Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court of Appeals Upholds Recording of MERS Mortgages
In Matter of Merscorp, Inc. v. Romaine, decided last month, the Court of Appeals resolved the long-standing dispute between the Suffolk County Clerk's office and participants in an electronic mortgage registration consortium. In one of the first opinions by recently appointed Judge Eugene Pigott, the court held that the County Clerk is required to accept for recording mortgages and satisfactions in the name of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) even though MERS itself holds no interest in those mortgages.
The MERS System
In 1993, a number of mortgage lenders joined to create a system to track interests in residential mortgages. The system was designed to permit lenders to transfer mortgages freely without having to record each assignment with the local office for recording interests in real estate. Lenders, title insurers, and other members of MERS pay an annual fee for the electronic processing and tracking of ownership and transfer of mortgages. When a MERS member obtains a mortgage from a borrower, the mortgage is recorded in the office responsible for real estate recording (typically the county clerk's office). The mortgage is recorded not in the name of the actual mortgagee, but in the name of MERS as the lender's nominee, or as mortgagee of record. Subsequent transfers of the mortgage to other MERS members are not recorded in the county clerk's office, but are instead tracked internally by MERS. When the mortgage is discharged, MERS ' like any ordinary mortgagee ' issues a certificate of discharge. The mortgagor would then be entitled to record that certificate of discharge to establish clear title.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?