certificat of Relief from Voidability! Source and for updates: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/home |
- Report: #653400
Complaint Review: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. - Internet
Reported By:
Fighting MERS in California -
Pleasanton, California, United States of America
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.
1818 Library Street, Suite 300 20190 Internet, United States of America
Phone:
800 646-6377
Web:
www.mersinc.org
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS List of MERS Fatal Flaws in California Internet
List of MERS Fatal Flaws in California
The First Fatal Flaw - MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, voiding the Deed of Trust.
Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note. MERS consistently claims to be only "Holding the Note" as a Nominee for the original lender, never owning the Note.Why MERS doesn't have ownership of the Note:
- MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don't own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.
- Each time the Note is sold, an assignment of the Deed of Trust must be recorded with the County Recorders Office.
- A Nominee in California cannot own the Note,
Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, ***.- The original lender never indorses or assigns the Note to MERS
See Cal Com. Code 3109,3201,3203,****.- MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a "Note-Owner"
MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below- MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes,
MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached below
Deed of Trust is void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:
- MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below
- Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
RICKIE WALKER, CASE NO. 10-21656-E-11, 5/20/2010 U. S. BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CA, see attached below
Therefore, MERS definition of "Holding the Note" is not the legal equivalent of "Owning the Note";California Civil Code section 2924 only applies if MERS owned the note.
The Second Fatal Flaw - MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.
When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.
Under California Law the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code 3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes 3201, 3203, 3204. see attached Rickie Walker Order.
Therefore, any attempt to collect by other than the original lender may be impossible without a legal chain of title, because MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title.
MERS Defense Flaw - MERS may not have standing in court for actions prior to July 21, 2010
