Anyone else seen this? Landmark bank v. Kessler?

Bad manners to post follow-up to one's own post, but here goes:

"MERS claims that it holds the title to the second mortgage, not the real estate. So it does, but only as a nominee. In terms of the roles that we've discussed in the mortgage business, MERS holds the mortgage but without rights to the debt. The district court found that MERS was merely an agent for the principal player, Millennia. While MERS objects to its characterization as an agent, it's a fair one.

MERS had no right to the underlying debt repayment secured by the mortgage; MERS did not even act as the servicing agent to receive the payments and remit them to the lender."

From the MERS website: "Any loan registered on the MERS® System is inoculated against future assignments because MERS remains the nominal mortgagee no matter how many times servicing is traded. MERS as original mortgagee (MOM) is approved by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, FHA and VA, California and Utah Housing Finance Agencies, as well as all of the major Wall Street rating agencies."

Except the judgment seems to throw the idea that MERS has a claim to the property into doubt.

a) It's a Kansas decision
b) There's LOT worse stuff that's happened in NYC; take a look as what happened to Citibank on Coop foreclosing for unpaid maintenance. there was an initial foreclosure where Citibank was served, but since the borrowed did something (filed for for bankruptcy? I don't remember exactly what) the foreclosure was fairly quickly put off. As a result, Citibank did not put in a reply. Since they did not put in a reply to the first action, when the Coop sought again to foreclose, they didn't notice Citibank and Citibank got wiped out. This was upheld in NYS Supreme. Ironically, something similar occurred in the opposite direction in a case I was directly involved in: at 300 East 93rd St, Citibank foreclosed on a unit and again it got delayed for some reason. The condominium board of Managers was served, but did not reply. When Citibank went to re-foreclose, they did not notice the Board of Managers again. i bought the unit on teh steps, and the Condominium sought to have the sale set aside since they were being wiped out of a substantial amount of common charges, and argued that there "should" have been enough equity that the sale price "should" have covered both the Citibank lien and the common charges (they were right about that). But Bruce "set 'em loose Bruce" Wright sited the same principal and added a comment that I always use to quote when I'm being a wise ass "David Goldsmith is an innocent" (in describing why he couldn't take the property away from me).

Bad manners to post follow-up to one's own post, but here goes:

NYC10022, anything to weigh in on this subject?

did evnyc just out herself as ranter?

What does it mean to "out" someone?

Oh, hey, check this funny photo out:
http://www.dgneary.com/BrokerWebsite3/Code/agent_detail.asp?brokerid=1919

30yrs, no.

Yes, according to the rule by another poster, since evnyc and ranter are just 2 digits away for user number it is highly highly likely they are one.

i can't see the user numbers for some reason. content defies logic, however. can't imagine evnyc requesting 10022's input on this issue.

andytek, what're you talking about? 30yrs has never made a secret of who he is. He doesn't need to.