The pending multibillion-dollar settlement with banks centers
on “robosigned” documents and court filings and other problems related
to mortgage servicing that caused a national uproar last fall. Much of
that flawed paperwork flowed through MERS.
Meanwhile, the same
system helped make possible the boom in mortgage-backed securities that
fueled the housing crisis by allowing banks to quickly and cheaply
transfer the ownership of loans. Questionable securitization practices
have sparked other state and federal investigations, but they are not
the focus of the current settlement talks.
Given the broad reach
that MERS has into every aspect of the mortgage and foreclosure process,
officials have been grappling with whether they can address one element
of the MERS business model in the current settlement while leaving
other aspects open to future investigation. In part, they say, the
patchwork of conflicting laws and court decisions in different states
makes a one-size-fits-all solution difficult. In addition, they are
facing pressure from banks that already stand to pay billions of dollars
in penalties and would prefer to steer clear of the MERS problem
altogether in the current negotiations.
Several people familiar
with the negotiations said that officials leading the talks have no
intention of releasing MERSCORP, the parent company of MERS, from
liability claims. The trickier question is how to address MERS-related
foreclosure cases that involve the banks under scrutiny.
“We’re
really wrestling with MERS. Does it need to be part of this?” said one
official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks are
ongoing. “MERS is a bit of a swamp.”
Illinois Attorney General
Lisa Madigan acknowledged in an interview that the issue remains
unresolved. She said there are “differing opinions” about how to deal
with it.
The MERS quandary is one in a long line of thorny topics
that state and federal officials have spent much of the past year
wrestling with, as they seek to reach a settlement with five of the
nation’s largest banks, including Bank of America. Other dicey issues
have included how much they should demand in penalties — the current
estimate stands at about $20 billion — as well as how the banks
should overhaul their mortgage servicing procedures and whether they
should be forced to write down loan balances for some troubled
borrowers.
Just this week, a rift over how broad a release the
banks should receive from future liability claims in exchange for
agreeing to settle boiled over when Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller removed New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman
from the committee overseeing the talks on behalf of all 50 states,
saying he had actively undermined the group’s efforts to reach a deal.
Schneiderman and several others have resisted a quick settlement on
servicing problems alone, arguing that all aspects of the mortgage
crisis should face a full investigation before moving forward.
That
personal tug of war and the other high-profile issues have kept the
MERS problem under the radar. But a final settlement is unlikely to
materialize until it is resolved.
Some attorneys general have said
they would not support a settlement that grants immunity on issues
related to MERS and securitization. Massachusetts Attorney General
Martha Coakley has been among the most vocal and has undertaken an
inquiry into MERS.
“We will make sure, at least here in
Massachusetts, that we do not reach an agreement that, for instance,
gives relief for securitization issues that still need investigation or
for fraudulent servicing around the use of MERS,” Coakley said at a news
conference this month. “We will not settle an issue until we know all
of the facts and we know all of the damage.”
47
Comments