California Bankruptcy Court Holds That MERS Cannot Transfer Note For Want of Ownership
Become a member: Subscribe
NTS Headlines
Headlines by Category
Headlines by Year
Solari’s Building Wealth materials are organized to inspire and support your personal strategic and financial planning.
Building Wealth
This 6-pillar curriculum teaches the basic literacy we need to be personally and financially successful and to do so in a manner in which together we evolve a culture that supports the emergence of an advanced human civilization.
Missing Money
Articles and video discussions of the $21 Trillion dollars missing from the U.S. government
Connect with the wider network of like-minded Solari subscribers using our in-house social media platform, Solari Connect.
No posts
California Bankruptcy Court Holds That MERS Cannot Transfer Note For Want of Ownership
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California has issued a ruling dated May 20, 2010 in the matter of In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11 which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.
The court found that MERS acted “only as a nominee” for Bayrock under the Deed of Trust and there was no evidence that the note was transferred. The opinion also provides that “several courts have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the underlying note and therefore could not transfer the note, the beneficial interest in the deed of trust, or foreclose on the property secured by the deed”, citing the well-known cases of In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court), Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas decision as to lack of authority of MERS), LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (New York), and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court).
