QUOTE (radi8 @ Oct 30 2009, 10:34 PM)

That case is somewhat of an oddball that won't apply to the normal securitized mortgage.
In this case MERS represented Milennia bank- the second mortgage holder, during a foreclosure action initiated by the first mortgage lender.
The district court found that MERS was merely an agent for the principal lender, Millennia Bank, therefore it was unnecessary to provide MERS notice of foreclosure as Millennia had been served directly. MERS had no interest in the loan as the lender of record was present.
No doubt is it an oddball case. But there is more to it than just MERS merely being the principal lender and that it did not need to provider a notice of foreclosure. This does apply to most normal securitized mortgages.
The opinion has defined what MERS is as a nominee. The court defined the word nominee as:
QUOTE
We view a ‘nominee’, as the term was used by the parties here, not simply in the sense of a straw man or limited agent. . . , but in the larger sense of a person designated by them to purchase the real estate, who would possess all the rights given a buyer . . .
This meant that they were given the same rights as a mortagee, which leads to the big opinion that:
QUOTE
If MERS is only the mortgagee, without ownership of the mortgage instrument, it does not have an enforceable right. See Vargas, 396 B.R. 517 (“[w]hile the note is ‘essential,’ the mortgage is only ‘an incident’ to the note” [quoting Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271, 83 U.S. 271, 275, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872)]).
This now seperates the note from the mortgage. Which means MERS and any bank that was on the mortgage can not enforce the mortgage and collect on the note. This is why it is an important decision and does effect normal securitized mortgages.
**P.S. I'm just argueing what I am reading and understanding.. If I sound condescending or angry I'm not tring to be and I apologize if I do. I enjoy dicussing these things and welcome all comments and thoughts.