Read this decision carefully, it is one of the most profound dissection of the MERS regime yet.
This Court finds that MERS’s theory that it can act as a ” common agent” for undisclosed
principals is not support by the law. The relationship between MERS and its lenders and its
distortion of its alleged ” nominee” status was appropriately described by the Supreme Court of
Kansas as follows: ” The parties appear to have defined the word [nominee] in much the same
way that the blind men of Indian legend described an elephant ““ their description depended on
which part they were touching at any given time.” Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d
158, 166-67 (Kan. 2010).
