Plaintiff, commonly known as mortgagor and herein the household is mislead and now held to losses from the defendants mortgage loan acceptance for giving conventional mortgage financing as follows:
defendants induce the title holder into something that may or may not be withheld by the United States governments that is known to be the future of housing. This may also be the case where the anticipated revocation of fee simple title is under way under a uniform instrument and covenants that reduce the state’s sovereignty over real property laws to mere recording jurisdiction.
Fee simple title held by the estate, under the jurisdiction of states such as Oregon, Washington and California will not hold in the long-term as American homeowners are reluctantly discovering. This theory is predisposed to MersCorp controversy, debt collections agencies appointed as Federal Financial agents with authority of color and badge, to the fact the banks liabilities transferred consumer’s equitable interests into shares of a Special Purpose Entity.
Where a mortgage is abated in favor of equity, the equity transferred by economic conversion mark the transaction a bona-fide sale of legal title rather than an enforceable mortgage obligation or conventional mortgage indebtedness. Allegations are supported by evidentiary and sustained fact charging the major banks with using tax payer insured lines of credit to acquire legal title to properties throughout this nation.
Thereafter defendants perfect title in a cooperative entity “SPE” while moving off-balance sheet burdensome liabilities.
Defendants are banks and non banking affiliates who as a lender structure their balance sheets to capitalize on the cost of funds the can access independent of the Fed using title transferred away from the household. This fact allows a bank to create a value ten times (10:1 ratio) the value of the mortgage note they received from the alleged title holder and debtor.
Plaintiffs’ claims brought nationwide are failing in spite of the obvious errors and omission or willfully misleading and materially unenforceable foreclosure procedures used from state to state.
Plaintiffs will continue to fail in arguments for a wrongful foreclosure under a deal structure that calls for repurchasing back the title under a nominee Mers Corp as a condition precedent to initiating a foreclosure. Mers Corp satisfies a basket of sins that includes transferring title back to the estates alleged borrowers without the burden of disclosing the need for Reconveyance or disclosing the borrowers is a grantee before it is a grantor under a conventional mortgage foreclosure procedure.
As if an unanticipated benefit to have emerged, beyond the architect’s imagination, is the Mers Corp role as a nominee. So mistaken is the mis-joinder of claims that the judicious fails to see Mers Corp as the only means for granting legal title back to the household under reverse purchase and sale.
Where the household proclaims MersCorp has no standing, it is obvious why these matters end up as an abandonment of title.