From HW:
The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of a case brought against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems by a California man, the Court announced Tuesday.
Gomes v. Countrywide is the first major MERS case filed with the Supreme Court, according to Jose Gomes’ attorney, Ehud Gersten. The case centered on the issue of whether MERS had a right to foreclose on the homeowner without proving it had the noteholder’s authority to foreclose.
Gersten, a San Diego lawyer, filed the appeal with the nation’s highest court on Aug. 15 after California’s Supreme Court declined review of the Fourth Appellate District Court’s decision in favor of MERS.
That decision upheld the right of MERS to the home’s deed of trust, giving the company the right to foreclose.
The denied appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court wasn’t a surprise considering the low percentage of cases heard, Gersten said.
“It’s a very frustrating result and a disappointing result that the Supreme Court didn’t pick it up,” Gersten said. “It would’ve been a nice opportunity for the Supreme Court to put the issue of MERS to rest.”
An Arizona federal judge dismissed 72 lawsuits against MERS earlier this month. U.S. District Judge James Teilborg wrote in his decision that there was no legal support that MERS’s system “is so inherently defective so as to render every MERS deed of trust completely unenforceable and unassignable.”
Bank of America will likely now finish the foreclosure process on Gomes’ home, Gersten said. The process started in March 2009.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The plantiff lives in San Marcos – here is his foreclosure record: Jose Gomes
It looks like the loan in question was his original purchase loan from KB Home Mortgage, when he paid $466,500 and used a $135,200 down payment. He refinanced out most of his initial investment, then it looks like he stopped paying on both loans towards the end of 2008.
It sounds like three years of free rent isn’t enough, he wants a free house too!
This was sent in by email, I’ll address it below:
Your snotty comment on Gomes v Countrywide is inappropriate. The banks and MERS have been playing very fast and loose with the law for years, ignoring legal requirements for foreclosure. For example, false declarations, sometimes claiming the bank is the owner of the mortgage, sometimes claiming MERS is the owner, failing to record changes of rights and ownership in mortgages (thus obscuring the situation, making it impossible to figure out real mortgage ownership, and cheating counties out of recording fees).
In many cases MERS does not have either title or the right to foreclose. Unfortunately the courts have been extremely protective of the banks and MERS.
It may be that Gomes was getting “free rent” for several years. However, had the banks and MERS been obeying the law, he would have been out of the house years ago.
Does MERS cause the homeowner damages? If the homeowner has been wronged, then they should hire an attorney and sue to make it right. MERS undoubtably makes mistakes, and they should be corrected.
But these guys are trying to get a free house on a technicality – that isn’t right.
I have a MERS mortgage, and they have never bothered me. They cash the check every month, they’ve never lost a check, they don’t call me to offer other junk or upsells, and they don’t ask me to send them 100 different checks to distribute to the actual investors – they do that for me.
I don’t think I have been paying extra taxes either to expand the county recorder’s office to handle the millions of assignments that you want filed – they keep it all nice and tidy in their black box.
I wouldn’t want to be an investor of MERS mortgages, because I wouldn’t sleep at night. But from the customer’s perspective, they aren’t wronging me.
Should they pay county recorder fees? Probably, and the next round of settlements might include a little something for the counties, which the banks will pay from their reserves they socked away with TARP funds so the taxpayers get stuck again in the end.
I don’t mind snotty, just don’t call me smug – I’m trying to be anti-smug these days. And don’t call me shorty either, I hate shorty.
Jim:
Hat off for your to the point reply.
Respectfully,
George
“…playing very fast and loose with the law for years, ignoring legal requirements…”
Well, of course the homeowner (if he can be called that!), can just ignore the requirements — but the banks must play by the rules.
What has the society/culture come to?????…everyone wants a free ride.
Jim, your points were right on target!!!