Permissive or Mandatory

This writer will attempt to explain some of the legalese in terms of peoples. To begin with in reverse order, one needs to consider the statements made by MERS counsel in Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., and Merscorp Holdings, Inc. (Plaintiff), vs. Daniel W. Robinson and Darla J. Robinson (Defendant), as Cause Number 2:13-CV-07142 PSG (ASx), Honorable Philip S Gutierrez United States District Court of California Western Division where one such statement is made by Plaintiff MERS is that recording of intervening deed of trust assignments is just permissive.

Regardless of whether intervening assignments of rights to the deed of trust are permissive or mandatory as Plaintiff argues the intervening assignments are not really does not matter. Failure to record an assignment of rights to a deed of trust does exactly as Plaintiff Counsel contends in counsels statement; potentially rendering millions of loans worth billions of dollars in California unsecured. [bold emphasis added by writer]

This writer comprehends that MERS counsel is arguing that notice was not received by a proper party MERS. There is an old legal axiom that notice to principle is notice to agent and vice versa. Here MERS claim as Nominee is admission of agent. The deed of trust according to the order that caused the First Amended Complaint to be filed defined the lender who and thus under principles of law would have allowed notice be sent to the principle that MERS as an agent contracts with. Thus MERS had notice. Where ones chose an action that harms thyself, blame not others. Question presents, would fraud allow for Economic Loss rule to apply?