Foreclosure Defense Florida


One of the most important issues in virtually every foreclosure case is trying to identify exactly who owns the note that the Plaintiff is foreclosing on.   This issue is almost never clear in the pleadings filed by the Plaintiff despite the fact that this issue is the central issue in the entire case.   Remember, the servicer is not the proper party in interest if they are not entitled to profit from the foreclosure judgment.

The plaintiffs and their attorneys make it difficult to find this information, but now we have assistance from an unlikely source, MERS or Mortgage Electronic Registration System.MERS electronic system weidner law

A change on the MERS website that was just published today allows any party to search the MERS site by address of MIN number to gain the identity of the owner or investor in the note.

You can check the MERS website here to access this information.   This is critically important information in every case, especially when the Plaintiff has identified one party and the MERS site identifies yet another!


  • Lisa D says:

    Mr. Weidner,

    Thank you – Great new resource.

    Our current foreclosure complaint states Plaintiff is “US Bank NA as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Home Equity Asset Trust 2005-1”

    However, as of today the MERS website lists the investor as “Credit Suisse First Boston”.

    Does this mean that the current complaint must be dismissed for “lack of color-able interest” or lack of proper party???

  • TheProtester says:

    Wow you are on it, I just sent you an email. This is very powerful as a defense. What are your thoughts on getting reversals of summary judgments and/or defaults for lack of standing.

  • JamesM2 says:

    Me too. I have just checked. Wrong party of intrest.

    Also have:
    A bad assignment of mortgage.
    A second “Corrected” assignment of mortgage filed after the action commenced, attempting to back date the assignment by 2 years.

    They found the note. A note not signed over to Plaintiff but signed in blank with no date -(probably when it was originally issued as part of the FHA – Securitization process).

    Also finding fraudulent affidavits that make conclusions of law, and Plaintiffs law firm seems to be generating the fraudulent documents.

    Not to mention on further research, it looks like original note is invalid.

    Also I have found DOZENS of forecloses processed by the same law firm, for same plaintiff, where alleged Assignments of Mortgage (AOM) are not, they are just affidavits attempting to establish a prior date, AND in many cases the AOM is executed and filed AFTER commencement of action. Many people have lost their homes via the fraudulent AOM documents.

    NOTE to all: A count for a lost note gets you the option of demanding a jury trial, BECAUSE in re-establishing the lost note Plaintiff may use evidence in LAW and Equity, and therefore because they may use evidence in LAW you have a right to jury trial, at least on the lost note count, which they must prove and win before the foreclosure in equity. (If you don’t understand this just mention it to your lawyer – And that I have supporting FL case law.)

  • kneat39 says:

    I just looked up my min and found a different company would my defense be the same dismissed for ” lack of color-able interest” or lack of proper party???

  • lowelisamarie says:

    The MERS site does have HSBC as my servicer and investor. Does that mean they have rights to my property? Also, the title company listed on my original (recorded) loan, is out of business. I tried to call them today to see if they could shed any light on where any of my original loan docs went. Do they not keep track of titles?

  • Frankielee says:

    My loan was refied in 2003 with Countrywide. The MERS site shows my loan as a 2003 loan with B of A as servicer, Fannie Mae as owner. This would seem to mean that my loan wasn’t sold, that it’s correct. But at the same time, wouldn’t there need to be an assignment from Countrywide to either of the above?

  • goingdownfighting says:

    My loan was originated in Nov 2002 by Peoples First Community Bank. They sold it to Hibernia Jan 2003. The Note is stamped with that transfer and there is an assignment filed. In 2005 Hibernia assigned it to MERS. An assignment was filed but that transfer is not on the note. CitiMortgage filed foreclosure in 2007 but nothing had been transferred to them. The case was dismissed and reopened this spring. Citi had filed a transfer dated 4/2010 assigning the mortgage to them from Peoples First with an effective date in 2007 just before the original Lis Pendens filing. Peoples First could not have executed this assignment because they were closed by the FDIC in Dec of 2009.
    We went to hearing last week and I pointed all of this out to the Judge. He said that he had the note and it listed Citi as the holder. I went to the courthouse today to view the documents and they are the same that I have. The note says Hibernia and the fraudulent assignment from Peoples First to Citi. I guess he is accepting this fraudulent assignment which surprises me since the Judge is the same one that just dismissed a case with prejudice for a similar situation.
    He ruled final summary judgement but with mediation. That may not help as my husband (whose salary we need to make the payment) has been unemployed for a long time. He is continually trying to find employment but at 58 it’s difficult. Especially in this environment.
    I did the MERS lookup and found out that our mortgage is owned by Fannie Mae and serviced by Citi. Is there anything we can do?
    Shouldn’t the fraudulent assignment; made by a bank that was no longer in business and one which had transferred the mortgage seven years ago be considered fraud on the court and possibly give us some leverage?
    Shouldn’t there be a stamp on the note indicating that the mortgage was transferred to Citi where our note shows that it is owned by Hibernia?

Leave a Reply