Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (MERS) has a very long history. The beginning stages have remained a mystery until now.
Q Do the assistant secretaries — first off, are you a salaried employee of MERS?A No.Q Are you a salaried employee of MERS Corp, Inc.?A Yes.Q Are any of the employees of MERS, Inc. salaried employees?A I don’t understand your question.Q Does anyone get a paycheck, if they are an employee of MERS, Inc., do they get a paycheck from Mercer, Inc.?A There is no MERS, Inc.Q I thought, sir, there’s a company that was formed January 1, 1999, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Does it have paid employees?A No, it does not.Q Does it have employees?A No.Q Does MERS have any employees?A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.Q Does MERS have any employees currently?A No.Q In the last five years has MERS had any employees?A No.<SNIP>Q How many assistant secretaries have you appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.Q Approximately?A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you right now.Q Is it in the thousands?A Yes.Q Have you been doing this all around the country in every state in the country?A Yes.Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid officers of MERS?A Yes.Q And there’s no live person who is an employee of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an employee?A There are no employees of MERS.
Bank of New York Mellon V. Juan Mojica Index No: 26203/09 Justice Thomas A. Adams stated, “Not only has plaintiff failed to establish MERS’ right as a nominee for purposes of recording to assign the mortgage, more importantly, no effort has been made to establish the authority of MERS, a non-party to the note, to transfer its ownership.”
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Saunders, No. 09-640, 2010 WL 3168374,(Me. August 12, 2010) The Court explains that the only rights conveyed to MERS in either the Saunders’ mortgage or the corresponding promissory note are bare legal title to the property for the sole purpose of recording the mortgage and the corresponding right to record the mortgage with the Registry of Deeds. This comports with the limited role of a nominee. A nominee is a “person designated to act in place of another, usu[ally] in a very limited way,” or a “party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of others.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1149 (9th ed. 2009).In Hawkins, No. BK-S-07-13593-LBR, 2009 WL 901766 The Court found that the deed of trust “attempts to name MERS as both beneficiary and a nominee” but held that MERS was not the beneficiary, as it had “no rights whatsoever to any payments, to any servicing rights, or to any of the properties secured by the loans.”In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11–Eastern District of CA Bankruptcy court rules MERS has NO actionable interest in title. “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.” “MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp.” The Court’s ruled that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.In re Vargas, 396 B.R. at 517-19.Judge Bufford found that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was incompetent. All the witness could testify was that he had looked at the MERS computerized records. The witness was unable to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 803, as applied to computerized records in the Ninth Circuit. See id. at 517-20. “The low level employee could really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed reflected a default. That really is not much in the way of evidence, and not nearly enough to get around the hearsay rule.”