The Kansas Court of Appeals has issued a decision that is both stunning in its own right, but also demonstrates the trend in courts all over this nation which spells HUGE changes in the real estate and mortgage landscape. Realtors and banksters take note:
In a long and thoughtful decision in the case of Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kessler the Kansas Court of Appeals has held that MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) does not have standing to bring foreclosure actions on behalf of the owners of mortgage notes archived in its system.
Some background:
In the good old days, the legislatures of the various states set up a system for recording mortgages, usually in the County Clerk’s Office. Anyone wishing to know what obligations were imposed upon the real estate, like for instance a title search company, could go to the County Clerk’s Office and look up the block and lot number of the property and know who owned what, who owed what and to whom and whether there were any liens or mortgages on the property and who had what priority.
If you took out a mortgage from bank A, and A later resold your mortgage to refinance company B, well B would go to the County Clerk’s Office and record the transfer of the mortgage. Are you following me so far? B would also receive the original signature copy-the one where you wrote your name in blue ink-of the mortgage paperwork. In order to foreclose, the mortgagee/creditor is supposed to present the original documents in court as one way of proving that it is the true party to whom the debt is own and for whom the mortgage trust (the interest in the real estate) exists.
There are filing fees and costs to have a person go down to the County Clerk’s Office to record the mortgage transfer.
Some "genius" got the bright idea of forming a private entity to circumvent the government filing system; and "poof" MERS was born.
Banks pay a fee to "join" MERS. They then send all their mortgage records or at least their mortgage record information (MERS is very secretive about just how they do what they do) to MERS. MERS is supposed to keep track of the information about each mortgage. Then the mortgage gets split. The Promissory Note, that is the right to receive payments from the borrower, gets either sold or farmed out to a servicer who is paid "fees" to collect the payments and do other administrative tasks like manage any payments for taxes and the like out of escrow funds.
The mortgage deed or mortgage trust, that is the legal interest in the real estate that would normally give a lender the right to foreclose in the event of non-payment-may be sold to someone else. The payments themselves are "securitized" that is bundled with other mortgages and sold as Credit Backed Securities, which we now know as Wall Street Toxic Assets.
Up until recently when a homeowner fell behind in the mortgage payments and the it came time to foreclose, the servicer – who owned no interest whatsoever in the real estate – would appear as plaintiff and the lawyer would fill out an affidavit saying that the actual, blue ink signature, original copy of the mortgage documents were lost, or destroyed, but that the court should waive that requirement because MERS can appear on behalf of the owner of the right to foreclose and certify that the owner is somewhere in the MERS system. The transfers are not recorded in the County Clerk’s Office and all you will see is the transfer to MERS, if that, but not any subsequent transfers within MERS.
In the beginning, homeowners did not realize and often stipulated to waive presentation of the original documents. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. Then a few wised up and found that their cases got postponed indefinitely. Not a "win" but at least they still had a roof over their heads for the time being.
Then banks got the bright idea of saying that MERS was the agent for the true owner. The Kansas decision says that won’t fly either.
BUT, now for the good part:
The court opined that
Indeed, an assignment of a mortgage without the debt transfers nothing. 55 Am. Jur. 2d, Mortgages § 1002. Thus, the mortgagee, who must have an interest in the debt, is the lender in a typical home mortgage.
Understand the possible implications of this. If other states take the same approach as Kansas, that means the splitting of the debt from the mortgage note effectively cancels the "mortgage interest" that is the power over the real property and converts the debt to a simple unsecured personal debt just on a promissory note. Which means they couldn’t take your house in foreclosure, though they can sue you personally on the debt, just like any other unsecured creditor can. I am assuming, without going to deep into it today, that as a personal debt, it may be dischargeable in bankruptcy. But we will have to wait for a few test cases to prove this.
What this also means is, that in the meantime, if you are trying to buy a house, you have to find out if your seller has a mortgage that may have been repackaged and lodged in MERS because you will have no way of knowing – since your title company cannot tell who actually might own the mortgage interest in your real estate if all the County Clerk’s records say is "MERS".
This makes for a scary time for title insurers, I’m guessing.
There will be more on this case, I’m sure, it will just take some time to suss out all the ramifications.
Update: The NYTimes take on it.
[Earlier posts in this series and related links at Kouril's Foreclosure Fraud Resources]



51 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
This is earthshaking if other courts uphold the ruling. Could greatly reduce the number of foreclosures. Thanks Cynthia!
De ponzi the schemers!
Is there any chance that the toxic assets became even more toxic because some folks realized that a ruling like this was likely come down the pike? I realize that most of the toxicity came from the combination of a large number of defaults coupled with valuations plummeting, but it seems this ruling would take the securitized debt and take it the rest of the way to worthless from almost worthless. It’s basic logic to realize that once an individual mortgage is sliced to separate the mortgage trust from the payments, it becomes ambiguous just who has standing in a foreclosure.
Thanks for sharing this information.
I just sent Rep. Alan Grayson $25 via FDL’s Stand by Alan Grayson at ActBlue.
Please think about doing the same.
http://www.actblue.com/page/standbygrayson
If you need motivation, watch the clips of him call out the essence of the Republican health care reform proposal, which amounts to “if you get sick, die quickly,” and watch his moving apology today to all those who have died because they did not have health care coverage.
Excellent post Cynthia. It is interesting how uninterested banks seem to be in resolving the whole mortgage issues that are dragging down the economy. I guess that banks will now be asking what we’ve asked for some time but with a different meaning–”What’s the matter with Kansas?”
can it be said that they have painted themselves in de ponzi cul de sac.
Good post Cynthia, I like it when they hoist themselves with their own petards.
This attempt to end-run normal procedures for record keeping and county clerk registrations (and fees) should be stopped, and punished if necessary. Human citizens have to pay their proper registration fees to the government. Corporate citizens should likewise have to be subject to the same.
Their circumvention of these necessary steps will cost them in the end. They have no one but themselves to blame.
Stupifying.
What a novel idea for a court to insist that a foreclosure proposal actually require legal documentation?
What an interesting matter in Kansas this is.
And while we’re at it, all attempts for corporate self-governance are bogus. This includes the Enron type exchanges, and many other examples.
Just read the NYT article. Killer last sentence:
Dayum…
Delicious development. I agree that the personal, unsecured debt ought to be dischargeable in bankruptcy because it is no longer a mortgage debt: it ceases to be debt secured by an interest in real property.
To me it is valid public policy for borrowers and states to challenge the MERS system. From the state perspective, the MERS system prevents it from knowing and making public which party or parties has an interest in its most important asset – its territory. Who is liable to it for taxes, environmental damage, tort liability, etc.
Moreover, allowing changes of ownership within the secretive MERS system, but without public disclosure denies states of substantial fees it needs to fund state operations, including the system of tracking land ownership that the lenders need to document enforceable interests in land. The state doesn’t know who is legally obligated to pay them; it’s merely told to deal with the agent for undisclosed principals – who haven’t established their bona fides as principals. As with denying owner-occupiers of an available party with whom to renegotiate mortgage debt – which messes up the subtle financial forecasts on which their edifice is built – that may be a feature, not a bug.
MERS’ secrecy may hide that, internally, “ownership” is deemed an antiquated nuance too awkward to track and too expensive to administer. MERS may ignore it in the way MERS does what it is designed to do – allocate fractional payments to thousands of constantly shifting participants.
It may be adequate to MERS members to consider MERS a “collective” or “process owner”. But that’s a legal theory that ignores the rights of all other participants in the land use system, and one as sound as the legal theories promulgated by John Yoo.
Saw Capitalism, A Love Story yesterday. One of the themes is to take back your economic life. For example, don’t leave your repossessed house. Looks like law is catching up.
Grayson’s up on Rachel. Looks great with a power shocking pink tie.
Grayson’s great on Rachel. Foot dragging, knuckle dragging neanderthals on the R side.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t this the real property or real estate equivalent of habeus corpus – produce the note v. produce the body?
I am going to have to watch the rerun of MSNBC Rachel. If I heard Melanie Sloan, correctly, that watch puppy at CREW. “ACORN’s conduct was indefensible”. Even if I did not hear her correctly, Where has CREW been on the MERS issue. Oh, that might offend the Villagers. Threatening greedy corporations is just not done. Cokie Roberts would be shocked.
ACORN has done lots of good things for homeowners. CREW not so much.
This makes for a scary time for title insurers, I’m guessing.
A positive development on this front at last?
There is certainly a pleasing common-sensibleness about the ruling, though as ianal there’s nothing further I can say about it —sounds like a pretty technical matter.
And could anything but tax avoidance somehow, somewhere along the line explain severing the debt and, well, the thing that would give the best recourse?
ACORN puts people on the ground in neighborhoods. They file complaints and they bring litigation and they register the people to vote, and just as important, ACORN workers mostly ARE the people. CREW and other similar groups of egocentric lawyers and professional “activists” are a different, eletist animal all together. CREW et al., are really not far from the debbie wasserman schultz’s of the world.
This obviously calls for immediate bipartisan legislation to overturn these activist judges. I bet you could get all Republican Senators, and 20 Democratic Senators and an expedited signature. Or maybe bernanke could just overturn it by fiat.
The Kansas decision seems only like common sense. How could MERS have standing? It was a private substitute for the County Clerk but without that office’s public (and legal) validation. EOH makes good points why the state would have a public interest in knowing and validating this information. Further just as we do not expect the County Clerk to have legal standing (it’s not their job) to act as an agent on anyone’s behalf so MERS as a private entity has less than none.
There are two other issues. The splitting of the promissory note from the mortgage is the essence of securitization. This decision basically negates the foundation on which mortgage related securitization was built. End holders have a security but one whose link to the original mortgage has been severed. (And to be real clear, this was precisely why it was purchased for the cash flow and to avoid having to deal with the any hassles involving the underlying asset.) Considering that we had an $8 trillion housing bubble and vast chunks of this were securitized, you can begin to see the magnitude of what the Kansas decision means. Now I don’t know if we may see a version of judicial nullification reversing this in the federal courts but the law (and IANAL) seems almost with wicked irony to be on the side of the Kansas court. Even by itself, this raises some very interesting standing questions. First, the banks may not even have the mortgage due to bad recordkeeping. Second, even if they have the mortgage, they have no financial interest in the outcome (they sold that off in the securitization process.) so what standing would they have to bring forward a case for foreclosure? They have no injury to be redressed. Third, the
bagsecurity holders have no course of action either. They do have a financial interest but no way to pursue foreclosure because they have no tie to the mortgage. In short, the banks have a mortgage (maybe) but no financial interest. The end holders have a financial interest but no mortgage.The other issue is the “secrecy” of the MERS system. It seems like a fairly basic part of a justice system that the party pursuing an action should somewhere be made known to the court, even if not to the public, precisely to determine if that person or entity has standing. Well, we have learned that MERS does not. And we know that the promissory note holders don’t. I discussed that above. But what makes this so rich is that even at the level of the promissory note there may be no identifiable holder of even that. You see when the splitting from the mortgage into CDOs was done it was not done individually but in tranches representing many mortgages. Later, parts of these CDOs could be taken out, repackaged, and resold (usually with a higher rating) or they could be split up and reassembled with other CDOs that had nothing to do with real estate (CDO squared). So just for an example. Say you are Deutsche Bank and you bought 25% of a CDO squared that is made up of a 30% slice of a repackaged mezzanine tranche of what you call mortgages but which the law sees as a promissory note. In other words, you own a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a promissory note. If the original promissory note can’t get you standing, think how much less likely this tangential connection will. That is what I think MERS secrecy is hiding.
There is a previous case, which appears to counter the Kansan Supreme Court’s argement.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I06_0167.htm
Merscorp, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Edward P. Romaine, & c., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
MERS sued the County Recorders and prevailed on appeal.
“the Suffolk County Clerk and the County of Suffolk (collectively “the County”), holding that although the Clerk must record and index the MERS mortgage when presented, the Clerk may refuse to record a MERS assignment and discharge, because those instruments violate the “factual mandates” of section 321 (3) of the Real Property Law.
The Appellate Division reversed so much of Supreme Court’s ruling as relates to the assignments and discharges, finding “no valid distinction between MERS mortgages and MERS assignments and discharges for purposes of recording and indexing” (24 AD3d 673 [2nd Dept 2005]). This Court granted leave and we now affirm.”
There may be other cases. I had heard of this case, but I had to Google it. A lexus search would provide better results.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. I get get lost in the technical legal jargon.
Is this and end run to implementing ‘mark to market’? Which has been opposed by banks and financial gamblers, all along?
A final say so on the VALUE of a property?
A butt up screwing of chasing useless CDSwaps and derivatives?
A beginning of the end of letting Wall Street bet for and against any given margin, to manipulate and profit from the scurrilous dogs who take down companies, and stocks, and PEOPLE’s investments?
Ok, so I’m dreamin.
Yeah, and still they are fighting Brown V Board Of Ed . . . sigh.
To find progressivism in the bread basket of creationism is SOOO danged wierd.
Frank, your info that’s critical and calling out Melanie Sloan, and CREW, is really insightful.
I thank you for exposing the potential of a demon worm in the belly of progressive values.
Why Brad Freidman, of BradBlog, has NOT questioned your posits, and CREW, is beyond me.
You have offered PLENTY evidence to be circumspect of Sloan, her husband, and CREW.
Thanks for your work.
Here’s more information on lawsuits from the MERS web site. This appears to have been litigated in multiple states, multiple times.
http://www.mersinc.org/Foreclosures/index.aspx
and click on the “Legal Primer” link.
You continue to amaze and inform, Hugh. Thanks.
The MERS site is unlikely to link to cases that go the other way. Cases like the Kansas decision undermine their very business model. It would be irresponsible and financially reckless for mortgage lenders to use their services if cases like this one proliferate; they would go out of business. These are bet the company cases for MERS and you can expect this case to be appealed promptly.
The law pertaining to real property is a fundamental state issue. It’s not only about individual ownership and use rights, it’s about who owns and controls the state’s physical territory. Consequently, while there is great similarity among state real property laws, they vary considerably.
The Kansas and New York cases may be examples of two courts with very different opinions about how to interpret nearly identical facts and laws. On the other hand, the facts or laws may be quite different. Regardless, no state’s practice would be binding on another state.
I am a lawyer and these decisions are bound to rely heavily on laws that can differ state to state. Even if two states have identical laws on their books, the only precedent that is binding is what was decided in their own courts. So if prior cases in one state went one way and another way in another state, they would effectively have different law even if the statutes read the same. You can’t tell exactly what is going on as far as general arguments about MERS arrangements without knowing the state law and precedent in that state interpreting it and seeing how those specifics were relied on by the court and how that all relates to whatever state you are living in when your house is foreclosed. I would say that this is a good time to bring such challenges, though, as judges seem to be willing to take on the job that none of the other branches dare touch.
Is this right?
A person has the house,
MERS has the mortgage paper and
‘investors’ have the debt.
And, because MERS has no debt they are not owed money by a ‘home owner’ and therefore cannot require foreclosure to pay some supposed debt.
And, because teh ‘investors’ have debt they can claim monies, but because it became separated from the mortgage paper, they can no longer claim the house itself. Their secured debt became unsecured when separated from the mortgage?
Thus, the MERS mortgage is worthless except as a record of the property?
And, if the ‘homeowner’ goes bankrupt they can be released from the debt?
And, at that time the mortgage would (what?) revert to the home’s occupant?
In the end the ‘homeowner’ becomes a home owner?
How many properties in the country are in this condition?
How many different states?
How many Democratic lawyers want to make some money off of this?
This is an amazing situation.
Matt Taibbi wrote about this same case a week ago: http://trueslant.com/matttaibb…..the-banks/
He quoted from an article ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/i…..;aid=15324 ) that quoted another article ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..=printable ) which makes an interesting conjecture:
Also note the diary on Daily Kos by a guy who Countrywide filed foreclosure lawsuits on: “How I am beating the crap out of Countrywide/MERS”:
I’m no financial anything, but do I understand this right? The mortgages were widely fraudulent, and then the fraud was “disappeared” by atomizing the mortgages in a lot of fraudulently rated securities (CDOs) which were then bet on via CDSs to succeed or fail. Any number of bettors could win huge $ on the long odds on what was in reality a pretty sure bet that the CDSs/CDOs would fail. And it’s the leveraged bubble dollars to pay off those bets that taxpayers now have to cough up to keep up the illusion of paper value. Meanwhile, the mortgages have been atomized so successfully that in reality they’re lost, no? Foreclosing on these houses is Kafkaesque doublekill, no? The real money was always in the bubbly securities, and the houses were the shiny object to keep eyes from seeing the fraud?
the lesson is stipulate to nothing when dealing with banks or mortgage companies. make them prove it all, every single step. After all the law requires it.
It’s even more than that. A home that you livein is exempt property in bankrupcy, so are your clothes and you pots and pans and other such basic things.
The way your mortgae holder gets your house when you go bankruot is through forclosure. Not as part of the bankrucy estate.
If the promissory note becomes unsecured and the homeownere declares bankrupcy, in theory the promissory note gets settled for whatever pennies on the dolar the other unsecured creditors get. then the home would theoretically be owned free and clear.
faced with this, banks will BEG for cram down.
Oh ans since folks are wising up and demanding that MERS or the servicer produce the original hand signed not (rather than a Xerox copy) and MERS doesn’t seem to have done such a craker jack job af filing such things….. Maybe the promissory notew will go “Poof” in a bankrupcy as well.
Tjis is potentially huge
The irony of allthis this is almost the best part.
No, the relief for beleagered homeowners is the best part, the irony is just frosting onthe cake
Actually, it makes it hard to buy a house that has an exisitng mortgage on it, if you think about it.
Time once was when you bought a house, you hired a title insurance comapny to check the County Cler’s records and make sur eyou knew who had any kind of legal interest inthe land, mortgages, leins, rights of way, etc
and thatn the seller had to pay off allthose at the closing or before.
If the title comapny cannot be sure who holds what , ’cause it’s all hidden in MERS, how can they warrant good title? how big a premium do they charge for the title insuranc e if they cannot be sure themselves?
How does the seller know they are paying off the right “mortgage holder”?
Hugh, it’s eve worse than that. I did a post a while back that showed that you cannot even figure out which notes are in which tranches once the notes stop performing becaus the top tranch contains the best performing notes, so a note could migrate fron tranch to tranch depending on its performace.
It boggles the mind. Nobody seems to to actually “own” anything
It’s a nice catch, but it is based on a county law. the Court makes Clear that this effects only Suffolk County, LI. Also, it effects only recording, not enforcement. It makes for a slightly tough row to hoe in SUffolk–for a homeowner wishing to challenge a MERS fractionalized mortgage, but is not necessarily an insurmountable hurdle, even for SUffolk
Larue, this is why I find this opinion SOOOOO excitng. That and the citations to similar case law in so many other states. There is a trend forming
Aren’t most of these mortgages non-recourse? Doesn’t that mean that the note-holder can NOT claim status as an unsecured creditor. His only claim was against the property, if no property, he’s out of luck, I thought.
As a lawyer myself, I’m surprised any organization like MERS would ever think you could separate the loan from the mortgage. The mortgage is just the security instrument for the loan and the thing that makes the loan a “secured loan.” I’ve seen a lot of modern documents which combine the loan and the mortgage into a single recordable document but this idea of trying to split the two seems nonsensical. I suppose this is a problem lenders buy lenders title insurance for but I wonder if that applies. There is this separate thing called “mortgage insurance” which has really become privatized and is part of the bigger problem involving the Wall Street Toxic Assets as Cynthia says.
I still think the lender’s out of luck. The title insurance shouldn’t have to pay off…the title’s as good as it ever was. The creditor just can’t foreclose on his security because he gave it away. In a non-recourse note he can’t go against the debtor (I think). The creditor has to somehow reunite his interest with the mortgage, doesn’t he? There’s a business for someone to get into!
I think it would 1) depend on the language of the indiviual note and 2) depend on each states own laws
Actually, I just went and looked at the promissory note for a underwater homeowner that I am advising. It was NOT a no recourse note. In fact it read just like an unsecured promissory not and had a paragraph at the ned which waid that IN ADDITION to allthe rempayment rights under the note, the borrow was also giving a mortgage to provide additional secuirty for the note.
This is fascinating in that it would mena that theoretically in the event that there was a foreclosure, the bank could go after the homwoener’s other assets if the house fetched less than the outstanding amount on the note when sold at auction.
That form o f note protectes that back in the event of the housing bubble collapse!
Of course, ONLY if the homeowner is stupid and does not contest the forclosure if their mortgagee has been seperated from the note.
If they are seperated, in theory, the homeonwer declares banrupcy, lists the house as exempt property –which a house can be–and the note is paid off at whatever pennie son the dollar the rest of the unsecured creditors are getting.
If that is correct, it would mean that the value of ALL those mortgage backed securities is ZERO, which means a lot of pension funds are screwed.
if anybody has a mortgage in NY, specifically in the NYC LI region that 1) has the mortgage part in MERS adn 2) has a non-recourse promissory note (defined as a promissory note that says that the lenders only way to collect is by taking your house) and would be willing to share a copy with me, I would love to have a real world example to use in a post.
I will redact all your identifying info, or you could redact it yourself before sharing with me.
You can email it at cynthiakouril at “geee”mail dot come (written that way to defeat auto spammers)
I wonder if foreclosed, ex-home owners could sue under right of rescission, or some such, INAL. Also would this MERS debacle be applicably in Trust Deed States, such as California. Something for ACORN to get its teeth into?
Great analyses Cynthia and Hugh. It does my heart good to read that the smart operators may have outsmarted themselves.
I have another question. What about all of the foreclosures that MERS has already implemented. Will the people foreclosed upon be able to go to Court and challenge the foreclosures since MERS had no standing in the first place? And the big question, whatever the obvious legalities of this, won’t we get judicial nullification of the law once it gets to this hypocritical Supreme Court?
That’s “rich!”
If so, won’t the banks finally have to acknowledge their insolvency and won’t the Administration finally have to take them in resolution?
ayyup!
In some jurisdictions, you might be able to reopen the case or appeal based on and interveneing chnage in law.But in general, no. You need to present all your defenses inthe first instance.
A lot of homeowners who were in default on their loans. didn’;t even contest their forclosures.
I have no clue what SCOTUS would do, nor why this would be a constitutional issue for them to decide. Not evey case is actually approapiate for SCOTUS review
I’d like to point out that the villains in all this are not going to suffer. All these mortgage backed securities were ‘insured’ against default using credit default swaps, many/most of which were issued by AIG, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the US Treasury. In brief, we will all end up making the security owners whole. Maybe that’s why Paulson was so quick to try to bail out the banks, because even the US Treasury can’t afford to guarantee the value of the entire mortgage debt in the US.
This conversation is so interesting…my previous comments about nonrecourse loans was taken from newspaper articles early on which claimed that most mortgages were nonrecourse.