Comments on: Landmark in Name Only? http://xrlq.com/2009/09/23/landmark-in-name-only/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Mon, 14 May 2012 18:16:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: jjv http://xrlq.com/2009/09/23/landmark-in-name-only/comment-page-1/#comment-559599 jjv Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:52:47 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=4982#comment-559599 Wait...This is a law blog now? When did that happen? Wait…This is a law blog now? When did that happen?

]]> By: nk http://xrlq.com/2009/09/23/landmark-in-name-only/comment-page-1/#comment-559590 nk Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:09:30 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=4982#comment-559590 BTW, Illinois had a provision in its constitution, now unconstitutional, that only citizens could hold an interest in land for more than twenty years. So deeds in trust and trust deeds came into existence, citizens also saw the advantages of ownership unencumbered by personal issues, and the biggest land owner is, and for a long time the biggest mortgagor of record was, Chicago Title and Trust, which had no more interest in the land than its $75.00/ fee. If this case had been in Illinois, the senior lender's argument would have been laughed out of court. BTW, Illinois had a provision in its constitution, now unconstitutional, that only citizens could hold an interest in land for more than twenty years. So deeds in trust and trust deeds came into existence, citizens also saw the advantages of ownership unencumbered by personal issues, and the biggest land owner is, and for a long time the biggest mortgagor of record was, Chicago Title and Trust, which had no more interest in the land than its $75.00/ fee. If this case had been in Illinois, the senior lender’s argument would have been laughed out of court.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2009/09/23/landmark-in-name-only/comment-page-1/#comment-559588 Xrlq Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:15 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=4982#comment-559588 Then again, maybe I was too hard on Sovereign for believing they didn't have to record the transfer, as <a href="http://www.mersinc.org/" rel="nofollow">MERS's web site</a> advertises that their wonderful system "eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans." Not in Kansas, it doesn't. Then again, maybe I was too hard on Sovereign for believing they didn’t have to record the transfer, as MERS’s web site advertises that their wonderful system “eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.” Not in Kansas, it doesn’t.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2009/09/23/landmark-in-name-only/comment-page-1/#comment-559587 Xrlq Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:20:32 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=4982#comment-559587 My point exactly. At most, this case means MERS doesn't obviate the need for recording a transfer, unless the original holder of the note can be trusted to turn around and notify MERS if process is served on them. It does not suggest, as Brown does, that the validity or enforceability of the notes themselves is in doubt. My point exactly. At most, this case means MERS doesn’t obviate the need for recording a transfer, unless the original holder of the note can be trusted to turn around and notify MERS if process is served on them. It does not suggest, as Brown does, that the validity or enforceability of the notes themselves is in doubt.

]]> By: nk http://xrlq.com/2009/09/23/landmark-in-name-only/comment-page-1/#comment-559585 nk Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:18:47 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=4982#comment-559585 Which is not to say that Kansas, as a matter of public policy, cannot require that the owner of the legal, equitable and beneficial interest be of record in order to have his interest protected. That is the purpose of the various states' recordation acts in the first place and the principle dates back to Henry VIII. Which is not to say that Kansas, as a matter of public policy, cannot require that the owner of the legal, equitable and beneficial interest be of record in order to have his interest protected. That is the purpose of the various states’ recordation acts in the first place and the principle dates back to Henry VIII.

]]> By: nk http://xrlq.com/2009/09/23/landmark-in-name-only/comment-page-1/#comment-559584 nk Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:49:34 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=4982#comment-559584 I think Ms. Brown is right. MERS exists as a way to make mortgages more easily marketable -- so that they can be traded freely to any number of successors and those successors will not need to, in each instance, record the assignments in the respective counties where the properties are located. MERS always remains the last mortgagee of record even if the real party in interest is someone twenty holders after the original transaction. MERS gets served, it notifies the current holder in accordance with its contract, and the current holder goes in to defend its interest. MERS should have been served. I think Ms. Brown is right. MERS exists as a way to make mortgages more easily marketable — so that they can be traded freely to any number of successors and those successors will not need to, in each instance, record the assignments in the respective counties where the properties are located. MERS always remains the last mortgagee of record even if the real party in interest is someone twenty holders after the original transaction. MERS gets served, it notifies the current holder in accordance with its contract, and the current holder goes in to defend its interest. MERS should have been served.

]]> By: aphrael http://xrlq.com/2009/09/23/landmark-in-name-only/comment-page-1/#comment-559579 aphrael Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:24:21 +0000 http://xrlq.com/?p=4982#comment-559579 <em>diligently, brilliantly and competently forgot to record the transfer</em> ugh. this is basic first year property law stuff. dumbs***s, every last one of them. diligently, brilliantly and competently forgot to record the transfer

ugh.

this is basic first year property law stuff.

dumbs***s, every last one of them.

]]>