MERS Scandal Exposed and Explained

December 9, 2008 · Kevin Lamson

So can anyone guess the name of “organization” that was formed by Countrywide’s, Angelo Mozillo and Fannie Mae’s, James Johnson ten years ago it start with an M? No not the Mafia. It’s Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. commonly referred to as MERS. Yes that’s right Countrywide and Fannie Mae were the lead organizers of MERS and are shareholders and “members” of MERS. Here are excerpts from an investigative report on MERS I have been working on for the last several months. This may help shed some much needed light on MERS and the cozy relationships many of its so-called "members” have between each other and with our congress. It may also explain why no one in congress has bothered to investigate MERS and it crazy “paperless” system that these greedy mortgage executives invented so they could line their pockets by originating and flipping phony (phantom) mortgage loans into so-called mortgage backed security trusts and then selling trillions of dollars of bonds to investors around the world. FYI – Charter Members include a who’s who of top institutional lenders as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Given the extremely close relationship that MERS & its many corporate members have with the politicians who run our state and federal governments, it’s not surprising that MERS and it members were able to pull off this gigantic global financial scheme without raising the brow of a State or Federal law enforcement or regulators. Only now are a few politicians and regulators paying lip service to what they refer to as the “Mortgage Meltdown”. What no politician or regulator ever seems to mention is that an estimated 60  million of the mortgages that “melted down” have the name Mortgage Electronic Registration System Inc. on them.

· The Fundamentals:

In the period beginning in 1999 and ending in March of 2008, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., a/k/a/ MERS, has been named as a “mortgagee” on over sixty million mortgages. Yet MERS has never originated a single mortgage loan nor loaned a dime to a single borrower. In 2001 the New York Supreme Court ordered the Suffolk County Clerk to accept MERS mortgages for recording as a purely ministerial duty. However the Court denied MERS request for a judgment declaring that MERS mortgages were “lawful in all respects”. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Supreme Court’s order directing the County Clerk to record MERS mortgages. The Court of Appeals did not reverse the Supreme Court’s denial of MERS request for a judicial declaration that MERS mortgages are “lawful in all respects”. MERS, for obvious reasons, did not want a published opinion determining that MERS mortgages are legal nullities and/or that MERS has no standing to enforce a mortgage when it is not a creditor entitled to collect a debt. The New York Court of Appeals did address and frame these two issues but left them to be decided at a future date.

MERS members and mortgage industry executives invented the so-called MERS paperless system to short cut standing mortgage lending safe guards and circumvent the legal requirements for originating mortgage loans and/or selling and transferring these loans to subsequent holders. This allows MERS members like Countrywide Financial, Fieldstone Mortgage, and Option One Mortgage to make loans to anyone with a heart beat and then quickly flip these questionable loans to other MERS members such a Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers to name just a few. ("Secondary Mortgage Market Players")

MERS and its so-called “system” was driven by the strong desire of its founding “members” to report billions in profits as can be seen, in part, from a highly critical report issued by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise on May 23. 2006, detailing what it called “an arrogant and unethical corporate culture where Fannie Mae employees manipulated accounting and earnings to trigger bonuses for senior executives from 1998 to 2004″. . . “The image of Fannie Mae as one of the lowest-risk and ‘best in class’ institutions was a facade,” . . . “Senior management manipulated accounting; reaped maximum, undeserved bonuses; and prevented the rest of the world from knowing”. . . “Our examination found an environment where the ends justified the means”. The Ohio Attorney General recently sued another MERS founding member, Freddie Mac, alleging and its top executives for fraud with very similar allegations to the facts found by OFHEO relating to Fannie Mae.

These Secondary Mortgage Market Players would claim to package millions of these loans, with or without being delivered the promissory notes, into loan pools or “mortgage backed security trusts” and then flip the loans by selling trillions of dollars of bonds to investors around the world. The bonds were touted by Secondary Mortgage Market Players as producing safe yet high returns. The investors who bought these bonds included many of the world’s largest national banks. Initially MERS members reported windfall profits year after year by quickly originating, packaging into pools and then flipping trillions of dollars of mortgages loans to investors. Other MERS members, such as title insurance companies, also took their cut from each of the fifty million loans that were made while this high speed gravy train was rolling. MERS itself would earn over a billion dollars a year by charging its members $250.00 for each mortgage that MERS would be named as “mortgagee”.

The reported profits from the sale of these mortgaged backed securities would result in billions of dollars of salaries and bonuses being paid to the senior executives of many of MERS member corporations. Ultimately the bond investors who actually provided all the money would learn that their “safe” investment was anything but safe. As hundreds thousands and then millions of these loans fell into default. These bondholders would lose hundreds of billions of dollars. As of April 1, 2008, the largest banks around the world had already written off losses of one hundred and fifty billions dollars relating to bonds they had purchased. One Swiss bank, U.S.B., has recently reported 40 billion dollars in losses. These loses may only be the beginning. What many people refuse to admit is that because of the so-called MERS paperless “system” many of the so-called mortgage backed security trusts do not actually hold the promissory notes which evidence the debts that are supposed to be backing the bonds purchased by these investors. The situation is reminiscent to the Great Olive Oil Scandal in the late 1800’s when banks were duped into investing millions of dollars into Olive Oil only to later discover that the tanks which were supposed to be holding millions of gallons of olive oil backing their investments were mostly empty.

A June10, 2007 article in Forbes magazine details the carelessness in the securitization process by which mortgage loans were packaged and sold off to mortgage pools. This scenario has now come full circle to bite the trustees of these mortgage backed trusts who are now seeking to foreclose millions of loans that are in default:

· The financial engineering (i.e. mortgage securitization) helped oil the housing boom by making credit more available. But stalled housing prices and rising defaults have revealed a mess: In the rush to flip paper, lots of the new lenders or pools don’t have the proper paperwork to show they even hold the mortgage.

It appears that after MERS mortgage loans are flipped to the mortgage backed trusts the promissory notes are not actually delivered to the trustees. Nor are assignments of mortgages executed and delivered which evidence the fact the original lender has transferred the debt which is secured by the mortgage. This leaves the trusts with absolutely no paper evidence of ownership of the secured debt it purportedly owns. One informed lawyer who represents homeowners in Florida, April Charney, had foreclosure proceedings against 300 clients dismissed or postponed in 2007 for lack of standing. She is quoted as saying that “80 percent of them involved lost-note affidavits”. . . They raise the issue of whether the trusts own the loans at all,” Charney said. “Lost-note affidavits are pattern and practice in the industry. They are not exceptions. They are the rule.” Ms. Charney started challenging MERS and it members lost note affidavits after becoming skeptical of the lender could possibly lose hundreds of promissory notes.

At least two Florida judges shared Ms. Charney’s skepticism regarding the copious amounts of MERS lost note affidavits and they issued show cause orders, sua sponte, challenging MERS to show proof that it held and/or lost notes in numerous actions. After evidentiary hearings these two alert judges dismissed twenty nine (29) MERS actions to foreclose for lack of standing. One judge struck MERS pleadings as being sham.

A South Carolina court dismissed a MERS action to foreclose for lack of standing even though MERS filed an affidavit wherein a person claiming to be an officer of MERS claimed that MERS was holding a promissory note. The South Carolina court vetted the MERS affidavit claim that it was the holder of the note after the Court was apprised of the fact that MERS had previously told the Nebraska Court of Appeals that it never held promissory notes.

In late 2007 three Federal Court Judges in Ohio dismissed over fifty law suits brought by trustees of mortgage backed trusts where they could not produce the original promissory notes. Following these decisions the Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles, California adopted a rule of practice which requires all foreclosing trustees or other plaintiffs to produce the original promissory note when bring an action to foreclose a debt or face sanctions for not doing so.

It is disturbing to know that National Banks are the trustees of thousands of trusts that may be missing millions of promissory notes. This might explain why, to date, not a single National Bank has publicly disclosed the fact that they are not actually holding what may be millions of promissory notes which evidence ownership of debts supposedly owned by their respective trusts. An independent audit of these trusts would probably be quite revealing. This writer is also unaware of any such audits that have been performed to date. These National Banks, as trustees are accountable and therefore liable for missing trust property or the documents evidencing ownership.

As more borrowers, lawyers and judges learn that neither MERS nor these trustees are actually holding the promissory notes evidencing the debts they seek to collect through foreclosure, dismissals of these foreclosure actions for lack of standing will become routine. This will also means that bondholders from around the globe will be seeking to recover their loses from the National Bank trustees.

MERS founders and members went about foisting their so-called “paperless” system on the American economy and indirectly upon the global economy. MERS studiously avoided seeking any legislative changes of long standing commercial laws relating to promissory notes, mortgages and public recording of assignments in any of the 50 states that it would ultimately be operating. It is possible that this blatant abuse, of the UCC and state recording laws might have passed itself off as the new way off doing business in our computer age. But MERS member companies, under clear instructions from their leaders, guaranteed disaster by pumping up and then dumping these (phantom) loans onto investors through trust they set up for this purpose. These investor/bondholders are jut now discovering that they were duped. They just don’t know how badly they were duped.

Perhaps this is what the global economy is really all about. Seeing who can dupe international banks and governments out of trillions of dollars depositor and taxpayer money and do so with complete impunity. Yet, to my knowledge, after learning that they invested trillions of dollars into these questionable loan pools n/k/a/ cesspools, not a single National Bank has ordered an audit of these cesspools or trusts to determine the actual contents and the value.

As a matter of sound public policy our courts should not allow MERS or its so-called “members” to circumvent and/or violate long standing laws of commerce, simply because some greedy mortgage executives thought they could shoe-horn their so-called “paperless system” into the framework of our current system of commerce. Our system still requires such sundry instruments as promissory notes be used to evidence debts and also requires that these instruments to change hands when sold or transferred to a new owner. Our system also requires a new holder of a promissory note to record an assignment of security interest or mortgage in order to enforce a lien which secures the debt evidenced by the promissory note. No one should be able to simply ignore these long standing laws just so they can reap billions of dollars in illicit bonuses by quickly originating and then flipping loans without the attendant delivery of notes and assignments of mortgages. Our system of commerce does not operate this way. This is because we have laws of commerce including the UCC which regulates our system.

The MERS paperless system simply provided an expedient way for MERS and its members to fleece the investor on a global basis, by loaning money to people and then flipping trillions of dollars of these bogus loans to third party investors. The MERS system does not comply with our current laws of commerce. While the computer age has admittedly changed how business is transacted it has not eliminated or replaced the legal requirement for such things as promissory notes, mortgages and assignments of mortgages, when a loan is made, a mortgage given and the loan is subsequently sold and/or resold. This is precisely why a competent and prudent lender who makes a loan to a qualified borrower takes back a promissory note and if the loan is to be secured the borrower executed a mortgage or security agreement naming the lender as the mortgagee or secured party. The lender must then record or file its mortgage or security agreement to prefect its lien. If the lender decides to sell the debt it is owed to a third party it must endorse and deliver the promissory note to the third party. And in order for the third party to enforce either a mortgage lien or security interest the original lender must execute an assignment of mortgage or security interest, which must then be recorded or filed by the third party to give evidence and public notice of its status as assignee of the lien securing the debt it had purchased. Only the holder of the promissory note is entitled to enforce the note and/or any lien which secured the debt.

American courts should no longer tolerate or close a blind eye to the fact that the MERS has no standing to commence any legal actions relating to peoples properties because they do not hold any legal or equitable interest in the debt or in the properties. The Courts must protect the integrity of our judicial system by enforcing our laws of commerce as they exist and not allow parties to come into our courts and commence actions relating to debts under the guise of legitimacy while knowing that they do not own and/or have no proof of ownership.

This writer has been investor in real estate since 1976, and has owned properties in eight states and three countries. Over the last thirty two years I have witnessed and heard of many illegal or fraudulent schemes involving real estate finance. The MERS “paperless system” is the kind of scheme that is hatched in some internet boiler room in Nigeria, not in the boardrooms of our once prestigious American financial institutions. This gigantic scheme completely ignored long standing law of commerce. The effect of the system has already had a catastrophic effects on both the American and global economy. Yet many of the investment “trusts” which supposedly hold thousands of original promissory notes are hard pressed to produce them when legally required to do so.

Given these facts how will investors ever recoup their investments if the debt they were supposed to own can not be legally enforced or collected?

Advertisements