Talk:Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV comment[edit]

This article appears biased in its discussion of the legal decisions. They highlight favorable rulings towards MERS and downplay or ignore unfavorable holdings. The Landmark v Kesler case is an example, the article quotes only the part where the Court neglects to decide whether MERS is entitled to notice, but does not quote any of the Courts extensive discussion regarding whether or not a mortgage loan in which the deed has been seperated from the promissory note is even enforceable, nor does it quote the Court's charactarization of MERS as a "straw man". There is also no mention of several cases in which MERS has been found to lack standing to foreclose, such as In re Vargas, In re Mitchel, In re Sheridan, etc. (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely one perspective being pushed in this article. I'm adding the POV tag. (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of creating a new division of for the Landmark Decision and will do so. Matt Tiabii is writing a big expose on MERS and industry so will be more to come I am sure.

Totally biased article. No unfavorable court decisions are presented. Aestiva (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for robo-signing / foreclosure scandal as separate article[edit]

It appears Wikipedia has no comprehensive article about the emerging scandal centered on MERS and robo-signing of foreclosures. Perhaps it's time we start to write the 2010 United States foreclosures scandal? I know scandal is a word that is generally discouraged used in article titles, but I find the term controversy too insipid in this case. Anyway, the title can be changed later. What's important is that we begin developing this as a separate topic as it's certain to develop a lot further in the time ahead. A lot of the backgroun information can be found in the Nye Lavalle article as well. __meco (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

MERS statement regarding foreclosure issues[edit]

On October 9, 2010, MERS issued a statement[1] asserting that

  • Courts have ruled in favor of MERS in many lawsuits, upholding MERS legal interest as the mortgagee and the right to foreclose.
  • MERS does not create a defect in the mortgage or deed of trust
  • The trail of ownership does not change because of MERS
  • MERS did not cause mortgage securitization
  • Lenders cannot “hide” behind MERS
  • MERS fully complies with recording statutes

Text removed - link not valid. I'm not a fan of astroturfing. --Brad Patrick (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Would one be interested in adding my story?[edit]

Today I won a landmark case against MERS in the Washington State Supreme (8/16/12) and I was wondering if it wasn't too forward if anyone was interest in adding my case to the wiki article? More info about it can be found here: and my news clip before I won the case (back in march 2012):

I wanted to add it but I think if anyone who working on it agrees, then they should be the one to add it. I don't think a point of view of the case would be very informative. Thanks in advance. - Kristin — Preceding forsakeme4all comment added by Forsakeme4all (talkcontribs) 21:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kristin, I think you made a good decision to bring this to the talk page. I just added a little section under "litigation" in the article. Do the basic facts look right? Also, congratulations.
Others: I'm terrible at figuring out which numbers are supposed to go in which boxes for the court citation. Maybe someone can help? More expansion of the new section would also be welcome.
Everyone: this article is terribly weird the way it's formatted now, with a lopsided section on "litigation" and then a bunch of little tidbits about MERS. We need to overhaul the article, clarifying what MERS does and why people seem to give a damn about it. Possibly changing around the litigation section to explain which rulings say what, rather than having a bunch of isolated incidents that would not individually be of great interest.
Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there again,

Yes, it looks perfect but my name was spelled incorrectly. Its K-r-i-s-t-i-n; sorry if I am being picky! But it looks great otherwise. thanks a bunch! - Kristin (talk

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

tax avoidance[edit]

  MERS enables avoidance of recording fees and tax collection, clouding legal title. This has put into question who has the right to foreclose on property.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC) 

Bizarre edits by User:DeadlyClear on 9 December 2013[edit]

User:DeadlyClear made a number of really bizarre edits on 9 December 2013 that seem to imply a fundamental lack of understanding of the cases discussed in this article. For example, the unsourced sentence "The blur of the actual identities of the "MERS" related entities has led to confusion within the court system and foreclosure process." Actually, all of the cases listed turn on arcane civil procedure issues or whether MERS in general had the right to serve as a nominee. None of them turn on whether the correct MERS entity was involved. One of the most basic legal rules taught in both paralegal and law school is that a case is not authority for a proposition not stated. So the sentence is original research in violation of Wikipedia:No original research as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Any objections before I rollback those edits? --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that almost two and a half years have elapsed and no one has stepped forward to defend those edits. I will take out the garbage when I have the time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)