It’s rare that I’ll put forward an optimistic post about a mid-level federal agency hire. But that’s what I’m about to do. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau just hired the man who knows more about MERS – and their deficiencies – than perhaps anyone in the country. University of Utah Law Professor Christopher Peterson will join the bureau.
A University of Utah law professor known for his critical view of payday lending has taken a job with the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Chris Peterson will take a leave from the U. law school to join the enforcement unit of the new bureau, charged with regulating everything from credit cards to mortgages.
He has called for a warning label on payday loans that would mark them as “predatory,” and he has been critical of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, a mega-company created by mortgage bankers that owns more than half of all residential mortgages and has been actively foreclosing on thousands of Americans.
I interviewed Peterson back in October 2010, right when I was trying to understand MERS and its impact on the housing market and the economy. He came up with the best possible resolution of the MERS mess and the securitization fail issue that I’ve yet seen:
“If you sign a promissory note on the back with your name, like endorsing a check, even a thief can cash it,” Peterson explained. “So if MERS came into possession of promissory notes for mortgages, they would have standing based on holding it. They relied upon this in court. But this hasn’t worked out so well, because the financial institutions can’t find the promissory notes!” [...]
Another possibility is that the courts could impose an equitable mortgage on the borrower on behalf of the investors. “This is a rare and unusual remedy, given normally when there’s a technical defect” in the mortgage, according to Peterson. But that’s basically where we’re at.
In that case, the judge would have a lot of discretion to set the terms of the equitable mortgage. The judge could look at an option-ARM mortgage with an exploding interest rate and say “I can reform it in the interest of justice.” Essentially, a regular court, not a bankruptcy court, could resolve the problems with title and standing to foreclose by implementing something that looks a lot like cramdown. This would depend on the individual judge, of course, and the equitable mortgage might have a different legal status, particularly in bankruptcy. But in the main, “it might not be that different than the proposal we saw in Congress… to allow the modification of home mortgages,” Peterson said.
Needless to say, that isn’t where we’ve gone, and a lot of the leverage here has been dissipated. But Peterson still has a lot of original thoughts in this area, and he’ll be bringing them to bear for the CFPB. That can only be positive. That’s especially true because CFPB has the responsibility to write lasting servicer standards, and having Peterson on the legal team will aid with that. We may even get some national regulatory standards on MERS once this is all done. That’s certainly what this appointment points toward.




7 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
He would not have been picked if he wasn’t able to follow the offical “No wrongdoing” path.
Boxturtle (How long will it be before he utters the phrase “Just paperwork problems”?)
Sooooo, good news? Well, that’s a pleasant change. But, I’m skeptical. Being half Coonass and 1/16 Cherokee, we tend to be that way. But, because of you, I will look at this glass as half-full, wait for the other shoe to drop but, take this all with a grain of salt. (That’s my three cliche limit)
good morning, Dave! i really snickered at the title of this article. “reforming MERS” would be the same as this guy’s labeling “solution” to payday loans.
the true answer to the mortgage mess is to require either the last recorded mortgage with note and/or the original notarized note itself.
MERS was/is a criminal scam to bypass county recording fees and expedite the huge “paper scams” created by the FIRE fraudsters.
This “commission” is just a way to “legalize” world-wide fraud by the banksters.
If the original note can’t be found, the last recorded note should rule — not computer data entries.
my $2 (2 cents adjusted for “inflation”)
karen
p.s. please don’t take this as “shooting the messenger,” Dave. I thoroughly appreciate and respect your work; you are an exceptional journalist. thank you!
Thanks, DD!
It is always good to hear news that you consider good!
Bob in AZ
My thoughts exactly. There is the probability that he will be required to stand in the corner saying those words until he can say them with a straight face.
I am afraid that I have to agree with Karen. Property law is very old, in the English/European tradition, and it always rests on demonstrating the chain of ownership with paper. Deed to deed, that is how ownership is proved. Anyone purchasing property would have a title search done at the county land registry office to make sure that title to the property they were purchasing was clear, ie, had no liens registered against it, had no ‘idiot heirs’ who might turn up to claim title, and that all previous transfers were done legally. They would then register their purchase with the county registrar. In the North America, title is traced back to the original government grant.
MERS has the *planned* function of clouding *every* land deed in the US. It is a land-grab, pure and simple. The last time such a thing happened on this scale it was Euro-types producing ‘deeds’ to aboriginal land which had been held for millenia (still going on today in S America, btw). Biz and govt collude, biz gets the land, and govt assesses ‘taxes’, which must be paid in state currency. Govt armies and/or biz’s militias enforce. Result: freeholders become serfs *and* wage-slaves — neat, huh?
I don’t know why this sort of thing is so common in fiction as to not need elaboration, but when it occurs in reality, the general reaction is, “No, they wouldn’t/can’t do that!” They would, they can, and they are. This is how it happens.
Perceptive as usual.