October 29, 2018

An attorney for MERSCORP has testified, in his deposition taken in a South Carolina case last Thursday, October 25, 2018, that MERS cannot act for a “non-functional” entity and cannot transfer promissory Notes despite claiming to do so in Assignments of Mortgages. Jeff Barnes, Esq. represents the homeowner together with local South Carolina counsel Bill Sloan, Esq. MERS is named in a claim filed by the homeowner challenging a foreclosure where his loan has been sold more than 8 times in 3 years and with ten changes of servicer. Mr. Barnes took the deposition in person, and also took the deposition of the Plaintiff’s designated representative.

The case involves an original lender which filed for Bankruptcy 1.5 years before the MERS Assignment of Mortgage was created, which AOM purports to transfer the Mortgage “together with the Note.” The MERS attorney/representative testified that MERS cannot act for a “non-functional” entity, and that the AOM cannot and did not transfer the Note (despite claiming to do so).

On Friday, October 26, 2018, Mr. Barnes argued in person against a Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the District Court for Santa Fe County, New Mexico, with the majority of the MSJ being denied. Mr. Barnes represents the homeowner together with local Albuquerque counsel Charles Davis, Esq.

The Court only granted summary judgment as to a few of the borrower’s 19 Affirmative Defenses, with the majority thereof remaining intact due to the presence of genuine issues of material fact as to the defenses which include a challenge to the authenticity and authority of the three claimed “endorsements” (one of which is “signed” by Steve Coffman, who sources report is under investigation for mortgage fraud and has fled the country, and the other two being “signed” by known “robosigners” of Countrywide), and the borrower’s claim that the loan contract was unilaterally modified rendering it unenforceable by the Plaintiff.

The ruling was made even without the deposition of the Plaintiff’s designated representative being taken, which the Plaintiff argued was “unnecessary” for purposes of summary judgment. The Court disagreed, finding that there were issues of fact raised by the borrower’s defenses which are the proper subject of deposition inquiry.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com