HUGE Ruling Against Bank of America MERS bank foreclosure in Washington State (non-Judicial) - Judge: FORECLOSURES ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Give this information to your Lawyer!

Update 2/18/14 - I spoke to Scott Stafne about the ruling.  The Interview is here.

This is HUGE RULING against Bank of America, a MERS bank in Washington State.

The judge ruled the BOA MERS foreclosure was not legal in anyway. He also set it up where the person foreclosed on can get monetary damages from BOA in a trial.

This information and ruling was in a non-judicial foreclosure state.

The attorney in Washington State who handles illegal foreclosures and who won this case is

Scott E. Stafne
Stafne Trumbull, LLC 
239 North Olympic Avenue
Arlington, WA 98223
ph# 360-403-8700

The pdf of the Judges ruling is here. 

portion from ruling:

There was no evidence that MERS was ever the owner or holder of the note. Hence, 

under the Bain decision, MERS could not have been the beneficiary. Bain left open the issue of 

whether MERS could act as an agent of the lender or trustee, and in support of its motion for 

summary judgment defendants make that assertion here. More troubling is the role of 

ReconTrust. It was ReconTrust which issued the notice of default to the borrower. ReconTrust 

was not the trustee when that notice was issued. It’s undisputed that ReconTrust was, at all 

times, a wholly owned subsidiary of BANA. There’s no reason, or at least none that I could see, 

that would preclude ReconTrust from issuing a notice of default as an agent of BANA. But 

thereafter MERS named ReconTrust as the trustee. Or perhaps ReconTrust named itself as the 

trustee, since the signatory “G. Hernandez” was not an employee of MERS but rather was 

employed by ReconTrust. While the DTA appears to have been amended and arguably might 

permit a subsidiary to act as a trustee, the statutory requirement remains that the trustee be 

independent and not beholden to the lender or borrower. Acting as an agent of BANA and being 

a wholly owned subsidiary of BANA, it seems specious to attempt to argue that ReconTrust was 

an independent trustee

I have a call to Stafne Trumbull this morning and have left a message, asking if I could speak with him a few minutes about the ruling and the implications and how this helps everyone throughout the U.S.  If I hear from him and am able to speak with him for a short interview I will upload it and put it on the blog.


Here is an interview with a woman who is intimately familiar with the case and what the implications are.





If you are in Foreclosure or at risk for a Foreclosure - PLEASE contact an attorney, your town/city legal aid and get this information to them!

DO NOT GET FORECLOSED ON!  STAND UP AND STAND FOR YOUR RIGHTS!  STAND FOR LEGAL JUSTICE!  STAND UP AGAINST THE ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES THAT ARE HAPPENING! 

IF YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN FORECLOSED ON - GET AN ATTORNEY AND FILE SUIT AGAINST THE BANK THAT FORECLOSED ON YOU!

START A MOVEMENT OF ALL PAST ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES HAVING TO GO TO COURT AND THE PEOPLE WINNING FOR LEGAL JUSTICE!

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.

Excellent Info - Ruling AGAINST MERS Right to Foreclose! No Secured Trust! ALL MERS Mortgages ARE the Same!

Here is a Ruling Against MERS and it's Right to Foreclose From Market-Ticker Article

Please go to the Market-Ticker Link to Read the WHOLE article of Information, Good and Informative!  Thank You, Karl for being on top of the MERS Fraud, as you ARE!

Sections of Article:

Now we get to the meat of it.  That is, The Trust must bring the action, either through an agent or by itself.  But as soon as it does, it is then burdened with showing that it actually has the note, and thus has received conveyance.  

The Motion here certainly suggests that the Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2006-3 (or perhaps HSBC Bank USA in its capacity as indenture trustee for that trust) was the holder of the note on the June 24, 2008, petition date. But at the time of the final § 362(e) evidentiary hearing herein, the parties discussed and Movant ultimately conceded that (I) the Note contained nothing indicating its transfer by Fieldstone Mortgage Company, (ii) the Motion was devoid of allegations regarding the details of any such transfer, and (iii) the record lacked any other documents related to the issue.