Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure

MA Supreme Judicial Court Solicits Amicus Briefs (Eaton vs. FNMA Retro-active?)

This is very important folks.

From the Appellate Court website 2/8/2103 -

"ANNOUNCEMENT: The Justices are soliciting amicus briefs. Whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS") has standing to pursue a foreclosure in its own right as a named "mortgagee" with ability to act limited solely as a "nominee" and without any ownership interest or rights in the promissory note associated with the mortgage; whether the prospective mandate of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), applies to cases that were pending on appeal at the time that case was decided. The case is scheduled for argument in April 2013."

Case Docket below:

ANNE-MARIE GALIASTRO vs. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, ...

Why is this important?

Aside from the enormous ramifications that would result if Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association became retro-active, it would also help answer this question:

If the MERS Secret Electronic Mortgage Society can't legally enforce a foreclosure in their own scandalous name, how on earth can they legally "assign" that right to someone else?

Tags: ANNE-MARIE GALIASTRO vs. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, et al, Amicus Briefs, Attorney Glenn F. Russell, Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Foreclosure Fraud, Foreclosure Mill, Harmon Law, MA SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, MERS, Retro-active, More…SJC-11299

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Foreclosure Hamlet to add comments!

Join Foreclosure Hamlet

Comment by Capt. Jack on February 13, 2013 at 12:14pm: Good points. Keep 'em coming.

Comment by Phred Maldonaldo on February 13, 2013 at 12:08pm: I spent yesterday making charts of the players in my lawsuit with an eye for agency relationships. Then it hit me. FNMA is an 'agent' for the trust / pool because the beneficiary interest is spread among the certificate holders. When a loan stops making payments, FNMA then turns it over to its agency network thru LPS for processing and continues making payments on the loan. The agency network forecloses and the 'assigned' beneficiary with the 'credit bid' turns out to be an agent for ... FNMA. In that way the Deed of Trustee Sale can either be reconveyed to FNMA or assigned to FNMA at a later date by the agent / lender for 'consideration'.

This explains the 'vesting assignment' - to an agent of FNMA who is an agent of the MBS where your loan is located. It is disguised by the agent of FNMA being a Federally chartered lender.

So an attack on MERS is an attack on FNMA, as MERS is only acting as an agent with limited Power of Attorney.

Comment by Ace on February 12, 2013 at 11:11pm: You all inspire me...

Q1.

Whether Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS") has standing to pursue a foreclosure in its own right as a named "mortgagee" with ability to act limited solely as a "nominee" without any ownership interest or rights in the promissory note associated with the mortgage?

IMO NO... MERS HAS NEVER HELD ANY NOTES, THEREFORE, MERS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO EVER ASSIGN ANY NOTES... Thus MERS CAN NEVER have STANDING to FORECLOSE in MA.

” The SJC held that in Massachusetts a foreclosing party must have both the mortgage and the note or be acting on behalf of a party with the note.”

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2012/06/eaton-v-fannie-mae-a...

Also...” The Eaton v. Fannie Mae decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not a huge banking industry win going forward... Going forward, the really big deal is that the Court has taken the “show me the note” defense and made it “show me the note owner.”

http://findsenlaw.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/eaton-v-fannie-mae-massa...

Q2.

Whether the prospective mandate of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), applies to cases that were pending on appeal at the time that case was decided.

IMHO...Any Case(s) PENDING &/or ON APPEAL prior to the Eaton decision date should not be subject to any Prospective Mandate or Retroactive Repercussions due to the fact that the case(s)s are/were in limbo prior to the Eaton decision.

Q3.
If the MERS Secret Electronic Mortgage Society can't legally enforce a foreclosure in their own scandalous name, how on earth can they legally "assign" that right to someone else?

THEY CAN’T... It’s Called FRAUD IN THE FACTUM

Fraud in the Factum is a type of fraud where misrepresentation causes one to enter a transaction without accurately realizing the risks, duties, or obligations incurred.^[1] This can be when the maker or drawer of a negotiable instrument, such as a promissory note or check, is induced to sign the instrument without a reasonable opportunity to learn of its fraudulent character or essential terms. Determination of whether an act constitutes fraud in the factum depends upon consideration of “all relevant factors.” Fraud in the factum usually voids the instrument under state law and is a real defense against even an holder in due course.

Fraud in the factum is a legal defense, and occurs where A makes/signs an agreement, but either does not realize that it is supposed to be a contract, or does not understand the nature/content of the agreement, because of some false information that B gave to A

SUCK ON THAT BANKSTERS

Comment by jersey girl on February 12, 2013 at 10:15am: Made my day Capt.!! The rule of law will prevail, and the integrity of some is nothing short of awe inspiring. In other words...... BOOM!!