Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Oregon Banksters Respond To Unfavorable MERS Ruling By Waving Wads Of Cash In Attempt To Buy Off State Lawmakers, Change Document Recording Laws

The Oregonian reports:

  • The foreclosure fight in Oregon jumped to a new level this week after a federal judge in Medford rebuked the industry's sloppy practices in blocking the seizure of a Jacksonville home,(1) and mortgage issuers turned to the Legislature to find a quick fix to the legal quagmire.

***

  • Today, the mortgage and banking industry turned to the Oregon Legislature for help. The House Judiciary Committee entertained a last-minute amendment to an affordable housing bill that would rid the recording requirements holding up MERS foreclosures. Lobbyists for banks, credit unions and title companies said the amendments were needed to lift a cloud over thousands of Oregon homes.
  • "It's created a significant issue for the title industry, certainly, and, among others, the people who own these homes," said Alan Brickley, an attorney for First American Title Insurance Co. in Portland.
  • The Northwest Credit Union Association and Oregon Financial Services Association also testified in favor of the amendment. The amendment was proposed to Senate Bill 519, which is designed to protect affordable housing financing in foreclosures. Its introduction sent the bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Beaverton, and a deputy of Oregon Attorney General John Kroger scrambling to defend the state's existing recording law.
  • Committee co-chair Wayne Krieger, R-Gold Beach, postponed action on the amendment until Tuesday."It's a gut and stuff and will emasculate the recording requirements," said Phil Querin, a real-estate attorney in Portland. "It should be strongly opposed."

For the story, see Judge blocks Oregon foreclosure, sharply criticizes mortgage industry's practices and MERS.

In a related story, see Poll: Should Oregon lawmakers give foreclosures, MERS a do-over?

(1) For the court ruling, see Hooker v. Northwest Trustee Services, Inc., et al., Case 1:10-cv-03111-PA (D. Or. May 25, 2011).

No comments: