MERS v Robinson: MERS loses Quiet Title case in California

In MERS v Robinson, handed down Jan 28, 2014, the Central California District Court dismissed MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) claims that it holds claim to the defendant’s property title instead of the Lender. The court holds MERS is a “separate corporation that is acting solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s Successors and assigns. Benefit of collection belongs to lender, as true beneficiary. The court held that MERS must act as agent for lender, not for its own interests.

MERS v Robinson is a huge win for homeowners with underwater mortgages in California and paves the way for Quiet Title actions by individual homeowners to forestall illegal property foreclosure by agents of MERS.

We reported recently on MERS in our QUIET TITLE post. MERS is the scourge of homeowners and has been challenged in the courts recently (See Glaski).

Dave-Krieger-Clouded-TitleAccording to Dave Krieger, a title consultant to counties in the US, a leading authority on challenging foreclosure and chain of title issues, and author of Clouded Titles said about MERS v Robinson:

Folks! This is the case we’ve been waiting for! Cervantes, Ashcroft, Iqbal, Bellestri, Landmark … all the great cases came back to bite MERS in the ass! MERS tried to upend a quiet title action wherein Robinson’s attorney managed to expunge the original deed of trust, which tied MERS to the equation.

Significantly, the court (who also personally wrote the Cervantes opinion) nailed the first of MERS’s 4 claims sine non qua (one condition predicates the other conditions in order for the others to be effective); thus, the other 3 conditions got shot down. MERS IS NOT AN ECONOMIC BENEFICIARY in California! MERS ALSO DOES NOT HAVE CLAIM TO TITLE! (even though it says in the DOT that MERS has only legal title, the court found it confusing because MERS is using its “false beneficiary status” to claim it also has rights to title, which the court disagreed with.

MERS has until March 3, 2014 to file an amended complaint on the 3 conditions that failed due to their beneficial status failing. Hmmm … we may not see one filed based on this ruling. If they don’t, the whole bloody thing gets dismissed WITH PREJUDICE!

How can MERS have claim to anything as a nominee? The court apparently felt that since the real party in interest didn’t answer the complaint, it’s agent didn’t need to be noticed! This is an important point to recognize! The agent did need to be noticed! This changes the landscape for quiet title actions folks!

MERS v Robinson Court Order

Mers v Robinson_order. MERS loses critical caseCalifornia District Court dismisses MERS claims that t holds…

Print Friendly


  1. says

    I have been browsing online greater than 3 hours
    lately, but I never discovered any attention-grabbing
    article like yours. It’s pretty worth sufficient for me.

    Personally, if all website owners and bloggers made excellent content as you did, the net can
    be a lot more helpful than ever before.

  2. Charles Reed says

    Understand homeowner in CA who had a loan government (FHA, VA, USDA) originated or purchase by Washington Mutual Bank and was placed into a Ginnie Mae securities pool, and the property was foreclosed it was done illegally because after Sept 25, 2008 the bank was declared a “fail bank” showing the breaking of ownership.

    The Notes were separated from the Notes and creates a problem were Ginnie Mae does not purchase the loans but does have physical possession of blank endorsed Notes without the ability to provide a receipt of purchase!

    MERS cannot come in acting as the beneficiary for another without addressing WaMu who was the last holder of the Note & debt together, before the split of the two. Once the blank Notes were relinquished to Ginnie Mae you can never reunite the two because Ginnie Mae not being a mortgage loan lender, cannot engage in originating, buying or selling home mortgage loans at all!