MERS - Court Rules in New York NO Rights To Transfer Mortgages! HUGE BLOW Against MERS Banks! Judge rules a BAN on foreclosures if Note and Mortgage separated!

OH,  It is that Happy Dance time again!

Bloomberg is actually running this article, which is astounding!  A financial MSM site, actually running articles that does not help the banking industry in the least?  Amazing!

They have up today an article of a New York Judge's ruling that MERS has no rights or standing to transfer mortgages!  MERS admitted the note and the mortgage travel on different paths, thus they separate the note and mortgage!

I would say with all the rulings against MERS no Judge around the country who had turned a blind eye and let a MERS bank foreclose can do so anymore.  The law is not on MERS side the law is on the side of the homeowner.  That is being proven over and over again.

The Judge from my understanding in reading the article has BANNED Foreclosures if the note and mortgage are separated in his court!  That means MERS can NOT bring a foreclosure action in the Judges court in the future!  There is NO possible way!  ALL MERS mortgages have separated notes and mortgages!

THIS IS SERIOUSLY HUGE!  A HUGE RULING AGAINST MERS!

Portions of article:

Merscorp Inc., operator of the electronic-registration system that contains about half of all U.S. home mortgages, has no right to transfer the mortgages under its membership rules, a judge said. 

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Grossman in Central Islip, New York, in a decision he said he knew would have a “significant impact,” wrote that the membership rules of the company’s Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, don’t make it an agent of the banks that own the mortgages.

‘Don’t come around here no more,’ is basically the message to MERS,” said April Charney, a senior attorney with Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Jacksonville, Florida. “The judge basically deconstructed MERS and said there’s no possible way in any case you can come in and show you have this appropriate proper status to transfer the note.” 


“MERS and its partners made the decision to create and operate under a business model that was designed in large part to avoid the requirements of the traditional mortgage-recording process,” Grossman wrote. “The court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50 percent of all residential mortgages in the country, that is reason enough for this court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply with the law.”

By MERS’s own account, the note in this case was transferred among its members, while the mortgage remained in MERS’s name,” Grossman wrote. “MERS admits that the very foundation of its business model as described herein requires that the note and mortgage travel on divergent paths.” 

MERS’s membership rules don’t create “an agency or nominee relationship” and don’t clearly grant MERS authority to take any action with respect to mortgages, including transferring them, Grossman wrote. Because the interests at issue concern “real property” -- land and buildings -- under state law, any transfer has to be in writing, which isn’t done under the MERS system, he said.

“Without more, this court finds that MERS’s ‘nominee’ status and the rights bestowed upon MERS within the mortgage itself, are insufficient to empower MERS to effectuate a valid assignment of mortgage,” the judge wrote. “MERS’s position that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best.”

Grossman said parties coming to him to seek to lift the automatic ban on legal claims in cases involving MERS will have to show they own both the mortgage and the note.