Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q16959795> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 22 of
22
with 100 triples per page.
- Q16959795 subject Q10739767.
- Q16959795 subject Q6996613.
- Q16959795 subject Q6999011.
- Q16959795 subject Q8196839.
- Q16959795 abstract "On August 28, 2009, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding the standing, rights and interests of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) in Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009). The court held that all indispensable parties must be identified and that the actual lender identified in foreclosure actions to protect each party's rights. The decision also addressed the role MERS plays in clouding the ownership of the promissory note and title to the property.In Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, MERS, the appellant sought to invoke due process rights which it said were violated when MERS failed to get notice of the fact that their “interest” was being wiped out via a prior foreclosure it did not receive notice of. The Court said simply that MERS — or any nominee” didn’t have any interest and proves its point by reference to simple statements in the documents and the simplest of laws and interpretation of the role of MERS and the requirements of recordation. The splitting or bifurcation of the promissory note or mortgage note and mortgage or deed of trust creates an immediate and fatal flaw in title.The Kansas Supreme Court went on to cite several other case across the nation and stated: “When the role of a servicing agent [MERS] acting on behalf of a mortgagee is thrown into the mix, it is no wonder that it is often difficult for unsophisticated borrowers to be certain of the identity of their lenders and mortgagees.” In re Schwartz, 366 B.R. 265, 266 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007) and then cited the Supreme Court of New York (Kings County) that said: “[T]he practices of the various MERS members, including both [the original lender] and [the mortgage purchaser], in obscuring from the public the actual ownership of a mortgage, thereby creating the opportunity for substantial abuses and prejudice to mortgagors . . . , should not be permitted to insulate [the mortgage purchaser] from the consequences of its actions in accepting a mortgage from [the original lender] that was already the subject of litigation in which [the original lender] erroneously represented that it had authority to act as mortgagee.” Johnson, 2008 WL 4182397, at *4, 873 N.Y.S.2d 234 (2008).".
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q1068288.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q10739767.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q184260.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q190122.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q231710.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q329777.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q6025164.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q6365113.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q683146.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q6914633.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q6914663.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996613.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q6999011.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q7848151.
- Q16959795 wikiPageWikiLink Q8196839.
- Q16959795 comment "On August 28, 2009, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding the standing, rights and interests of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) in Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009). The court held that all indispensable parties must be identified and that the actual lender identified in foreclosure actions to protect each party's rights.".
- Q16959795 label "Landmark National Bank v. Kesler".