Its unconscionable for a popular web site to offer to assist with its army of attorneys when they were not on the correct page.
The popular blog site gave various undocumented and far fetched legal antidotes and unproven methods of aiding persons in foreclosure. None of these remedies ever dealt with the problematic issues of a borrower not paying its mortage and C.F.R. 1.751 Constructive Liquidation.
The common law courts have long held the Innocent thrid party purchaser doctrine. That is a third party investor who is brought into a scheme is always entitled to its money returned. This is exactly what banks were banking on sort to speak. Having the courts enforce the innocent thrid party purchaser rule when in fact there was no thrid party the court could identify
MERS Corp is that phantom party the represents the divestiture of the asset. In divestment there is no innocent third party as the borrowers equity is transferred to corpus and amortized down to zero over the next ten years from funding. The I.R.C. Section 1033 ; 180 (i) ; 61 (a) (1) and C.F.R. 1.751 are certain to this fact – that all foreclosures must be part of a constructive liquidation at zero .
Accordingly you cannot foreclose on a zero balance and this is the contention the popular web site never grasped nor provided to its readers.
For more information write email@example.com