MERS

NO STANDING: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., APPELLANT, VS. SOUTHWEST HOMES OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE dinsfla | May 1, 2010 at 9:37 am | Tags: ark. r. civ. p. 19(a), arkansas, bankruptcy, borrower, dinsfla, din_sfla, disclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, Lender Liability, moers, mortgage electronic registration system, mortgage meltdown, predatory lending, rescission, securitization, trustee | Categories: MERS, case, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud | URL: http://wp.me/pOmck-Hp

    The Kansas appellate court noted that MERS received no funds and that the mortgage required the borrower to pay his monthly payments to the lender. just as in the case at hand, that the notice provisions of the mortgage “did not list MERS as an entity to contact upon default or foreclosure.” declaring that MERS did not have a “sort of substantial rights and interests” that had been found in a prior decision and noting that “a party with no beneficial interest is outside the realm of necessary parties,” the Kansas court concluded that “the failure to name and serve MERS as a defendant in a foreclosure action in which the lender of record has been served” was not such a fatal defect that the foreclosure judgment should be set aside. at 331, 192 P.3d at 181-82.

It is my opinion that the same holds true in the instant case. Here, Pulaski Mortgage, the lender for whom MERS served as nominee, was served in the foreclosure action. But, further, neither MERS’s holding of legal title, nor its status as nominee, demonstrates any interest that would have rendered it a necessary party pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 19(a).

For these reasons, I concur that the circuit court’s order should be affirmed.

IMBER and WILLS, JJ., join.

NO STANDING! MERS v, Arkansas