Quantcast

Counties Team Up On MERS

MAR 18, 2013 1:54pm ET
Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (3)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

WE’RE HEARING...MERS is far from done spending time and money defending its right to serve as the official record of who owns mortgages and servicing rights.

Last month, the two largest counties in Minnesota—Hennepin and Ramsey—filed a lawsuit against MERS alleging that the electronic registry was depriving the counties of revenue from recording fees.

MERS has faced many legal battles in the past, most of them coming from borrowers or consumer activists who were challenging the rights of lenders to foreclose on homes that were recorded in the name of MERS. MERS has successfully defended itself against most of those claims. But with an increasing number of counties challenging MERS, the organization faces renewed legal threats that have the potential to cripple its operations.

John Choi, the Ramsey County attorney, told me that MERS has led to a “privatization” of the public land records. Nationally, backers of the Minnesota lawsuit say that MERS has deprived counties of some $7.2 billion in recording fees. Under Choi’s leadership (he was elected in 2010), the county is trying to develop an “affirmative litigation practice” around public law, he said.

“This is something we looked into, and we felt that bringing a cause of action was in the public interest,” Choi said.

While Minnesota does have a statute enacted in 2004 that authorizes MERS to be recorded as the nominee for the lender or servicer, Choi said that Minnesota is a “shall record” state, meaning that even if MERS is the nominee, recording fees should be paid when there is a transfer or assignment involving the loan. He said the MERS authorization law does not exempt MERS from having to record changes in ownership and pay a recording fee.

“We think the statute is pretty clear on its face that you shall record mortgages and other assignments,” he said.

While MERS has successfully defended its system in court many times, Choi said the courts have yet to tackle the charges made by Hennepin and Ramsey counties.

“The legal issue that’s presented in this particular case has not been litigated yet,” he said.

The lawsuit, he said, is part of an effort to reclaim the state’s public recording system. It is also an effort to recover lost recording income on behalf of taxpayers, he said.

Despite the lawsuit, Choi, who was previously city attorney for St. Paul, the state capital, offered some praise for MERS’ efforts to improve the tracking of loans and servicing rights involving vacant or foreclosed homes, helping the city determine who’s responsible for maintaining the property.

MERS officials declined to speak to me for the record, but they did refer me to voluminous written material on their website, which suggests that they beg to differ on the question of whether this particular issue hasn’t already been litigated.

Janis Smith, a vice president at MERS, issued a statement about the latest litigation salvo, saying there is not merit to the claims made by the two Twin Cities counties.

“All MERS mortgages are recorded in the county land records and all required fees are paid.”

While MERS has won many more court cases than it has lost, it is hardly undefeated in the court system. Last July, for instance, The Oregonian newspaper in Portland, an appeals court—the state’s second highest—ruled that MERS could not be used to skirt county recording fees “in out of court foreclosures.”

MERS has brought tremendous efficiencies to the process of tracking changes in the ownership of home loans and servicing rights, saving lenders billions of dollars. But until the legal challenges to MERS are finally resolved for once and for all, there will always be a bit of fog around the electronic registry’s authority.

Attorney Dustin Zacks of King, Nieves & Zacks in West Palm Beach, Fla., wrote in the Banking and Financial Services Policy Report that just when the legal controversy regarding MERS from foreclosure-related lawsuits seemed to be receding, county clerks have decided to drag MERS back into courtrooms. These county lawsuits, he said in the article, are the “most imminent legal threat to MERS.”

He wrote that so far MERS has won victories against county recorders in states as diverse as Iowa, Texas, Florida and Arkansas. However, even one big loss to a county’s claims down the road could require MERS to pay millions of dollars of recording fees and raise questions about the viability of MERS.

Ted Cornwell has covered the mortgage markets since 1990. He is a former editor of both Mortgage Servicing News and Mortgage Technology.

Comments (3)
Good for these counties! MERS has damaged our industry and has seriously clouded title on so many properties. And yes, avoided paying recording fees that struggling counties were previously receiving.

I hope these counties prevail.

The good news for families is that new and workable solutions are being developed and are proving to be successful in helping people work out their foreclosure situations and their "underwater" challenges.
Posted by | Wednesday, March 20 2013 at 3:18PM ET
Please sign and share the LandTegrity petition to audit the National land records!! www.landtegrity.com
Posted by | Tuesday, March 26 2013 at 2:32PM ET
The counties will loose until the real issue is litigated, by the lawyers, and decided by the courts.Mers states its business model is base upon the note and mortgage traveling in different directions thus spliting the note and mortgage, but the courts are rejecting this argument, by stating Mers is an agent of the lender and the mortgage follows the note.You lawyers, use case law that Mers is an Agent and thus when the note is sold, the mortgage follows and must be filed and paid for in the county records. The lawyers are letting Mers have it both ways and therefore the counties are losing the fight. If Mers says no, the mortgage is split the couties and borrowers still win because many of the foreclosures are illegal thus forcing the lenders and Mers to paid fines. Either the mortgage and note are split or Mers is an Agent. The courts and lawyers are letting Mers have their cake and eat it too by litigating the wrong issue. If Mers is in fact an Agent (nominee), then the note and mortgage are not split, but once the note (not the mortgage)is sold the mortgage follows and must be filed and pay the filling fee each time which they are not . Commemts please? The judges and lawyers are not listening to Mers' own arguments. Mers is saying a duck is a duck; the judges are saying no a duck is a pig and the lawyers have not figured out the correct answer. A winning argument is a duck is a pig and force Mers to say it's not. Either way Mers can't win and the case is over. Who knows, Mers may be willing to settle.
Posted by | Wednesday, March 27 2013 at 11:19AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.