It was a glorious day for homeowners in the State of Washington.  The entire court reviewed the Bain v. MERS and Selkowitz v. MERS cases in the questions put before them, as follows:

The legal consequences of this ruling (download it here in pdf format) have yet to be felt … but I can foresee the possibilities. One would wonder whether the arrogant PR Department inside 1818 Library Street is going to huff and puff and take this ruling to the United States Supreme Court to see whether the U.S. Supremes will even hear this case.  The way the Justice Department is behaving regarding its refusal to prosecute any of the evildoers in the banking and securities industry may not equal the power of the nation’s highest court and what it could do (nationally) to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

This reporter figures that the Oregon Supreme Court is going to follow Washington’s lead and thump MERS a good one when it issues its ruling.  Remember the old saying about letting a sleeping dog lie?  Ah, the arrogance of MERS!  Perhaps it may wish to rethink which counsel is going to go to DC and tell the U.S. Supremes that borrowers don’t need to know who owns their note too!  Talk about fallacies!  That’s the arrogance I was talking about!

Now let’s talk about condition of title … something MERS and the banks DIDN’T get a legal opinion from Covington & Burling specifically about.  It will take a century to clean up the mess made by MERS in a little over 13 years.

The chain of title assessment (COTA) is going to become a household word because the mainstream media is going to start discussing how 70-million potential homes in America can’t be sold because the average reasonable and prudent buyer wouldn’t spend a plugged nickel on a real-estate-owned (REO) property knowing the possibility its title could be clouded, not to mention the fact there’s probably an indemnification agreement attached in that contract holding the alleged lender harmless from all liability connected with the sale of the REO.

The legal effects of MERS not being able to “assign” anything or “appoint” anything … in of itself … shocks the conscience!  Open up any land record of any home affected by a MERS mortgage or deed of trust and imagine the litigation it will take to clear title to all those affected properties … all because MERS thought we’d be resorting to a national land title system. Geez! More arrogance!

Realtors who ignore this ruling are asking to be named as Defendants in a lawsuit involving tainted titles.  Brokers are complaining to me that they can’t afford a legal challenge to their involvement in a lawsuit of this nature.  They may be held NOT to be liable somehow, but the legal costs of getting out of a suit like that could drive real estate agencies into bankruptcy! Imagine the potential liability pitted against your real estate brokerage’s financial condition if all you sold was REO’s and short sales and “the hens came home to roost” because of this latest ruling?

This isn’t over yet my friends.

This is just getting started.

(AUSTIN) – DK Consultants LLC is sponsoring a series of workshops to teach interested persons on how to effectively conduct and prepare Chain of Title Assessments (COTAs), which are used by attorneys in foreclosure defense in determining case issues for potential use in the development of quiet title actions. This is a non-CLE course, open to all that have any kind of legal or real estate acumen or even to homeowners that have conducted previous substantive research.
(more…)

By Dave Krieger, Investigative Journalist and Author of “Clouded Titles” (03/07/2012)

(AUSTIN) – It may be reflective of the current state of litigation for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) and its parent “companies”, but don’t let the merger fool tactics you!

On September 22, 2011, the Board of Directors for MERSCORP, Inc. (MERS’s parent corporation … the entity with all the money) formed MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. and said corporation was registered with the Delaware Secretary of State as File #5034916. At the time of filing, its Registered Agent was listed as RL&F Service Corporation, with an address for service of process listed at 920 N. King Street, 2^nd Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801.

The process then ended up in a merger with MERSCORP, Inc., which is listed with the Delaware Secretary of State’s office as having been filed on February 27, 2012 and the File #2915165 was listed with a Registered Agent address as The Corporation Trust Company (CTC) at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

According to a clerk at the Delaware Secretary of State’s office, the MERSCORP, Inc. named disappeared and the new name of MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. was retained, showing an incorporation date of June 30, 1998, which should somewhat clarify items gleaned during the depositions of then-former CEO R. K. Arnold and then-Secretary William Hultman.  The current file number of #2915165 and CTC remain as what is shown in the Secretary of State’s records as the correct listing for MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. and its registered agent, CTC.

Coincidentally, the merger occurred while the Dallas County v. MERS suit was hung up in “MDL HELL” … being reviewed for incorporation into the multi-district litigation action in Phoenix, Arizona.  Such was not to be the case, as the MDL panel rejected MERSCORP’s (and MERS’s) removal and sent it back to Dallas.

Upon receipt of the case, Harris (Houston) and Brazoria Counties (Texas) filed motions for leave to intervene and became part of the class action.  Bexar County (San Antonio) filed its own action against MERS and MERSCORP, and tagged JPC Financial Resources, Inc. as its in-state defendant to keep its case from being removed to federal court based on diversity, something which MERS and its parents are famous for. That suit seeks unspecified damages, while Harris County seeks $10-Billion … with a “B” from MERS et al.  The case is Dallas County, Texas v. Merscorp, Inc.; 3:11-cv-02733; U.S. District Court (1100L), Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

It’s now anyone’s guess as to how the new entity will affect the litigation. The author surmises it’ll get dragged in by its chameleon’s tail at some point via service of process; which brings to mind the old saying, “You can run but you can’t hide!”

The new entity is listed at the bottom of the MERS website under Copyright 2012, MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC.  It will be interesting as the investigation ramps up in the copyright office to see who re-registered the MERS name and proprietary gobbledygook on its website.

By Dave Krieger

“MERS 101”

The event was sponsored by the V. G. Young Institute School for County and District Clerks in conjunction with the AgriLife Extension division of the Texas A & M System and the V G. Young Institute of County Government. Two separate lectures were given by the author at 3:00 and 4:10 p.m. to county and district clerks from across the State of Texas.

My mental database of knowledge on this subject matter had to be condensed into an information-packed hour, which included video deposition testimony of a robosignor and a piece done by MSNBC that featured Essex County, Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brien, (salemdeeds.com), who refers to his land records as a “crime scene”, discussing the issues involving the bank’s taking shortcuts through third-party service providers and committing fraud on the land records with documents that have been deliberately manufactured without the knowledge of the facts attested to by the person signing and the allegations that the notaries that witness the signatures of those executing the documents are often not present at the signings.

Out of 254 Texas counties, nearly two-thirds of the clerks representing the land recordation systems in the State of Texas showed up for the lectures and at certain points in the lecture, jaws literally dropped at the information presented (especially that of the robosignor who admitted he had no idea what an “Assignment of Mortgage” was, after admitting he signed hundreds of them an hour).

I was surprised (especially in the second session) at the number of clerks (elected officials) who had no idea who MERS was. The first session however, was just the opposite. Very few district court clerks attended the sessions; however, those who did came to the understanding that they may have to bone up on Order of Publication with the upcoming wave of quiet title actions expected to be filed in the next decade, along with slews of §51.903 motions.

My lecture, which also included interactive Q&A, produced many legitimate questions about the sources of the recordations; to quiet title; to the liability of title companies; to the fraud on the documents found in land records all across America. I encouraged all of the clerks to direct their legal questions to their county and district attorneys, as I cannot (as a paralegal) render legal advice. (Much of the information shared with the clerks was taken directly from the new, updated version of Clouded Titles, soon to be released.)

Afterwards, some county clerks came up to me and thanked me profusely for the information; one clerk showed me a letter he dug out of his files that was directed to a legislator from the clerk concerning the legitimacy of the MERS recordation system. Another clerk came up to me asking me for the styling of a quiet title action filed in her county so she could look it up. I told her that she may want to check on the records as to conformation to the Texas Property Code (as some of the documents in that particular case were suspect for robosigning issues). I got to see many new faces in addition to some familiar ones (who I’ve previously been working with).
My take on MERS’s continued existence in the State of Texas is that there is a huge groundswell of support to repeal legislation that gives MERS any authority to record its deeds of trust in this State. The legislation that gave MERS the right as a “nominee” to record in this “permissive recording” state was enacted in 2003 and took effect January 1, 2004 and was authored by outgoing State Representative Burt Solomons. Many clerks were quite surprised that this legislation (merely by adding a definition) made it “under their radar” and many were visibly upset.

The lawsuit filed by Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins against MERS and MERSCORP was removed to federal court (there are no federal questions in the complaint according to lead attorney Steve Malouf) and we can expect to see it tied up in multi-district litigation, a typical ploy of MERS to further stall the cases filed against it. All of the county clerks were made aware that this class-action-style suit involves all 254 counties and they were told to bring the matter to their county attorneys for follow-up (filing a motion for leave to intervene, according to the way Steve Malouf put it, to make the county part of the representative class). Several counties in Texas have already vowed suit against the private electronic database.

All in all, I was quite pleased at the turnout. It leaves open the door for more interaction with the clerks, both in legislative sessions and in private consultations about their specific land records. One thing is for sure, those clerks who are aware of MERS don’t like it and don’t want it around anymore.

By Dave Krieger

As of this post, two states Attorneys’ General have now decided to investigate Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “MERS” … which decided over a decade ago with the help of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the American Land Title Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association and a host of major banking institutions), which injected itself into the electronic data recording business for securitized mortgages and insodoing, toyed with the chains of titles to over 70,000,000 pieces of American real estate.

As expected, MERS spin folk put out a press release welcoming Beau Biden (DE) and Martha Coakley (MA) investigations, saying they look for quick resolve, while wiping the sweat off their brows that the other 48 attorneys general are just willing to roll over as long as the State they’re in gets some damage money from the banks to put into their respective general funds. That extra budget money doesn’t solve the general crisis however, it just gives the AG’s that won’t investigate thoroughly the mess MERS and its member-subscribers made a campaign platform touting toughness the likes of the tobacco settlements, when in fact, the settlements against the banks just rub salt in an already-gaping wound that are indeed miniscule to the money big tobacco paid.

On July 21, 2011 MERS issued a policy change (2011-5) claiming that members were no longer allowed to foreclose in the name of MERS … like that’s going to change the equation?

If MERS is involved in your title, so are unknown intervening assignees … assignees who didn’t record their interest in the notes they bought and sold on Wall Street and electronically recorded in MERS database. The end result hasn’t changed. MERS new policy dictates that their 20,000+ robo-officers signoff on assignments, transferring the mortgages and deeds of trust into the names of the real owners, many of which are New York trusts that have in almost all of the cases, violated the terms of their own Pooling and Servicing Agreements in claiming ownership of some 30-million claimed current MERS mortgage database holdings and 40-million past.

Many think MERS started out well-intentioned and grew into a monster of catastrophic proportions. My take is that MERS only goal was to show its members how to save billions of dollars by paying it a cheap data entry fee and circumvent the land records, changing the character and status of the promissory notes which they split from the deeds and mortgages, instead of properly sticking to the tried and true (and sometimes slow) process of following state property recordation laws. Judges who look the other way at this mess (in my opinion) haven’t been economically affected enough to wake up yet. When the states and counties can’t afford to keep paying their law clerks (take Florida for example) and judges have to do their own research, the system is going to bottleneck even worse than it already is. Foreclosures in Florida are estimated to take over 600 days from start to finish according to one estimate I’ve read.

Despite all of the claims that MERS is trying to straighten out their preconceived “mess”, the conditions of title have not changed for every single piece of American real estate it has “touched”. The marketability of any MERS-related/mortgaged property hangs in the balance.
Two important elements remain a constant here: (1) the damage to the chain of title is on-going and any recordation past the MERS recordations further convolutes the title to the point of uninsurability; and (2) just because MERS claims they’ve changed their strategies doesn’t put the “toothpaste back in the tube”. Titles to property are still slandered and clouded and MERS and its parent MERSCORP, Inc. are culpable and negligent to that end.

MERS demands to be informed every time one if its members get sued? Why does MERS make itself so hard to serve process on? If you’re an attorney trying to litigate against MERS and MERSCORP in a quiet title action, service of process against these entities is as obfuscated as the loans they preserve on their databases. Any service of this kind that claims it’s got nothing to hide shouldn’t be behaving badly (the latest address of service against both entities is in New Castle, Delaware through CTC). At least with Bank of America, you know it’s in Charlotte, North Carolina. Depending on the MERS mortgages, deeds of trust and assignments, its agents can be anywhere. Finding and deposing these agents drives up the costs of litigation, discouraging homeowners from pursuing methodologies to restore their titles to marketable condition. Having judges out there that think it’s okay for MERS to do what it’s doing further complicates the final resolution to the bigger problem that even Gretchen Morgensen from the New York Times understands. It’s sad that the paper won’t let her out of her cage to really unleash this issue. Everyone would be suing the banks and MERS trying to quiet title to their properties, jamming up the court with millions of lawsuits … and by golly, we can’t have that now, can we? Whether any newspaper reporter, judge or banker smirks at that proposition, there are many who see the groundswell of disgruntled homeowners, foreclosed on or otherwise, chant my new mantra: “If I can’t convey … neither can they!”

I brushed the dust off my old deed of trust (hey, that rhymes too!) recently to find the same thing stated that I’ve seen on dozens of others I’ve audited, the phrase that says, “Borrower Covenants that Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate and has the right to convey” … hmmm? If you as a homeowner are left scratching your head on that one, trying scratching someplace else when you realize that you weren’t the one who caused your title to become clouded (well, actually, you did when you signed a MERS mortgage or deed of trust). You didn’t know at the time you signed the paperwork and moved into your new home that your problems with conveying clear title had just begun. This is why rumors abound that one-third of Kansas City’s properties with mortgages issued between 2003 and 2008 are uninsurable. That means the value of your home is worth ZERO because you can’t sell it … because you can’t convey clear title.

Title companies are going to start feeling the brunt of these legal actions unless they start refusing to insure based on phony or improper assignments and substitutions of trustee. How can a short sale really work if the MERS system has convoluted and obfuscated true ownership of the borrower’s loan? We can only hope that the issue of MERS legitimacy will be squashed like a cockroach before the Supreme Court of the United States at some point in the near future and will be turned into roadside fauna along with the 30-year mortgage loan. MERS policy changes? They look good on paper but it’s just another smokescreen on the part of those who would continue to make the other side think MERS is complying with the April 13, 2011 Consent Order. In my book, there is no indemnification for MERS or MERSCORP, Inc.

Dave Krieger is Managing Member of DK Consultants LLC, a title consulting firm based in San Antonio, Texas.

By Dave Krieger

Download pdf

The following op-ed piece is being issued following my review of Consent Order #2011-044, issued yesterday (04.13.2011) by the “Band of 5”. You can decide for yourself what this Consent Order really stipulates. The one thing I find it does NOT stipulate, is how nearly 70 million titles to real property in America (between MERS and LPS) have clouds on them, which by most standards, would render these properties unmarketable as to clear title! This Consent Order says NOTHING about the mess already made and who bears the responsibility for cleaning it up! (My analysis is in italics, not legal advice … just my analysis.)

This Order is one of 10 Consent Orders issued by the OCC. These agreements cover unsound and unsafe banking and foreclosure procedures of Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC Bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank, LPS/DOCX, MetLife Bank, MERSCORP/MERS, PNC Bank, US Bank NA and Wells Fargo Bank, NA (and remember Wells Fargo heavily stated, “We didn’t do that!”)

The Order (which if you want to read all 31 pages of it you can download the .pdf here) was issued jointly by the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Fed”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”, which now oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as its conservator). The release of this Order on Page 2 refers to this Order “as part of an interagency horizontal review” (which the author surmises here is nothing more than an interagency horizontal mambo to cover someone’s butt).

As a side note … Lender Processing Services, Inc. and its now-defunct subsidiary DOCX are still being scrutinized by the USDOJ for possible criminal action. The recent release of the 60 Minutes episode which featured Florida attorney and fraud investigator Lynn Szymoniak and its specific coverage of one “Linda Green” also surely set off warning bells with many uninformed borrowers. Yes, Linda Green actually exists … as BOTH a man … a woman … and many other unknown John and Jane Does who can write her name!

This Consent Order basically states what we’ve already known in the hinterland … that MERSCORP and MERS’s blind authority has wreaked havoc on the chains of titles of millions of pieces of property, something the United States Government has done NOTHING to correct. Basically, because quiet title actions are “states’ rights” actions, it would seem the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the U.S. Government from sticking its nose in such affairs; not that we don’t expect it will try to at some point.

The Order also states that MERS and MERSCORP “have begun implementing procedures to remediate the practices addressed in this Order”. By mutual consent, stated within this Order, “MERS and MERSCORP have committed to take all necessary and appropriate steps to remedy the deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices identified by the Band of 5”

By Dave Krieger (OpEd)

A lot of events have come into play lately that makes me wonder that very thing …

FIRST GLANCE:

I was invited to Gwen Caranchini’s federal settlement conference last week (02/18) in Kansas City. Wow! I hadn’t seen the new federal courthouse in the Western District of Missouri in years (since it was built); such architecture. One would wonder what exactly was supposed to happen in such a conference. I was soon to find out: nothing.

Of significance however, was my introduction to MERS’s representative and their attorney. Within a minute, they had discovered I was the one in the same person that posts pieces on this website and wrote a book on the proverbial mess I claim (as well as others in the legal profession) they made in the chains of titles to now over 66-million pieces of real property in the United States of America. It’s amazing how much of a mess that really is when you look at it in detail. One would have to ask just exactly what these title companies are supposed to insure and … how much new risk are they placing themselves in?

When we got into the federal magistrate’s courtroom and the introductions of the key players were finished, MERS’s attorney stood up with raised voice and proclaimed that he and his client didn’t feel I needed to be there and thus voiced his objection. Moi? I rattled their cage? L’il ‘ole me? Gwen found it hilarious. So what if I run a blog site? I’m not going to tell you what went on behind closed doors … because I told the judge I wouldn’t … and nothing happened anyway. The question is … why did my presence get their panties in a bunch? They acted like I snuck up behind them and gave them a proverbial wedgie; and all I did was say “hello”. Clearly, I didn’t make their day. The judge was very cordial … and told MERS I was staying.

TAKE TWO:

On the way up to Kansas City, I had over an hour to re-read and mark up key points in the Ferrel Agard case that had just recently come out of the Eastern District of New York in Central Islip. Judge Robert Grossman had handed MERS a ruling they weren’t anticipating and as a result (I personally believe) William Hultman is no longer the Secretary-Treasurer of MERS (he’s now a Senior VP and corporate manager); Sharon Horstkamp, who previously served as MERS’s General Counsel, has taken over those duties.

One would think that if a state judge ruled that a homeowner failed to plead his foreclosure case and was further found to be in default (by not showing up), then why the need to file bankruptcy? Why the need for MERS to stick its nose in to the “cage of a pit bull” only to get it “bit off”? What did MERS hope to accomplish by defending its position as a “nominee” in a case that was already moot due to res judicata and further due to applications of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine? Judge Grossman handed MERS its proverbial walking papers as far as agency is concerned. It will be interesting to see how MERS’s counsel pooh-poohs that ruling.
In this case, MERS can’t be sore about the ruling because as Grossman cited Kesler (Kansas) … I would have to ask which part of the elephant did MERS (acting as the blind man in the Indian legend that described the parts of an elephant he touched) actually touch and exactly who in that organization is now going to clean up the mess left behind in touching the elephant’s tail?

THIRD TIME’S A CHARM:

No sooner did the ink dry on the Agard decision … MERS put out a press release (Number 2011-01) indicating it was revamping its membership rules. Coincidence? You be the judge.

What I have a big problem with is those pesky signing agreements that MERS seems to think legally hold water. If you want to establish an agent-principal relationship (in this case, it’s with over 20,000 alleged “signors” all claiming to be either a “Vice President” or an “Assistant Secretary”) with someone that may have no real, actual knowledge of what they’re signing (robosignor), how in the heck can you indemnify the principal that gave you as a robosignor that authority in the first place? Hey MERS! How’s your errors and omissions insurance? If I were an insurance carrier, I’d dump you like a hot potato! That’s just my opinion!

Just because you have a “new and improved” Corporate Resolution Management System (acronym: CRMS) in the works … doesn’t make you any less of a principal and thus expose your liability when your so-called “signors” claim to indemnify you in their signing agreements. What most attorneys I think will start doing (is that the little bird out there talking to me again?) is challenging your signing agreements as being worthless. Really … can you delegate authority to a signor through a corporate resolution, allowing them to sign as “virtual subagents” of MERS, using MERS rubber stamps to give the examiner some semblance of authority for what your agents did … and if it’s discovered that your agents acted recklessly and with wanton disregard in signing and electronically filing these documents in courthouses all over America (wire fraud?) thus proven to be fraudulent … how is it you’re not liable for giving them that authority by corporate resolution? Law of Agency 101

DON’T PISS OFF AN IRISHMAN!

I can tell you with a certainty that the temper of the Irish is something not to be messed with …

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone in a position of power, namely, one John O’Brien, the Registrar of Deeds for Southern Essex District for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, would declare he’s ready to enter the ring with MERS. In the wake of numerous qui tam actions taken around the country, word has it that Christopher L. Peterson, noted Professor of Law at S. J. Quinney School of Law at the University of Utah, who is assisting the qui tams in California and Nevada is a hopeful candidate in some capacity by Mass-AG Martha Coakley’s office coming after the electronic database for over $200,000,000 in unpaid assignment fees that should have been recorded in the state’s real property registers, but weren’t.

If I’m not mistaken, didn’t some corporate entity named MERS, tell its subscribers in “The Building Blocks of MERS” (a computer-generated slide show extolling the virtues of itself) that they MUST record their notices and assignments in the county recorders’ offices?
O’Brien has stated that the lost recording fees owed to county recorders nationwide could run into the billions of dollars. (On the phone, John sounds like a pissed-off JFK … and he’s mad!)

“The fact that they deliberately chose to create a for-profit private cyber Registry of Deeds whose only purpose was to avoid paying the same fees as everyone else and keeping the public in the dark as to who was the rightful owner of the mortgage clearly demonstrates to me that this was a scheme of epic proportions”, according to O’Brien.

According to O’Brien’s Assistant, Kevin Harvey, who I spoke with shortly before writing this piece, says Peterson is a familiar face in this state with this help on other cases. Time to put the gloves on … Geez, those Irishmen can fight, can’t they? Keep your eyes on Massachusetts!

THE LAST STRAW:

• For every anti-MERS ruling that the foreclosure defense consortium tosses at MERS, MERS PR Department retorts with its own claims of victorious rulings that give it impetus to do what it’s doing. One thing is clear here … there is an entire chain of case law out there (across the entire U.S.) that is totally inconsistent as to what MERS’s real authority is; thus further adding to the confusion (perhaps by design?). My take on this is that before this is over, SCOTUS is going to have this mess dumped into its lap.

• The citizenry is already up in arms about the attempted passage of legislation being defeated in the Commonwealth of Virginia thanks to MERS and the Virginia Bankers Association. Come to find out, when banker-legislators hold key positions of power, how do you expect the tide to turn in favor of the homeowner?

• In Arizona, legislation reforming the Deed of Trust Act has moved from the Senate to the House, despite an appearance from Hultman and the state banking interests … the Senate committee vote: 4 Yeas, 0 Nays, 2 Abstentions.

• A major rally is planned up in Seattle this weekend, along with testimony that is on-going in Olympia in an effort to make significant changes to its Deed of Trust Act, pitting disgruntled homeowners against legislators. The outcome is questionable?

• Last week, several more documents that were purported to have been signed by MERS agents were turned over to the DOJ in Central Florida by attorneys in Arizona and Washington State, as the feds continue their investigation into LPS/DOCX and robosigning frauds. Linda Green? Are you out there?

Go to www.thepowerhour.com and download the archives of my last three shows. Seattle Attorney Matt Hale was on the last program with me discussing the failure of loan modifications; which by the way … the Federal Trade Commission has now ruled that attorneys cannot take advance fees from homeowners for doing loan modifications (especially ones that won’t or don’t work … they rarely do) with a lender. It’s an $11,000 fine for each day spent and $11,000 fine for signing and taking advance fees. This author feels the likelihood of loan mods in the wake of the MERS debacle are at a futile end. Most homeowners may find solace in quiet title litigation.