17 News Investigation: Homeowner challenges bank

Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Share
Updated: 7/19/2011 7:48 pm
A Bakersfield homeowner is taking on a bank, in a battle that could have sweeping implications for people facing foreclosure.

Mark Demucha wants Wells Fargo to prove it owns his home loan. And, if his lawsuit is successful, it could set a legal precedent that slows or even stops foreclosures across the state.

"Filled out the same paperwork over and over again."

Mark Demucha says all he wanted was to keep his house. "Sent it to them over and over again. I couldn't give you the exact time frame, but it's ridiculous," he said.

But, after a year of trying to get a loan modification from Wells Fargo... "I had to do something to protect my family. to protect my home."

He felt all washed up. "Not yes, not no, not anything. They didn't respond."

Demucha turned to family friend Michael Finley who happens to be a lawyer.

"A company that does not have a legal right to collect mortgage payments should not have the right to foreclose," said Finley.

Now, in a case that could have far-reaching implications, Demucha and Finley say they have one simple request. "If they are going to take my house, I should be able to see they have a legal right to take it from me," said Demucha. "They come to me and want me to have every single piece of paper I was ever supposed to have. But, when I say 'hey where is my promissory note?' they look at me like I'm a thief."

That's because Wells Fargo didn't loan Demucha the money to buy his house. Another company called CTX Mortgage, did.

Banks, at the time, seemed like they were almost using the housing market as a roulette wheel or a craps table. They were shoving debt around like it was a card game.

Like so many millions of homeowners, Demucha's loan was sold to another lender, a common practice because it's profitable to the banks.

In the old days, any time ownership of a property and its loan changed hands, it would be recorded at the Hall of Records at a cost of $18. For the mortgage industry, that took too long and on a large scale cost too much money. So they privatized it by creating the mortgage electronic registration system, a company headquartered in Reston, Virginia.

The sole purpose of MERS was to cut out the county clerk, allowing one mortgage company to quickly and electronically transfer a loan to another mortgage company.

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman told 17 News, MERS holds title to about 60% of the country's home mortgages or about 32 million loans. MERS is basically an electronic handshake between banks, saying we have a deal.

But, MERS has turned into a headache for some lenders as homeowners across the country have successfully challenged the company's legal standing in court. Others like Demucha are demanding their lender produce loan documents which may have been lost or even destroyed in the MERS shuffle.

"Why should the bank not still be required to possess a single piece of paper that they are the right place to home the consumer should make the payments?"

Earlier this month, a state appellate court agreed, overturning a Kern County judge's ruling that Wells Fargo could foreclose on the home.

The case is headed back to our county where the same judge will have to decide if Wells Fargo can prove it legitimately holds title to the Demucha's home.

"I wish I were David and they were Goliath. This would have been an easier fight. They are like an army of Goliaths and I'm like David with his hands tied behind his back," said Demucha.

Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda couldn't comment on the specifics of this case but acknowledged the appellate court had sent the case back to the Kern County trial court to rule on several issues. Goyda noted the appeals court did not actually rule on the case and that Wells Fargo would continue to try the case in court.

A spokeswoman for MERS said her company said she couldn't comment because they are not part of this lawsuit. Demucha and his attorney are basically asking for Wells Fargo to go away and to restore the couple's credit.

"Wells Fargo essentially ignored them until the fifth district appellate court said Wells Fargo you can't ignore Mark and Sherry Demucha any more," said Finley.

The appellate court ruling has arrived back here in Kern County but a hearing has not yet been scheduled.


Share
47 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of KGET TV 17 - In the Spirit of the Golden Empire

ForrestHazzard - 8/3/2011 10:57 AM
0 Votes
"Without justice being freely, fully, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence." --Joseph Story--

ForrestHazzard - 8/3/2011 10:28 AM
0 Votes
Everbody interested in stopping this type of action should review the information posted on two websites The nation’s largest banks have been committing foreclosure fraud – illegally repossessing the homes of tens of thousands of Americans. These big banks caused the economic crisis, then they got bailed out, now they are reporting record profits… and what do we, the people, get? Lies, intimidation and a kick to the curb. ?We are homeowners who have decided it’s time to come together and fight for our homes, our neighborhoods, the American Dream. ?We have launched the Home Defenders League and are putting out a call to our fellow homeowners across the CA to resist unlawful actions by the banks. STAY IN YOUR HOME. They must prove that they do indeed hold the mortgage note for your property and prove that they have complied with CA state law requiring them to meet with the borrower and attempt a work-out. We demand affordable, permanent loan modifications! MERS in California timothymccandless | August 2, 2011 at 10:30 am | Tags: Foreclosure, Fraud, HOEPA, litigation, mers, Mortgage modification, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, stop foreclosure, wrongful foreclosure | Categories: Foreclosure, robo-sign | URL: http://wp.me/pjHsx-To From LivingLies: I think that everyone is missing the #1 problem MERS has in CA. MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent and cannot legally assign the Promissory Note, making any foreclosure by other than the original lender wrongful, for the following reasons. 1) Under established and binding Ca law, a Nominee can’t assign the Note. Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528 2) On most Notes, the term Nominee is not included and MERS never takes ownership, making it unenforceable and unassignable by MERS. Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648

ForrestHazzard - 8/3/2011 9:57 AM
0 Votes
MERS in California timothymccandless | August 2, 2011 at 10:30 am | Tags: Foreclosure, Fraud, HOEPA, litigation, mers, Mortgage modification, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, stop foreclosure, wrongful foreclosure | Categories: Foreclosure, robo-sign | URL: http://wp.me/pjHsx-To From LivingLies: I think that everyone is missing the #1 problem MERS has in CA. MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent and cannot legally assign the Promissory Note, making any foreclosure by other than the original lender wrongful, for the following reasons. 1) Under established and binding Ca law, a Nominee can’t assign the Note. Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528 2) On most Notes, the term Nominee is not included and MERS never takes ownership, making it unenforceable and unassignable by MERS. Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648 3) Ca Civil Code §2924, et seq. is exhaustive and a Nominee is never included as an acceptable form of “authorized agent” in a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure. Finally, GOMES V. COUNTRYYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, IS FLAWED! a) The Gomes case simply failed to address and apply the established and binding definition of a nominee. b) The first thing the Deed of Trust does is (i) take away MERS right to payments and (ii) take away the right to enforce the Note. c) REGARDLESS WHAT A BORROWER AGREES TO, a borrower cannot legally grant MERS the right to assign the note or any of the rights of the note owner. ________________________________________ MERS Fatal Flaws MERS cannot legally assign a Promissory Note because, MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent under Established and Binding California Real Property Law and the borrower can't provide that power to MERS. First, a Nominee is someone who is nominated potentially for a future position. Much like being nominated for President, yet a Presidential Nominee doesn't receive any powers until the person actually becomes President.

ForrestHazzard - 8/1/2011 8:41 PM
0 Votes
They have tried to get the bank to work with them, but are frustrated because the bank won’t talk unless they are two payments behind and the only thing the bank will do is freeze their payments or add their arrears to their loan balance. Banks will not reduce the principal amount on loans to fair market value to save a borrower from foreclosure. They just won’t do it. Once again it’s the 80/20 loan to the rescue. This beautiful piece of financial engineering genius (you really need to click on that link, it’s hilarious!) has found yet another way to help distressed home owners. And not just in California, this trick works all over the United States. The trick is called a “Chapter 13 Lien Strip” but I like to call it the “Back Door Cram Down.” You may have read about the proposed mortgage “Cram Down” legislation that would allow Chapter 13 judges to reduce or “Cram Down” mortgages balances to fair market value in a Chapter 13 case. This legislation has zero chance of passing until a new election and Congress are seated next January. Instead, we are “Cramming Down” second mortgages using the old Bankruptcy code section 1322 which states: What’s not obvious about this code section is a loan is not “secured” by your personal residence if there is no value or equity in your home that would go to the lender if the home was sold. That means the loan can be converted to unsecured or the lien “stripped” from the house by “modifying the rights of holders of secured claims.” This turns it into unsecured debt, like credit card debt, which can be discharged!!!! This is why I call it a “Back Door” cram down because we are cramming down the second mortgage to unsecured status.

ForrestHazzard - 8/1/2011 7:59 PM
0 Votes
I urge everyone to create MERS and MERSCORP Google messages and read this guys website everey article also watch the Utube Videos on MERS anhttp://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/california-court-rules-mers-can’t-foreclose-citibank-can’t-collect/ Timothymccandless's Weblog This guy seems to know more about MERS legalities than I do which is rare But, in this latest decision,Keane, who recently taught a seminar for Utah Attorneys regarding his successful Foreclosure Defense strategies, explained that the "split the note" argument asserts that because MERS holds the trust deed (and the promissory note is held by an unknown third party due to securitization), the trust deed has been "split from the note." This concept was first articulated in Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872). Keane has based several of his cases upon this argument, and has been successful in using it to nullify trust deeds in Utah.The Commonwealth opinion specifically addresses the "split the note" argument and fully rejected it. Following the rationale of the Utah United States district courts, the Commonwealth Court reasoned in Utah Code § 57-1-35 that "[t]he transfer of any debt secured by a trust deed shall operate as a transfer of the security therefore." Because this statute reflects “sound public policy” – at least in the opinion of the Utah appellate court – the appellate court refused to go on to consider the additional rule of law articulated in Carpenter v. Longan: that transfer of the trust deed to an entity separate from the promissory note holder renders the trust deed a nullity. Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 (“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”) Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/11/08/p1823579/attorney-walter-keane-explains-unfavorable-ruling-of-quiet-title-split-#ixzz1Tpu2zjk

ForrestHazzard - 7/30/2011 2:34 AM
0 Votes
... was set up thoughtlessly, without regard to its basic legality, and designed with only two objectives: lowering the mortgage industry's costs and maximizing its convenience. As a result, MERS has none of the advantages of the centuries-old system it was intend to replace, and largely has. MERS is not accurate, not transparent, and not accountable to the public. To let MERS continue simply allows it to continue wreaking havoc on property records and the legal morass it's created to continue tangling foreclosure and bankruptcy cases nationwide.

ForrestHazzard - 7/30/2011 2:33 AM
0 Votes
I recommend that anyone who wishes to fight their foreclosure in California retain this person If there is going to be a winner in this matter and I understand he is an attorney who specializes in MERS defenses Once again I am asking Attorney General Martha Coakley and the other state Attorney's General to follow the lead of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and stop any settlement talks with the banks. The results of this report are only for my registry, but I can assure you that this type of criminal fraud is rampant across the nation. This leaves me to question why anyone would consider settling with these banks until we know the full extent of the damage that they have caused to the homeowners chain of title across this country and the amount of money they have bilked the taxpayers for their failure to pay recording fees.

ForrestHazzard - 7/30/2011 2:19 AM
0 Votes
http://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/california-court-rules-mers-can’t-foreclose-citibank-can’t-collect/ Timothymccandless's Weblog This guy seems to know more about MERS legalities than I do which is rare But, in this latest decision, the bankruptcy judge in California didn’t agree, writing in his opinion: “Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.” Did you get that? Since MERS didn’t own the underlying note, it couldn’t transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to Citibank.

ForrestHazzard - 7/23/2011 1:58 PM
0 Votes
That counsel for Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation and Ocwen Financial Services Inc [having done business through MERS and having lawfully prepared the Notice of Default and having recorded it bearing MERS as beneficiary of the Non-Judicial Foreclosure process] having transacted business unlawfully in violation of Business and Professional Code Section 17910 with a corporation suspended under Corp Code section 2205 and initiating a non-judicial foreclosure proceedings against plaintiff based solely upon the filed notice of Default as filed naming MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC. (MERS) as beneficiary and having foreclosed upon a Deed of Trust recorded as document 2005-0167723 on March 01, 2005 in book XX page XX official records in the office of county recorder of San Diego County California failed to adequately investigate the corporate status of this party its client, and/or has violated California Business and Professions Code 17918 and § 6068(d) and have mislead the court into believing that MERS and its agents were authorized to do business within the state of California when these entities were in violation of California Revenue and Taxation Code section 22301, 22301.5, 23305 and by misleading the court as to MERS DBA

ForrestHazzard - 7/23/2011 1:56 PM
0 Votes
Just found this in my old Zillow profile put there by El Cajon Court Or Judge Exharos or One of the Judges Jan Goldsmith or Ex Chief Justice Ronald George or ordered by The US Attorney [2008] or FBI [2008] It may be of use to some of you Use a jury This Motion to Strike will be made on the grounds that MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC. (MERS) named as beneficiary both within the original recorded deed of trust as put forth above and under the filed Notice of Default [Document 2006-0243629] and stated therein as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc as Nominee for Ownit Mortgage Solutions Inc as beneficiary of the notice of Default is a suspended corporation pursuant California Corporations Code §2205 and California Revenue and Taxation Code §§ 23301, 23301.5 and thus lacks the capacity to prosecute, defend, or appeal any cause of action in a court of law; that MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. (MERS) has neither been revived, nor is in substantial compliance with the policy requirements for reinstatement; [that defendants having passed the point of no return within the Non-Judicial Foreclosure proceedings the sale could not benefit from revival of MERS as a corporate entity in that the question currently before the court is was MERS a legal/lawfully licensed corporation or a suspended corporation doing business illegally within California at the time it took these actions against plaintiff. That counsel for Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation and Ocwen Financial Services Inc [having done business through MERS and having lawfully prepared the Notice of Default and having recorded it bearing MERS as beneficiary of the Non-Judicial Foreclosure process] having transacted business unlawfully in violation of Business and Professional Code Section 17910 with a corporation suspended under Corp Code section 2205 and initiating a non-judicial foreclosure proceedings against plaintiff based solely upon the filed notice of Default as filed naming
84°
Clear
Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.