Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

551:, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009), issued a decision involving MERS that focused on finality of judgments. MERS's involvement with this case arose from the fact that the company did not receive notice of a foreclosure action even though MERS was the mortgagee of record on a junior lien. In the opinion, the court noted that "ven if MERS was technically entitled to notice and service in the initial foreclosure action—an issue that we do not decide at this time—we are not compelled to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motions to vacate default judgment and require joinder of MERS…." The case did not affect MERS's standing to foreclose and the company is entitled to receive notice of legal actions when MERS is the mortgagee. The court concluded that MERS had not publicly recorded the chain of title with the relevant registers of deeds in counties across Kansas. The judges determined that a mortgage contract consists of two documents: a deed of trust (which secures the property as collateral) and the promissory note (which indents the borrower to the lender), and determined that 696:

The court agreed with the dissenting Court of Appeals opinion, "pursuant to MCL 600.3204(1)(d), Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) is the 'owner . . . of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage at issue in each of these consolidated cases' because ' contractual obligations as the mortgagee were dependent upon whether the mortgagor met the obligation to pay the indebtedness which the mortgage secured.'" The Court clarified that "MERS status as an 'owner of an interest in the indebtedness' does not equate to an ownership interest in the note. Rather, as a record-holder of the mortgage, MERS owned a security lien on the property, the continued existence of which was contingent upon the satisfaction of the indebtedness." This interest in the indebtedness . . . authorized MERS to foreclosure by advertisement under MCL 600.3204(1)(d)."

500:

challenged the bank's right to dismiss its own suit in such a way. As the case neared a hearing at the Florida supreme court, the parties settled. Days later the bank recorded notice at the country recorder that Pino was now the free and clear owner of his house. In other words, the bank let go of its claim, presumably worth many thousands of dollars, to Pino's house, because bank attorneys believed they were likely to lose at the state supreme court, and thus establish a precedent that could cost them a lot of money. Avoiding the precedent was worth more than the lost money lent to Pino. In spite of the bank's action, the court decided to hear the matter to rule on the propriety of the banks "dismiss-fix-sue again" approach. (Brittany Davis, Miami Herald blog, May 10, 2012)

235:, needed to find a way around these recordation requirements, and this is how the MERS system was born to replace public recordation with a private one. Nevertheless, MERS describes its activities as complementing public land recording systems. "The MERS® System is the only national database that provides free public access to servicer information for registered home mortgages, complementing public land recording systems that have their origins in centuries old real property laws." By 2007, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. registered some two-thirds of all the home loans in the US. 83: 480:, dismissed all federal and state law claims made by three borrowers in a complaint filed against a group of defendants that included MERS. The court discussed whether MERS was a proper beneficiary but only in the context of whether its involvement constituted the tort of fraud on the borrowers. The court found the mere use of MERS was not common law fraud on the borrowers, finding that "Plaintiffs have failed to allege what effect, if any, listing the MERS system as a 'sham' beneficiary on the deed of trust had upon their obligations as borrowers." 338:

interest that may otherwise make it difficult to trace ownership, if it is accurately maintained by the MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. membership. Information contained in the MERS system can help to identify possible mortgage fraud involving the identity of a prospective buyer and owner-occupancy issues. The centralized database of MERS system can also help detect property flipping schemes and purchases, again if it is accurately maintained, a common criticism of the MERS system scheme.

198:, which is designed to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgages in the United States. According to the Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, MERS is an agent for lenders without any reference to MERS as a principal. On October 5, 2018, Intercontinental Exchange (NYSE: ICE) and MERS announced that ICE had acquired all of MERS. 334:. Whereas before the MERS system that last assignment would always have been recorded at the time the MBS was created, the MERS system enabled banks to avoid having to record it unless and until (1) foreclosure became necessary or (2) the loan was sold by the MBS trustee to an entity outside of the MERS system owned by MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. If the loan performs to the very end, the assignment never needs to be recorded. 318:

were flooded with assignments, and investment banks found themselves choking on paperwork and recorders' fees. MERS system fixed this problem in that most standard loan documents were changed to name MERS as the nominal beneficiary or mortgagee of record. This enabled lenders and investors to transfer mortgages without recording assignments in local recorders' offices and in turn avoided having to pay recording fees.

403: 305:. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the American securities industry was drowning in paper because of the sheer complexity of physically exchanging thousands of stock certificates every day. By "immobilizing" physical stock certificates and later replacing them altogether with book entries, DTCC enabled the development of the modern computerized securities industry. 790:, while Zacks compared Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to a "creature more akin to a many-tentacled squid." Peterson's articles on MERS, which also criticize MERS for its allegedly harmful effect on the integrity and transparency of public recording, have been cited by countless anti-MERS litigants and in decisions both adverse and favorable to MERS. 22: 309:

from the originating lender. That is, in the event the originating lender collapsed (as ultimately happened in the 2007 financial crisis to many such lenders), MBS investors demanded some kind of protection to ensure that the lender's own creditors could not "avoid" (in bankruptcy terms, rollback) the transfer of the loans into the MBS as

727:, stated that "the statutory scheme...does not provide for a preemptive suit challenging standing. Consequently, plaintiffs' claims for damages for wrongful initiation of foreclosure and for declaratory relief based on plaintiffs' interpretation of section 2924, subdivision (a), do not state a cause of action as a matter of law." 659:

as an agent to assign the mortgage under its rules, its membership agreement, or the terms of the mortgage itself. The court also found that MERS had no power as the mortgagee of record to assign the mortgage: "MERS's position that that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best."

326:(1) an agent for the original lender, and then (2) the final lender acts as an agent for MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.; this is why MERS' critics frequently attack it as "two-faced.") If the borrower defaults, the loan servicer will record an assignment on behalf of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to the 1682:

filed lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit, only to learn she had not named the actual holder of Bain's loan. "We're contending that MERS made a choice along with the banks, to engage in a practice of hiding the identity of the true owner of the loan, in violation of Washington state laws, " Huelsman explained.

322:

equitable title). If all entities along the way are MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. members, then all intermediate transfers between those points are tracked only on the MERS system, and the entity who holds the loan at the end merely records the reconveyance as an agent for MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (Notice how MERS is

243:

consumers by reducing county recording fee expenses resulting from real estate transfers and provides a central source of information and tracking for mortgage loans. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.'s role in facilitating mortgage trading was relatively uncontroversial in its early days, but continued fallout from the

695:

On November 16, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court, understanding the urgency and potential fallout of this matter, issued a peremptory order, in lieu of granting the appeal, and reversed the Court of Appeals judgment. (Residential Funding Co, LLC v Saurman, 2011 WL 5588929 (Mich, November 1, 2011)).

465:

the 18 cases (In re Chong, In re Pilatich, In re Cortes, In re Medina and In re O'Dell) on appeal but declined to hold that "MERS would not be able to establish itself as a real party in interest had it identified the holder of the note or provided sufficient evidence of the source of its authority."

364:

The MERS system eRegistry is a system of record that identifies the owner (Controller) and custodian (Location) for registered eNotes. The owner is also described as the Investor. "Investor -- As it pertains to the MERS® eRegistry, the entity that is the owner of the Mortgage Loan represented by the

346:

Originated by MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.'s MERS system, the mortgage identification number (MIN) is a unique 18-digit number used to track a mortgage loan throughout its life, from origination to securitization to payoff or foreclosure. In general, the first 7 digits uniquely identify the loan servicer,

256:

requirements in the state-led Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and E-SIGN (Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000) adopted by Congress in the documents filed by MERSCORP, Inc. nka MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. with the United States Trademark and Patent Office. However,

206:

The current Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is the third generation of companies with the same name established as of 1/1/1999. The original "MERS" was simply the acronym of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., in 1995. In 1997, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

1681:

In order to halt foreclosure and try for loan modification, Huelsman says it was necessary to first contact the actual holder of Bain's loan. The original loan holder, INDYMAC, went bankrupt during the financial crisis. FDIC, which took over the note from INDYMAC, no longer has it. Huelsman says she

785:

Court which cited him for the proposition that "MERS's officers often issue assignments without verifying the underlying information, which has resulted in incorrect or fraudulent transfers." Professor Christopher Peterson has similarly argued that MERS is disingenuous in simultaneously claiming to

780:

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. has generated much debate, controversy, and criticism among litigators and academics in "some of the most widely read law review articles of the past few years." Dustin A. Zacks, for example, criticized Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. for

749:

ruled with Bain, saying that MERS was not a lawful beneficiary of her deed and did not have the right to appoint trustees. The decision states: "A plain reading of the statute leads us to conclude that only the actual holder of the promissory note or other instrument evidencing the obligation may be

666:

MERS and its partners made the decision to create and operate under a business model that was designed large part to avoid the requirements of the traditional mortgage recording process. The Court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50% of all residential mortgages in

579:

referrals from the mortgage lenders. However, the Circuit Judges held that "In exchange for the fee, MERS performed the service of being the permanent record mortgagee in the public land records..." Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed by the appellate court for failure to state a claim under RESPA.

565:

to mean that MERS in fact does not have standing to foreclose on a mortgage in Kansas where there is no mention of MERS in the promissory note, MERS acts solely as a "nominee" for the lender, and there is no evidence that the promissory note has been assigned to MERS or that MERS otherwise possesses

495:

Both the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Miami and the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Lakeland held that MERS can foreclose. Senior Judge Alan R. Schwartz noted the decision was based in part in the changes in finance and technology over time. "The problem arises from the difficulty of attempting

308:

As mortgage-backed securities grew in volume during the 1980s, it became self-evident that a similar mechanism was needed for the mortgages placed into those securities. The underlying problem is that a mortgage loan transferred into an MBS (Mortgage-Backed Security) must become "bankruptcy remote"

242:

arising from mortgages extended by lenders, investors and their loan servicers and recorded in county land records. By using MERS, the lenders and investors who are the real parties in interest avoid the need to file assignments in county land records, which lowers costs for lenders and, they claim,

658:

to give effect to a prior state-court judgment of foreclosure, but went on to consider several arguments MERS advanced about its legal status and authority, noting that it had held off on deciding dozens of additional cases until those matters were clarified. The court found that MERS had no power

653:

On February 10, 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York considered a motion for relief from the bankruptcy stay brought by U.S. Bank as the trustee of a securitization trust. U.S. Bank claimed the right to foreclose on the debtor's mortgage in part because of purported

464:

On December 4, 2009, Judge Dawson found that "MERS provided no evidence that it was the agent or nominee for the current owner of the beneficial interest in the note, it has failed to meet its burden of establishing that it is a real party in interest with standing." He issued his decision in 5 of

337:

MERS system serves several other purposes. It enables consumers, title companies and other real estate professionals to easily identify the current holders of registered mortgages and obtain discharges despite any transfers of the mortgages or mergers or acquisitions of the lenders and investors in

321:

Ideally, assuming a loan is properly paid back on time, a MERS loan needs only two documents to be recorded: the original mortgage or deed of trust naming Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and a reconveyance of the mortgage or deed of trust back to the borrower (thus merging legal and

317:

through three or four entities before it reaches the MBS. As noted above, each of those conveyances had to be recorded with the relevant recorder or land registry. With each loan requiring three or four assignments, and hundreds of mortgage loans going into each MBS, the result was that recorders

587:

On October 27, 2010, DC Attorney General Peter Nickels issued a statement which concludes that "a foreclosuring may not be commenced against a D.C. homeowner unless the security interest of the current noteholder is properly supported by public filings with the District's Recorder of Deeds." So in

355:

Through MERS system ServicerID, homeowners can search for their mortgage servicer, regardless of whether the mortgage has changed hands since the loan was originated. By identifying the loan servicer, homeowners may seek to identify their lender to initiate negotiations for revised mortgage terms

793:

Other academics have criticized Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. on the grounds that its nominal ownership of millions of home loans poses a disastrous risk for mortgage investors should Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ever declare bankruptcy. Such a bankruptcy could

578:

dismissed a multi-district class action lawsuit against MERS. The plaintiffs alleged that a small fee charged by mortgage lenders, which was then paid to MERS, violated provisions in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The plaintiffs also argued that MERS unfairly received business

711:

On September 12, 2011, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District said the complaint (an alleged violation of Section 2932.5 of the California Code which requires the assignee of a mortgagee to record an assignment before exercising a power to sell real property) was irrelevant as it

644:

in which he attempted to challenge MERS on vaguely articulated due process federal constitutional grounds not previously raised in the lower courts. However, he failed to challenge the constitutionality of the California rule for finding an implied cause of action, which would likely have failed

499:

A related Florida case is BONY Mellon v. Pino. After homeowner Pino had established that bank paperwork was defective, BONY moved to dismiss its own suit, presumably intending to remedy the paperwork and then start a second suit for foreclosure, Florida being a judicial foreclosure state. Pino

691:

reversed the decision in an order November 16, 2011, finding that MERS is the owner of an interest in the mortgage because " contractual obligations as mortgagee were dependent upon whether the mortgagor met the obligation to pay the indebtedness which the mortgage secured." However, the court

218:

Real estate law and real estate transactions in the US are subject to state regulations and county level recordation requirements. That made it quite cumbersome for financial companies to develop a smooth operation of a market based on mortgages in the early 1980s. This is because every time a

483:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of MERS in a published opinion filed on September 7, 2011. The Court ruled that a borrower had no basis to challenge the standing of an entity like MERS. It also, however, drew attention to a legal

699:

The court's interpreted MCL 600.3204(1) as inclusive rather than exclusive. The court held those with an "interest in the indebtedness" includes mortgagees of record (such as MERS) and constitutes a category of parties entitled to foreclose by advertisement, along with those who "own the

529:

Homeowners have argued in court that their homes could not be foreclosed because MERS deeds of trust were unlawful. In other cases, state appellate courts have held that MERS is permitted to foreclose mortgage liens when it is the holder of the note and mortgage.

794:

mean that mortgages would "pass into the company's bankruptcy estate and become available to satisfy creditors' claims." One law professor even suggested scrapping the MERS system entirely, replacing it with an entirely new national recording system.

207:

registered "MERS" as a service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for its mortgage loan eRegistry system. The original corporation has since merged with other entities created by its executives and board of directors.

909: 758:

Because the MERS system is electronic, it depends on the electronic storage and transmission of legal documents. On the question of notarization of electronic signatures and the honoring of notarized signatures across state lines, the

251:

The issue of the ownership of the MERS system is blurred between the entities to the point that courts tend to confuse the eRegistry system with the nominee because they use the same "MERS" acronym. The MERS system is purported to have

1974:"Fuller v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.], 3:11-cv-1153-J-20MCR at 2-3 (M.D. Fla. June 27, 2012), disagreeing with Peterson's ultimate arguments regarding Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s legality" 771:

publicly opposed the legislation on October 7, 2010. As a result, the bill died, and state laws govern whether electronic signatures can be notarized or whether a notarized signature in one state must be accepted in another.

247:

has placed the firm at the center of several legal challenges disputing the company's right to initiate foreclosures. Should these challenges succeed, the US banking industry could face a renewed need for capitalization.

607:

simply to determine whether the party initiating a foreclosure was authorized to do so; and (2) even if they did, the plaintiff consented to the use of MERS to initiate the foreclosure when he signed the deed of trust.

210:

Although the 1995 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (version #1) created the MERS service mark and system, it no longer existed after the name change to MERSCORP, Inc. as of 1/1/1999 and then again to

296:

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was intended to serve as a nominee for real estate transactions in a way strongly analogous to how Cede & Co. serves as the nominee owner of record (i.e., the

1322: 916: 553:"in the event that the mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust... with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity... the mortgage may become unenforceable." 687:

decided two consolidated cases holding that MERS did not have standing to foreclose non-judicially pursuant to MCL 600.3204(1)(d) because it did not actually own any interest in the debt. The

2079: 750:

a beneficiary with the power to appoint a trustee to proceed with a nonjudicial foreclosure on real property. Simply put, if MERS does not hold the note, it is not a lawful beneficiary".

1699: 1862: 603:

without leave to amend. In an opinion by Justice Joan Irion, the court ruled in favor of MERS in two ways: (1) California's nonjudicial foreclosure statutes did not expressly or

575: 1608: 2094: 876: 496:

to shoehorn a modern innovative instrument of commerce into nomenclature and legal categories which stem essentially from the medieval English land law," Schwartz wrote.

2069: 385:

In February 2009, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.'s MERS system was selected to manage the day-to-day operations of the Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization (

1091: 2089: 1354: 1329: 1092:"The San Francisco Report: "Foreclosure in California—A Crisis of Compliance" A Nationally Significant Statistical Portrait of Problems in the Foreclosure Process" 2074: 1713: 1375: 231:, the right to foreclose non-judicially), which triggers an obligation to pay corresponding recording fees. So, the financial industry, eager to trade in 302: 1863:"Peterson to Join New Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | ULaw Today | The S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah" 1587: 1973: 1665: 786:

be the mortgagee and the nominee/agent of the lender or trustee. Peterson likened this alleged duplicity to being akin to the two-faced Roman God

645:

anyway, as the federal rule for finding an implied cause of action is nearly identical. The high court denied the petition on October 11, 2011.

760: 995: 369:(MBA) and launched in 2004, the MERS system eRegistry allegedly satisfies the "safe harbor" requirements of E-SIGN and UETA legislation. Both 1177: 1121: 44: 1147: 1946: 1841: 1866: 453:

The blur of the actual identities of the "MERS" related entities has led to confusion within the court system and foreclosure process.

413: 2084: 692:

clarified that MERS's status as an "owner of an interest in the indebtedness" does not equate to an ownership interest in the note.

313:

and suck them back into the lender's bankruptcy estate. The easiest way to create such protection is to simply convey the loan for

212: 62: 1298: 742:

filed suit against MERS (and a subsidiary) for foreclosing on her house without even disclosing the actual owner of her mortgage.

667:

the country, that is reason enough for this Court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply with the law.

547: 1482: 1944:

Peterson, Christopher Lewis (2010). "Foreclosure, Subprime Mortgage Lending, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System".

1429: 257:

it is unclear how the MERS system obtains the documents from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (#3 1999 version).

628:

California statutes, not just the California Insurance Code. Thus, if the California Legislature has not expressly written a

423: 1806:

Zacks, Dustin A. (2011). "Standing in Our Own Sunshine: Reconsidering Standing, Transparency, and Accuracy in Foreclosures".

1650: 588:

Nickels' view, subsequent transfers of the mortgage on MERS's records will not count unless they were also recorded in D.C.

1046: 1893: 366: 286: 238:

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (#3 1999 version) is the owner of record (or the owner's nominee) of the

40: 36: 633: 82: 1504: 1323:"The Freddie Mac eMortgageHandbook: Instructions for Climbing eMortgage Mountain While Avoiding the Slippery Slopes" 1203: 599:

On February 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed the sustaining of a

859: 831: 616:, which clarified that a certain conservative method of statutory analysis (first articulated by Associate Justice 285:) about the need for an electronic mortgage registration system. The MERS acronym was coined soon thereafter. The 180: 1888: 781:

taking directly inconsistent positions in various courts around the country. Zacks' article found favor with the

684: 484:

reference book's footnote that such a borrower still had a remedy by suing to have the trustee's sale set aside.

253: 746: 244: 232: 224: 910:"New York Law Journal : Real Estate Trends : Maintaining Lien Priority With Mortgage Modification" 832:"In the Matter of: MERSCORP, Inc., and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Reston, Virginia" 655: 604: 512: 290: 1483:"Foreclosure Stalled, Attorney Says a Win for Thousands More / Northern Nevada, Reno, Lake Tahoe, News Now" 1718: 688: 327: 298: 282: 93: 940: 419: 1808: 1181: 310: 1455: 377:

require the registration of eNotes on the MERS system eRegistry before they are eligible for purchase.

1741: 1629: 764: 542: 519: 293:(EDS) to develop and service the technology systems, and MERS was officially launched in April 1997. 2009:

Marsh, Tanya D. (2011). "Foreclosures and the Failure of the American Land Title Recording System".

2011: 1749: 1548: 1003: 962: 888: 739: 617: 1546:

Kass, Benny (November 6, 2010). "If You're Facing Foreclosure in D.C., Relief Might Be Possible".

1251: 2028: 1766: 1460: 1229: 1068: 641: 637: 443: 215:

on 2/27/2012 which is the owner and operator of the eRegistry but is not disclosed in mortgages.

103: 31:

may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience

636:

denied Gomes's petition for review on May 18, 2011. Gomes' attorney then filed a petition for

347:

and the remaining 11 digits are used internally by the servicer, typically as the loan number.

1959: 1955: 1906: 1902: 1821: 1817: 239: 2020: 1758: 1742:"All in One Basket: The Bankruptcy Risk of a National Agent-Based Mortgage Recording System" 621: 121: 1277: 1786:"King, Nieves and Zacks - Foreclosure, Bankruptcy, General Litigation - Dustin Zacks, ESQ" 629: 188: 1889:"Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System's Land Title Theory" 1525: 1355:"MERS, Inc. v. Lisa Marie Chong, et. al. Order in the U.S. District Court of the Nevada" 265:

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. began as a project in October 1993 when

570:

MERSCORP, Inc., RESPA Litigation (United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)

151: 1408: 1376:"Olga Cervantes V. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., et al : Judgment in a Civil Case" 2063: 2032: 1770: 1490: 314: 1433: 1785: 768: 289:

got involved and MERS was incorporated in October 1995. MERS awarded a contract to

220: 620:

in 1979 and adopted by a majority of the court in a 1988 opinion by Chief Justice

654:

assignment of the mortgage from MERS. The court found itself constrained by the

374: 331: 278: 270: 223:

is sold, various state laws may require that the sale of each such mortgage (or

1207: 476:

On September 24, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, in

612:

expressly cited to and relied upon the state supreme court's 2010 decision in

370: 274: 266: 227:) be recorded in the local county courts in order to preserve certain rights ( 330:(i.e., an investment bank in its capacity as trustee for a MBS) and initiate 1526:"Knighton vs. Merscorp Inc Opinion in the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals" 595:(California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, Division One) 526:

to hold MERS responsible for fraudulent fees on foreclosures filed by MERS.

515:

ruled that MERS could foreclose under state law as the mortgagee of record.

43:

any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against

1409:"Federal Judge Rejects Homeowners' Lawsuit Against Major Mortgage Registry" 810: 723:

On September 12, the Fourth District Court citing its own May decision in

700:

indebtedness" and those who "act as the servicing agent of the mortgage."

505:

Jewelean Jackson, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

458:

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Lisa Marie Chong, et al.

183:. MERS is a separate and distinct corporation that serves as a nominee on 2024: 1762: 600: 523: 184: 125: 1122:"In foreclosure controversy, problems run deeper than flawed paperwork" 365:

eNote." Built by MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. with the endorsement of the

1666:"State Supreme Court to rule on legality of mortgage recording system" 1505:"98489 - Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler - Rosen - Kansas Supreme Court" 1230:"MERS eRegistry Provides a 'System of Record' for Registered eNotes" 2054: 787: 489:

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Revoredo, et al.

386: 707:(Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Eight) 649:

In re Agard (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York)

389:), although the MBA was to continue its full control over MISMO. 1299:"Guide to Delivering eMortgage Loans to Fannie Mae, Version 2.5" 1024: 963:"Rebalancing Public and Private in the Law of Mortgage Transfer" 561:, 44 Kan. App. 2d 547, 2010 WL 1873567, at **4-**5, interpreted 1577:, 50 Cal. 4th 592, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 498, 236 P.3d 346 (2010). 396: 194:, which owns and operates an electronic registry known as the 15: 583:

District of Columbia Attorney General's Enforcement Statement

2048: 1712:

Woellert, Lorraine; Johnston, Nicholas (October 7, 2010).

767:

passed the legislation without debate. However, President

763:

had passed bills to legalize these steps, and in 2010 the

164: 961:

Hunt, John P.; Stanton, Richard; Wallace, Nancy (2012b).

1740:

Hunt, John P.; Stanton, Richard; Wallace, Nancy (2012).

1714:"Obama Rejects Notary Bill Amid Foreclosure 'Caution'" 1047:"Stop Payment! A homeowners' revolt against the banks" 533: 576:

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

1456:"Tracking Loans Through a Firm That Holds Millions" 472:(United States District Court, District of Arizona) 160: 150: 142: 132: 117: 109: 99: 89: 1996: 941:"310 ILCS 105/ Rental Housing Support Program Act" 712:applied only to mortgages, not to deeds of trust. 460:(United States District Court, District of Nevada) 1430:"Court ruling: Mortgage holders needn't be named" 719:(Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District) 478:Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. 360:The MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. MERS system eRegistry 301:" owner) for all securities held in trust by the 2080:Financial services companies established in 1995 1865:. Today.law.utah.edu. 2012-05-10. Archived from 1252:"MERS® eRegistry Procedures Manual Release 14.0" 1609:"MERS 'Strawman' Has No Authority To Foreclose" 664: 557:On April 30, 2010, a Kansas appellate court in 632:into a statute, it simply does not exist. The 187:after the turn of the century and is owned by 173:Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 76:Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 1836: 1834: 1832: 416:to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies 356:and take actions that can avoid foreclosure. 8: 1278:"The Promise of eNotes: Fact or Fairy Tale?" 146:MERS System, MERS eRegistry, MERS Commercial 75: 1630:"Two Courts Uphold MERS Foreclosure Rights" 303:Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation 2095:Privately held companies based in Virginia 1695:Bain vs. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc. 1432:. Star Tribune. 2009-08-14. Archived from 1040: 1038: 732:Bain vs. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc. 426:this issue before removing this message. 81: 74: 1396:Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 1180:. Mortgage-technology.com. Archived from 491:(Florida Third District Court of Appeals) 63:Learn how and when to remove this message 2070:1995 establishments in the United States 1919: 1842:"Bain V. Metropolitan Mortg. Group, Inc" 470:Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. 860:"NYSE parent company ICE acquires MERS" 802: 754:Electronic signatures and notarizations 2090:Mortgage industry of the United States 1398:, 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). 1931: 1698: (Wash. 16 August 2012), 1069:"MERS, Tracking Loans Electronically" 1045:Ketcham, Christopher (January 2012). 582: 261:MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.'s MERS System 7: 1887:Peterson, Christopher Lewis (2011). 1090:Durham, James Geoffrey (July 2012). 566:an interest in the promissory note. 449:Litigation and major legal decisions 2075:Companies based in Reston, Virginia 1947:University of Cincinnati Law Review 1575:Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. 614:Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. 420:create a more balanced presentation 1664:Thompson, Connie (14 March 2012). 45:Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion policy 14: 1454:McIntire, Mike (April 23, 2009). 2051:, the company's official website 1997:Hunt, Stanton & Wallace 2012 1565:, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149 (2011). 1204:"Welcome to MERS for Homeowners" 891:. Courts.state.md.us. 2011-07-01 548:Landmark National Bank v. Kesler 401: 219:financial instrument containing 20: 1563:Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans 1232:. AccessMyLibrary. June 2, 2004 1178:"Don't Discount The MIN Number" 1096:Probate & Property Magazine 738:In March 2012, Kristin Bain of 593:Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans 281:(with assistance from law firm 1588:"In re Agard, Bankr. E.D.N.Y." 1071:. AccessMyLibrary. May 1, 2000 1049:. Harper's Magazine Foundation 1025:"About MERSCORP Holdings, Inc" 970:American University Law Review 915:. Dlapiper.com. Archived from 681:Residential Funding v. Saurman 673:Residential Funding v. Saurman 342:Mortgage identification number 1: 1894:William & Mary Law Review 535:Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler 1148:"Yes, There is life on MERS" 367:Mortgage Bankers Association 287:Mortgage Bankers Association 761:US House of Representatives 634:Supreme Court of California 522:was filed by homeowners in 260: 254:fulfilled the “Safe Harbor” 2113: 1611:. Stopforeclosurefraud.com 734:(Washington Supreme Court) 441: 233:mortgage-backed securities 181:privately held corporation 1651:"Robinson v. Countrywide" 1000:Tampa-bay-real-estate.com 685:Michigan Court of Appeals 605:impliedly allow a lawsuit 507:(Minnesota Supreme Court) 80: 2085:Mortgage-backed security 747:Washington Supreme Court 675:(Michigan Supreme Court) 541:On August 28, 2009, the 511:On August 14, 2009, the 245:subprime mortgage crisis 717:Robinson v. Countrywide 656:Rooker-Feldman doctrine 513:Minnesota Supreme Court 393:2010 foreclosure crisis 291:Electronic Data Systems 283:Covington & Burling 213:MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. 192:MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. 1719:Bloomberg Businessweek 1653:. Mortgage News Daily. 1146:Arnold, R. K. (1997). 689:Michigan Supreme Court 669: 537:(Kansas Supreme Court) 328:real party in interest 311:fraudulent conveyances 94:Privately held company 1809:Quinnipiac Law Review 1632:. Mortgage News Daily 1411:. Law.com. 2007-08-01 2025:10.2139/ssrn.1737857 1763:10.2139/ssrn.1908893 1184:on September 4, 2012 1152:Probate and Property 1031:. November 17, 2018. 745:In August 2012, the 725:Gomes v. Countrywide 662:The court observed, 559:MERS, Inc. v. Graham 543:Kansas Supreme Court 520:class-action lawsuit 2012:Columbia Law Review 1750:UC Davis Law Review 1549:The Washington Post 996:"MERS Misery Looms" 618:Frank K. Richardson 77: 1461:The New York Times 1378:. Ballardspahr.com 1126:Washingtonpost.com 866:. October 5, 2018. 839:federalreserve.gov 679:In April 2011, in 642:U.S. Supreme Court 638:writ of certiorari 444:Foreclosure crisis 104:Financial services 1210:on March 11, 2008 440: 439: 418:. Please help to 410:This section may 240:security interest 179:) is an American 170: 169: 73: 72: 65: 2102: 2037: 2036: 2006: 2000: 1994: 1988: 1987: 1985: 1984: 1978: 1970: 1964: 1963: 1954:(4): 1359–1407. 1941: 1935: 1929: 1923: 1917: 1911: 1910: 1884: 1878: 1877: 1875: 1874: 1859: 1853: 1852: 1850: 1849: 1838: 1827: 1825: 1803: 1797: 1796: 1794: 1793: 1782: 1776: 1774: 1746: 1737: 1731: 1730: 1728: 1726: 1709: 1703: 1697: 1691: 1685: 1684: 1678: 1676: 1661: 1655: 1654: 1647: 1641: 1640: 1638: 1637: 1626: 1620: 1619: 1617: 1616: 1605: 1599: 1598: 1596: 1594: 1584: 1578: 1572: 1566: 1560: 1554: 1553: 1543: 1537: 1536: 1534: 1532: 1522: 1516: 1515: 1513: 1512: 1501: 1495: 1494: 1489:. Archived from 1479: 1473: 1472: 1470: 1468: 1451: 1445: 1444: 1442: 1441: 1426: 1420: 1419: 1417: 1416: 1405: 1399: 1393: 1387: 1386: 1384: 1383: 1372: 1366: 1365: 1363: 1361: 1351: 1345: 1344: 1342: 1340: 1335:on April 1, 2010 1334: 1328:. Archived from 1327: 1319: 1313: 1312: 1310: 1308: 1303: 1295: 1289: 1288: 1286: 1284: 1274: 1268: 1267: 1265: 1263: 1248: 1242: 1241: 1239: 1237: 1226: 1220: 1219: 1217: 1215: 1206:. Archived from 1200: 1194: 1193: 1191: 1189: 1174: 1168: 1167: 1165: 1163: 1143: 1137: 1136: 1134: 1133: 1118: 1112: 1111: 1109: 1107: 1087: 1081: 1080: 1078: 1076: 1065: 1059: 1058: 1056: 1054: 1042: 1033: 1032: 1021: 1015: 1014: 1012: 1011: 1002:. Archived from 992: 986: 985: 983: 981: 967: 958: 952: 951: 949: 948: 937: 931: 930: 928: 927: 921: 914: 906: 900: 899: 897: 896: 885: 879: 877:third generation 874: 868: 867: 856: 850: 849: 847: 845: 836: 828: 822: 821: 819: 818: 811:"MERS: About Us" 807: 622:Malcolm M. Lucas 435: 432: 405: 404: 397: 85: 78: 68: 61: 57: 54: 48: 24: 23: 16: 2112: 2111: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2060: 2059: 2055:MERS ServicerID 2045: 2040: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1995: 1991: 1982: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1930: 1926: 1918: 1914: 1886: 1885: 1881: 1872: 1870: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1847: 1845: 1840: 1839: 1830: 1826:At pp. 586-589. 1805: 1804: 1800: 1791: 1789: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1734: 1724: 1722: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1674: 1672: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1635: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1614: 1612: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1573: 1569: 1561: 1557: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1530: 1528: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1510: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1466: 1464: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1439: 1437: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1414: 1412: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1394: 1390: 1381: 1379: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1359: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1338: 1336: 1332: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1306: 1304: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1292: 1282: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1271: 1261: 1259: 1258:. July 17, 2017 1256:www.mersinc.org 1250: 1249: 1245: 1235: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1223: 1213: 1211: 1202: 1201: 1197: 1187: 1185: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1161: 1159: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1131: 1129: 1120: 1119: 1115: 1105: 1103: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1074: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1052: 1050: 1044: 1043: 1036: 1029:www.mersinc.org 1023: 1022: 1018: 1009: 1007: 994: 993: 989: 979: 977: 965: 960: 959: 955: 946: 944: 939: 938: 934: 925: 923: 919: 912: 908: 907: 903: 894: 892: 887: 886: 882: 875: 871: 858: 857: 853: 843: 841: 834: 830: 829: 825: 816: 814: 809: 808: 804: 800: 778: 756: 736: 721: 709: 677: 651: 630:cause of action 597: 585: 572: 539: 509: 493: 474: 462: 451: 446: 436: 430: 427: 406: 402: 395: 383: 362: 353: 344: 263: 204: 189:holding company 135: 128:, United States 69: 58: 52: 49: 35:Please help by 34: 25: 21: 12: 11: 5: 2110: 2109: 2106: 2098: 2097: 2092: 2087: 2082: 2077: 2072: 2062: 2061: 2058: 2057: 2052: 2044: 2043:External links 2041: 2039: 2038: 2001: 1989: 1965: 1936: 1934:, p. 585. 1924: 1922:, p. 113. 1912: 1901:(1): 111–161. 1879: 1854: 1828: 1816:(3): 551–610. 1798: 1777: 1732: 1704: 1686: 1656: 1642: 1621: 1600: 1579: 1567: 1555: 1538: 1517: 1507:. Kscourts.org 1496: 1493:on 2009-04-17. 1487:www.kolotv.com 1474: 1446: 1421: 1400: 1388: 1367: 1346: 1314: 1290: 1269: 1243: 1221: 1195: 1169: 1138: 1113: 1082: 1060: 1034: 1016: 987: 953: 932: 901: 889:"Land Records" 880: 869: 851: 823: 801: 799: 796: 777: 774: 755: 752: 735: 729: 720: 714: 708: 702: 676: 670: 650: 647: 596: 590: 584: 581: 571: 568: 538: 532: 508: 502: 492: 486: 473: 467: 461: 455: 450: 447: 442:Main article: 438: 437: 422:. Discuss and 409: 407: 400: 394: 391: 382: 381:MISMO and MERS 379: 361: 358: 352: 349: 343: 340: 262: 259: 203: 200: 168: 167: 162: 158: 157: 156:MERSCORP, Inc. 154: 148: 147: 144: 140: 139: 136: 133: 130: 129: 119: 115: 114: 111: 107: 106: 101: 97: 96: 91: 87: 86: 71: 70: 28: 26: 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2108: 2107: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2088: 2086: 2083: 2081: 2078: 2076: 2073: 2071: 2068: 2067: 2065: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2005: 2002: 1999:, p. 37. 1998: 1993: 1990: 1975: 1969: 1966: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1948: 1940: 1937: 1933: 1928: 1925: 1921: 1920:Peterson 2011 1916: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1890: 1883: 1880: 1869:on 2013-12-12 1868: 1864: 1858: 1855: 1843: 1837: 1835: 1833: 1829: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1802: 1799: 1787: 1781: 1778: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1743: 1736: 1733: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1696: 1690: 1687: 1683: 1671: 1667: 1660: 1657: 1652: 1646: 1643: 1631: 1625: 1622: 1610: 1604: 1601: 1589: 1583: 1580: 1576: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1559: 1556: 1552:. p. E1. 1551: 1550: 1542: 1539: 1527: 1521: 1518: 1506: 1500: 1497: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1478: 1475: 1463: 1462: 1457: 1450: 1447: 1436:on 2014-04-27 1435: 1431: 1425: 1422: 1410: 1404: 1401: 1397: 1392: 1389: 1377: 1371: 1368: 1356: 1350: 1347: 1331: 1324: 1318: 1315: 1300: 1294: 1291: 1279: 1273: 1270: 1257: 1253: 1247: 1244: 1231: 1225: 1222: 1209: 1205: 1199: 1196: 1183: 1179: 1173: 1170: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1142: 1139: 1127: 1123: 1117: 1114: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1086: 1083: 1070: 1064: 1061: 1048: 1041: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1026: 1020: 1017: 1006:on 2013-12-13 1005: 1001: 997: 991: 988: 975: 971: 964: 957: 954: 942: 936: 933: 922:on 2013-12-13 918: 911: 905: 902: 890: 884: 881: 878: 873: 870: 865: 861: 855: 852: 840: 833: 827: 824: 812: 806: 803: 797: 795: 791: 789: 784: 775: 773: 770: 766: 762: 753: 751: 748: 743: 741: 733: 730: 728: 726: 718: 715: 713: 706: 705:Calvo v. HSBC 703: 701: 697: 693: 690: 686: 682: 674: 671: 668: 663: 660: 657: 648: 646: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 624:) applies to 623: 619: 615: 611: 606: 602: 594: 591: 589: 580: 577: 574:In 2008, the 569: 567: 564: 560: 555: 554: 550: 549: 544: 536: 531: 527: 525: 521: 516: 514: 506: 503: 501: 497: 490: 487: 485: 481: 479: 471: 468: 466: 459: 456: 454: 448: 445: 434: 425: 421: 417: 415: 408: 399: 398: 392: 390: 388: 380: 378: 376: 372: 368: 359: 357: 350: 348: 341: 339: 335: 333: 329: 325: 319: 316: 315:consideration 312: 306: 304: 300: 294: 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 272: 268: 258: 255: 249: 246: 241: 236: 234: 230: 226: 225:deed of trust 222: 216: 214: 208: 201: 199: 197: 193: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 166: 163: 159: 155: 153: 149: 145: 141: 138:United States 137: 131: 127: 123: 120: 116: 112: 108: 105: 102: 98: 95: 92: 88: 84: 79: 67: 64: 56: 53:December 2016 46: 42: 38: 32: 29:This article 27: 18: 17: 2019:(1): 19–26. 2016: 2010: 2004: 1992: 1981:. Retrieved 1968: 1951: 1945: 1939: 1927: 1915: 1898: 1892: 1882: 1871:. Retrieved 1867:the original 1857: 1846:. Retrieved 1844:. Leagle.com 1813: 1807: 1801: 1790:. Retrieved 1788:. Knzlaw.com 1780: 1754: 1748: 1735: 1725:December 18, 1723:. Retrieved 1717: 1707: 1694: 1689: 1680: 1673:. Retrieved 1669: 1659: 1645: 1634:. Retrieved 1624: 1613:. Retrieved 1603: 1582: 1574: 1570: 1562: 1558: 1547: 1541: 1529:. Retrieved 1520: 1509:. Retrieved 1499: 1491:the original 1486: 1477: 1465:. Retrieved 1459: 1449: 1438:. Retrieved 1434:the original 1424: 1413:. Retrieved 1403: 1395: 1391: 1380:. Retrieved 1370: 1358:. Retrieved 1349: 1337:. Retrieved 1330:the original 1317: 1305:. Retrieved 1293: 1281:. Retrieved 1272: 1262:November 17, 1260:. Retrieved 1255: 1246: 1234:. Retrieved 1224: 1212:. Retrieved 1208:the original 1198: 1186:. Retrieved 1182:the original 1172: 1160:. Retrieved 1155: 1151: 1141: 1130:. Retrieved 1128:. 2010-10-07 1125: 1116: 1104:. Retrieved 1099: 1095: 1085: 1073:. Retrieved 1063: 1051:. Retrieved 1028: 1019: 1008:. Retrieved 1004:the original 999: 990: 978:. Retrieved 973: 969: 956: 945:. Retrieved 935: 924:. Retrieved 917:the original 904: 893:. Retrieved 883: 872: 864:Housing Wire 863: 854: 842:. Retrieved 838: 826: 815:. Retrieved 805: 792: 782: 779: 769:Barack Obama 757: 744: 737: 731: 724: 722: 716: 710: 704: 698: 694: 680: 678: 672: 665: 661: 652: 625: 613: 609: 598: 592: 586: 573: 562: 558: 556: 552: 546: 540: 534: 528: 517: 510: 504: 498: 494: 488: 482: 477: 475: 469: 463: 457: 452: 428: 414:undue weight 411: 384: 363: 354: 345: 336: 323: 320: 307: 295: 264: 250: 237: 228: 217: 209: 205: 195: 191: 176: 172: 171: 118:Headquarters 90:Company type 59: 50: 37:spinning off 30: 2049:mersinc.org 1757:(1): 1–63. 1531:January 25, 1467:December 7, 1360:January 25, 844:October 20, 776:Controversy 740:Tukwila, WA 431:August 2012 375:Freddie Mac 332:foreclosure 299:street name 279:White Paper 277:produced a 271:Freddie Mac 196:MERS system 165:mersinc.org 134:Area served 2064:Categories 1983:2013-12-05 1979:. Flta.org 1932:Zacks 2011 1873:2013-12-05 1848:2013-12-05 1792:2013-12-05 1636:2013-12-05 1615:2013-12-05 1591:Retrieved 1511:2013-12-05 1440:2013-12-05 1415:2013-12-05 1382:2013-12-05 1132:2013-12-05 1010:2013-12-05 947:2013-12-05 943:. Ilga.gov 926:2013-12-05 895:2013-12-05 817:2013-03-28 798:References 371:Fannie Mae 351:ServicerID 275:Ginnie Mae 267:Fannie Mae 41:relocating 2033:109359663 1771:167963879 1339:April 30, 1307:April 30, 1283:April 30, 1236:April 30, 1214:April 30, 1188:April 30, 1162:March 18, 1106:4 October 1075:April 30, 1053:4 October 980:4 October 765:US Senate 221:mortgages 185:mortgages 1775:At fn.7. 1670:KomoNews 601:demurrer 524:Delaware 143:Products 126:Virginia 100:Industry 1960:1469749 1907:1684729 1822:1958645 1675:22 July 1593:May 12, 640:in the 424:resolve 202:History 161:Website 110:Founded 2031: 1958: 1905: 1820: 1769: 976:: 1529 813:. 2013 683:, the 563:Kesler 273:, and 152:Parent 122:Reston 2029:S2CID 1977:(PDF) 1767:S2CID 1745:(PDF) 1333:(PDF) 1326:(PDF) 1302:(PDF) 966:(PDF) 920:(PDF) 913:(PDF) 835:(PDF) 788:Janus 610:Gomes 412:lend 387:MISMO 1956:SSRN 1903:SSRN 1818:SSRN 1727:2011 1700:Text 1677:2016 1595:2011 1533:2010 1469:2010 1362:2010 1341:2009 1309:2009 1285:2009 1264:2018 1238:2009 1216:2009 1190:2009 1164:2012 1158:: 33 1108:2017 1077:2009 1055:2017 982:2017 846:2018 783:Bain 373:and 324:both 229:e.g. 177:MERS 113:1995 2021:doi 2017:111 1759:doi 1102:(4) 626:all 545:in 39:or 2066:: 2027:. 2015:. 1952:78 1950:. 1899:53 1897:. 1891:. 1831:^ 1814:29 1812:. 1765:. 1755:46 1753:. 1747:. 1716:. 1679:. 1668:. 1485:. 1458:. 1254:. 1156:11 1154:. 1150:. 1124:. 1100:26 1098:. 1094:. 1037:^ 1027:. 998:. 974:62 972:. 968:. 862:. 837:. 518:A 269:, 124:, 2035:. 2023:: 1986:. 1962:. 1909:. 1876:. 1851:. 1824:. 1795:. 1773:. 1761:: 1729:. 1702:. 1639:. 1618:. 1597:. 1535:. 1514:. 1471:. 1443:. 1418:. 1385:. 1364:. 1343:. 1311:. 1287:. 1266:. 1240:. 1218:. 1192:. 1166:. 1135:. 1110:. 1079:. 1057:. 1013:. 984:. 950:. 929:. 898:. 848:. 820:. 433:) 429:( 297:" 175:( 66:) 60:( 55:) 51:( 47:. 33:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index