Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
15Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MERS Appellants Brief MERS v Nebraska Dept of Banking Filed 15 Oct 2004

MERS Appellants Brief MERS v Nebraska Dept of Banking Filed 15 Oct 2004

Ratings: (0)|Views: 917 |Likes:
This document is the Appellant's Brief in the case Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Appellant, v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, Appellee, a case decided by the Nebraska Supreme Court in 2005. The citation for this case was: 270 Neb. 529; 704 N.W.2d 784; 2005 Neb. LEXIS 177 (Ne. 2005). The Appellant's Brief shows that MERS NEVER has ANY economic interest in the promissory notes for which it serves as nominee or mortgage of the mortgage, deed of trust, or other mortgage security instrument.
This document is the Appellant's Brief in the case Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Appellant, v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, Appellee, a case decided by the Nebraska Supreme Court in 2005. The citation for this case was: 270 Neb. 529; 704 N.W.2d 784; 2005 Neb. LEXIS 177 (Ne. 2005). The Appellant's Brief shows that MERS NEVER has ANY economic interest in the promissory notes for which it serves as nominee or mortgage of the mortgage, deed of trust, or other mortgage security instrument.

More info:

Published by: William A. Roper Jr. on Nov 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
A-04-000786
IN
THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALSMORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS
S
Plaintiff/Appellant
vs.
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT
OF
BANKING APrepared and submitted by:James M. Pfeffer, #19177Joseph
T.
Breckenridge, #21918Abrahams Kaslow
&
Cassman LLP8712 West Dodge Road, Suite 300Omaha,Nebraska 68114Telephone (402) 392-1250Attorneys for Plaintiff!Appellant
JTB/30315 1.5
THE DISTRICT COURT OF.R COUNTY, NEBRASKA
FILED
OCT
15
2004
NEBFMSKA
~LEP.K
COUAjO~A~~~fRUR;
 
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page(s)TABLE OF CASES AND STATUTES............'"
...
...
.
..
..
......
..
. ............. .....
..
....... ..... .....
111
STATEMENT
OF
THE BASIS OF JURISDICTION ..................................
..
........
..
...
..
1STATEMENT
OF
THE CASE
...
..
..
................................................................................ 1
A.
Nature
of
the Case...................................................................................1 B.Issue Actually Tried in the Court Below
..
.
...
.................................
..
...... .
C.
How the Issue Was Decided and What Judgment WasEntered by the Court Below .................................................................
..
.
2
D.
Scope
of
Review
..
............
..
......
..
............................................................ . 2ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ............
...
...
.........
..
... ......
..
........
...
.
..
.........
..
..
..
..
.......
.
..... 2PROPOSITIONS OF LAW...... ..... ....... .....
..
....... .
...
..
....... ........
..
...... .............
..
...... .....
..
..3STATEMENT
OF
FACTS ....
...
..............................
..
..........
..
....................
..
.......
...
.......... 4ARGUMENT
1.
JTB/303l51.5
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDINGTHAT MERS MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A"MORTGAGE BANKER" UNDER NEB. REV. STAT. §45-702(6) AND
IS
THEREFORE REQUIRED TOREGISTER
AS
A MORTGAGE BANKER .......................................... . LA. MERS DOES NOT "ACQUIRE" MORTGAGELOANS OR ENGAGE IN ANY OF THE OTHERMORTGAGE BANKING ACTIVITIESDESCRIBED IN
§
45-702(6), AND MERS'ABILITY TO EXERCISE INTERESTS IN AMORTGAGE LOAN, INCLUDING THE RIGHT
TO
FORECLOSE,
IS
NOT SUFFICIENT TODEEM THAT MERS ACQUIRES MORTGAGELOANS BECAUSE MERS MERELY ACTS IN ANOMINEE CAPACITY FOR THE OWNER ANDHOLDER OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE
7
SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE.
...
........................
...
.
..
..........7
 
II.
I.B. THE DISTRlCT COURT SHOULD HAVERECOGNIZED THAT MERS' OWNERSHIP
OF
A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE SECURlTYDOCUMENT DOES NOT EQUATE
TO
MERS'OWNERSHIP
OF
THE PROMISSORY NOTE OROTHER DEBT INSTRUMENT EVIDENCINGTHE LOAN MADE TO THE CONSUMER...............................
12
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY FAILING TODETERMINE THAT MORTGAGE LOAN CONSUMERSWILL NOT
BE
HARMED IF MERS IS NOTREGISTERED
AS
A MORTGAGE BANKER ..................................... .
17
CONCLUSION ...... ......... .................
...
...... ..... ....... ....... ........ ........ ...... ........... ........ .......... 22
JTB/303l51.5
11

Activity (15)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Rob Somerton liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
spdlcr5 liked this
warped11 liked this
warped11 liked this
gobomus liked this
sirmusic835 liked this
jjandbobscribd liked this
chunga85 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->