3 ms·
Many of these homeowners, unlike "sovereign citizens", actually appear to have the law on their side. They aren't just making up their own insane interpretation
by rspeer 8y ago
Many of these homeowners, unlike "sovereign citizens", actually appear to have the law on their side. They aren't just making up their own insane interpretation of the legal system. It even sounds like it's more like MERS who made up an interpretation of title that disagrees with state laws.
You seem to be saying that MERS's interpretation should be correct, that MERS's database should be the law of the land and investors should be able to buy and sell the title to mortgages without states and counties being involved.
The current system has homeowners getting windfalls because MERS screwed up, and I suspect that screw-ups in your version would have the opposite effect, where homeowners get robbed by computers and nobody can be held accountable.
So that seems bad. And what would the benefit be? Sure, it would make mortgage-backed securities more efficient, but -- why is that good?
- pnathan 8y agoCrap happens. That's the point of the courts; to enforce remedy. If you've ever dealt a little bit with funky titles, you'd know that having a central authority managing all claims to title would be a big deal and massively improve life for property buyers. Title searches are not exhaustive. That is why title insurance exists. If MERS is a title registry and it also manages bundling of debts, I genuinely don't care. The issue isn't debt bundling, it was granting high risk mortgages and other high risk behavior.