MERS is not a Party to any Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

Most courts in America,  in the foreclosure morass,  are stating that  the borrower is not a party to the TRUST or any PSA.

There is a huge surprise here, MERS is not a party to any Trust either.

Why do MERS assign loans to closed trusts?

MERS is a non party to any Pooling and servicing agreement or any trust, so how can MERS assign a property to whom it has no relation?

What is obvious is that only the borrower signed the Note and Mortgage, the “Lender” did not sign a mortgage agreement, so according to the mortgage contact, it is the borrower who appointed MERS as a party to the mortgage, the question becomes, who gives MERS the order to assign the property of the borrower, if the borrower did not give MERS permission?

Both the borrower and MERS are non parties to the PSA, but MERS has a special authority vested it,  by the borrower on the mortgage?.

The answer is NO.

Mers is mentioned as an operator in many Pooling and Servicing Agreements, agreed, but similarly, the borrower is also an operator in the pooling and Servicing, the property owner is mentioned in every part of the agreement, the property is the asset which backs the security.

MERS is nothing but a transfer agent, the borrower is the backbone of the whole transaction.

The assertion that the Borrower is not a party to the trust, if true, places MERS in the same situation, likewise MERS is not a party to any trust.


About Here and Now

I rant about issues concerning foreclosure, real estate law and any topic of interest. Normally my day job is Fashion and Costume Design. I like writing and reading interesting subjects.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.