issac-adisho v.orlans part 1
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
1/47
STATE OF MICHIGANSIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MACOl\1B COUNTY
JANETTE ISSAC, Individually andYOUKHANA ADISHO, Individually,
Plaintiffs,v
ORLANS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.,A Michigan Professional corporation,U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ASTRUSTEE FOR THE STRUCTURE ASSETSECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGEPASS-THOUGH CERTIFICATES, 2006-EQ1,a New York Common Law Trust, MORTGAGEELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants.
Han. John C. FosterCase No. 11-165-NO
Ziyad Kased (P72237)Attorney for Plaintiffs625 East Big Beaver Road, Suite 205Troy, Michigan 48083(248) 680-7300
Plunkett CooneyMatthew J. Boettcher (P40929)Patrick C. Lannen (P73031)Attorneys for U.S. Bank and MERS38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 205Bloomfield Hills, MI, 48304(248) 901-4035/4027
ORLANS ASSOCIATES, P.C.Kristina E. JanssensAttorney for Orlans1650 West Big Beaver RoadTroy, MI, 48084(248) 502-1580
PLAINTIFFS' BIUEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTORLANS ASSOCIATES, P.C's MOTION FOR SlJMl\IlARYJUDGMENT
Plaintiffs executed a unique purported mortgage, never seen before the creation ofMERS
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
2/47
in which the mortgagee is MERS but MERS is not the Lender on the Promissory Note. The
Lender in this mortgage is Equifirst. The mortgage the Plaintiffs signed was what is referred to
by MERS and its members as a ""MOM" mortgage. MOM stands for Mers as Original
Mortgagee. Before Defendant Orlans drafted this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to MCR 2.116
(C)(8), the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on these MERS' MOM mortgages after carefully
analyzing the language in the mortgage documents themselves. The Court of Appeals ruled that
auv Mortgage nanling MERS as the Mortgagee in which the Mortgage was foreclosed by
advertisement is "void ab initio," Residential Funding, Co.LLC vs. Saurman, ---N.W.2D- - -
(2011); 2011
Further, MERS has acknowledged to the Congressional Oversight Panel dealing with
fraudulent documentation in the foreclosure process that it is familiar with the crisis and has in
fact admitted that it has learned that its so-called "certifying officers" have been pressured by
MERS members to perform activities not allowed by law or by the MERS Rules. M. Issacs'
. Exhibit 10 attached to his transcript.
The MERS Rules require that a candidate for a MERS certifying officer (i.e. an Assistant
Secretary and Assistant Vice President) must be an officer ora member. They must have a basic
understanding of the MERS model and be trained by the Member in how to perform their duties
as certifying officers. They also must pass all examination administered by !vIERS. See
Marshal Issacs Exhibit 8 attached to his transcript. Marshall Isaacs, an Attorney for Orlans,
was never an officer of the Lender in this case, EquiFirst Corporation and is, upon information
and belief, not an officer of U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE STRUCTURE ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-
THOUGH CERTIFICATES, 2006-EQ1. He is the attorney who drafted the assignment from
2
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
3/47
MERS to U.S. BANK (as Trustee) in this case. MERS has also recently entered into a settlement
agreement with several federal regulators in which it was found that MERS was engaged in
harmful practices and one of the areas addressed is the role and actions ofMERS Certifying
Officers r "The agencies have found identified certain deficiencies and unsafe or unsound
practices by MERSCORP, Inc. (MERSCORP) and its wholly owned subsidiary Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) ... " Isaacs Exhibit 12 attached to his transcript.
The specific settlement agreement between the Federal Regulators and MERS addresses
specifically Certifying Officers. Exhibit 12 at Article 13, pages 13 through 14.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
MCR 2.1 16(C)(8) states that an action may be dismissed if the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Id. See also ABB PAINT FINISHING INC v. NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH PA, Michigan Court of Appeals
Docket Number 192855, and May 16, 1997. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal
sufficiency of the complaint. Maiden v. Rosewood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999). All factualllegations
in the complaint must be presumed to be true, and reasonable inferences must be construed in a
light most favorable to the non-moving party. See KUZ11G r v.Raksha Corp., 481 Mich. 169, 176;
750 N.W.2d 121 (2008) and Wade v. Dep't. a/Corrections, 439 Mich. 158, 162 (1992). A
motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may only be granted where the claims alleged are clearly
unenforceable as a matter of law and no [actual developmellt could justify recovery. See Kuzna,
supra and Wade, supra. at 163. See also Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 58 v.
JvfcNulty, 214 Mich.App. 437,443-444,543 N.W.2d 25 (1995). When deciding a motion
brought under this section, a Court considers only the pleadings. MeR 2.116(G)(5). However,
in actions based on contract, the Court may examine the writing in conjunction with the motion.
3
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
4/47
Second Bent Harbor. v. St. Paul Title Ins. Co., 126 Mich. App. 580 (1983). Where a motion is
brought under MCR 2.1 16(C)(8), the trial court should liberally permit the parties to amend
their pleadings unless amendment "would not bejustified. " MCR 2.116(I)(5).
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IS TO ASK FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
Here, the Plaintiffs do not simply rest on their challenged pleading, but rather will file a
motion within two weeks from today's date for Leave of this Court to Amend their Complaint.
This is necessitated not only by Defendant Orlans' Motion but also because of a change in the
law in the State of Michigan affecting all MERS' mortgages and because of the deposition of
Marshal Isaacs taken by Plaintiffs' attorney in another similar case in which Marshall Isaacs
executed an Assignment as an Assistant Secretary and Vice President ofMERS. See and
compare Isaacs Exhibits 3 and 5 attached to his Transcript. In that case, Eaman Shina et al. vs.
Federal National Mortgage Association et al, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 10-
107260-CK assigned to the Honorable Judge Rae Lee Chabot, a deposition was conducted but
thwarted by Defendants. Plaintiffs attach the transcript and Exhibits as part of this Motion to
show that amendment of their Complaint is justified and will supply factual information and
specific details not contained in their challenged pleading.
PLAINTIFFS WERE CERTAINLY OWED A DUTY BY ORLANS
Orlans uses sleight of hand to say that " ... it is clear that Orlans Associates, P.C. is a lawfirm
retained to handle the foreclosure and oversee the redemption." First, the MERSCORP INC.
Rules of Membership, specifically Rule 3, Section 3 (a) permits only Officers of its Members to
serve as its "certifying officers", specifically as its "Assistant Secretaries and Vice Presidents."
4
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
5/47
See Isaacs Transcript at page 15, Line 22 through page 19, Line 12. See also Exhibit 7 attached
to Isaacs' transcript. Also see Rule 10 of Exhibit
This concept and Rule that wIERS certifying officers (its Assistant Secretaries and Vice
Presidents) was recently reiterated by R.K. on November 18,2010 in his testimony as President
and CEO of both MERSCORP, INC. "and its subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc." Isaacs Exhibit 8 at page 5. "'MERS has specific controls over who can be
identified by its members as a certifying officer.
To be a MERS certifying officer, one must be a company officer ofthe member institution, have
basic knowledge ofMERS, and pass a certifying examination administered by MERS.n Isaacs
Exhibit 8 at 13. See also Transcript at page 20, Line 7 through page 23, Line 10.
Mr. Arnold also testified that "Earlier this year, when we became aware of acceleration ill tile
foreclosure document processing, we grew concerned that some certifying officers might have
been pressured toperform their responsibilities ill a manner inconsistent witiz Ollr Rules."
Isaacs Transcript at page 23, linesll through 18. See Exhibit 8 at page 3. Arnold continued his
congressional testimony: "When we discovered that some so-called robe-signers were MERS
certifying officers, we suspended their authority until they could be retrained and retested. Isaacs
MERS is not the mortgagee. Exhibit 8, at page 12. Also see Exhibit 8 page 42 through 44 which
Transcript at page 23, Lines 11 through 25. Arnold also testified about certified officers being
"the same officers whom the lenders and servicers use to carry out these functions even when
Mr. Arnolds answer to a question he was asked to answer, specifically, How does one become a
Vice President andlor Assistant Secretary ofMERS? What Compensation do they receive?
Approximately how many Vice Presidents and/or Assistant Secretaries does MERS have? What
is MERS policy on conflicts of interest regarding Vice Presidents and/or Assistant Secretaries
5
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
6/47
that are employed by banks or investors that they may have other conflicting interests in a
mortgage loan?
On page 42, Arnold testifies that: "Certifying Officers conduct much of the business of Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. These individuals are employees and officers ofMERS
members who are appointed as limited officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. with the title of vice president and/or assistant secretary by means of a corporate resolution."
Isaacs Exhibit 8 at 42. See also pages 42 and 43 for the rest of this testimony. Finally, on page
44, Arnold testified that "[ a]s of November 20, 2010, MERS has 20,302 certifying officers who
work with the more than 31 million active loans registered on the MERS System." Exhibit 10 is
a Report of the Congressional Oversight Panel dated November 16, 2010 concerning the
mortgage foreclosure documentation scandal. It speaks of robo-signing
Admissions of large lenders that employees and contractors "testified that they signed, and in
some cases backdated, thousands of document claiming personal knowledge of facts about
mortgages that they did not actually know to be true. Exhibit 11 at page 4 and in other places in
the Report. On pages 16 through 22, the Report specifically focused on the role of MERS in the
crisis and also the role ofMERS in the securitization problems identified in the Report. Exhibit
11 is the recent Michigan Court of Appeals case of Residential Funding, Co.LLC vs. Saurman, --
-N.W.2D- - - (2011); 201 I WL 1516819.
In Residential Funding, two consolidated cases involved two separate foreclosures instituted by
Nortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), the mortgagee in both cases. After
tbese foreclosures each assignment was quit claimed by MERS to a third party and not to the
original lender.
6
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
7/47
The sole question presented was whether MERS is an entity that qualifies under MeL
600.3204(1)(d) to Foreclose by Advertisement on the subject properties or ifit must instead seek
foreclosure by Michigan's judicial process. The Court held that MERS may not foreclose by
advertisement and any Foreclosure by Advertisement conducted by MERS is void ab initio
(meaning void at the time the foreclosure took place and not at the time it was declared by the
Court to be void.)
The Residential Funding Court analyzed the type of mortgage and note in each case and the
analysis reflects precisely the type of mortgage in tins case.
Each note provided for the amount of the loan, the interest rate, methods andrequirements of repayment, the identity of the lender and borrower and the like. Themortgage instrument provided for rights of foreclosure of the property by the mortgageein the event of default on the loan. The lender, though named as the lender in themortgage security instrument, was not designated therein as the mortgagee. Instead, themortgage stated that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc ("MERS") "is themortgagee under this Security Instrument" and it contained several provisions addressingthe relationship between MERS and the lender including:
"MERS" is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. MERS is a separatecorporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors
and assigns. MERS is the mortgagee under this Security Instrument.* **This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, and allrenewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance ofBorrower's covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. Forthis purpose, Borrower does hereby mortgage, warrant, grant and convey to MERS(solely as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) and to the successorsand assigns ofMERS, with the power of sale, the following described property ....Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests grantedby Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom,MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) has the right: to
exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to forecloseand sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limitedto, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.
This language is idelltical to the Mortgage in the case at bar. Tills is commonly referred to by
MERS itself as a MOM mortgage (Mers as Original Mortgagee).
7
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
8/47
Residential Funding noted:
The record evidence establishes that MERS owned neither thenotes, nor an interest, legal share, or right in the notes. The only interest MERSpossessed was in the properties through the mortgages. Given that the notes andmortgages are separate [page 5] documents, evidencing separate obligations and
interests, MERS' interest in the mortgage didnot give it an interest in the debt
I e ! . at 5 & 6.
MERS cannot assign a mortgage without assigning the Note and it cannot assign the
Note. The United States Supreme Court held long ago that: "The note and mortgage are
inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries
the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity." Carpenter v. Logan, 83
U.S. 271, 274 (1872).
Applying Residential Funding to the case at bar, it is clear that MERS cannot assign
something it does not have. It cannot assign a Note because the Court of Appeals ruled
that ..... MERS owned neither the notes, nor an interest, legal share, or right in the notes. The
only interest MERS possessed was in the properties through the mortgages. Given that the notes
and mortgages are separate [page 5] documents, evidencing separate obligations and interests,
MERS' interest in the mortgage did not give it an interest in the debt."Id
Wherefore, Plaintiffs ask this court to permit them to amend their complaint within two
(2) weeks from today's date.
/1 /~ / J __ated: May 23,2011Ziyad iased (P72237)Attorney for Plaintiffs625 East Big Beaver Road, Suite 205Troy, Michigan 48083(248) 680-7300
8
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
9/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN
2 SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT
3 OAKLAND COUNTY
4
5 EAMAN SHINA, FARIS SHINA,
6 Individuals,
7 Plaintiffs,
Page 1
8 VS. Case No. 10-107260
9 Hon. Rae Lee Chabot
10 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
11 BAC HOME LOANS, SERVICING, LP, a
12 Foreign Corporation, MORTGAGE
13 ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
14 a Foreign Corporation,
15 Defendants.
16
17
18
19 The Deposition of MARSHALL ISAACS,
20 Taken at 1650 West Big Beaver Road,
Troy, Michigan,.21
22Commencing at 1:57 p.m.,
23 Friday, May 13, 2011,
Before Alison C. Matthes, CSR-6266, RPR.24
25
6J.~}~r~(t!IQ;~IS;'11.\'lv,lir!ml~n:::;l(JeLr:tifn
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
10/47
Page 2
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 APPEARANCES:
2
3 ZIYAD KASED
4 625 East Big Beaver Road
5 Suite 205
6 Troy, Michigan 48083
7 248.680.7300
8 Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
9
10 MICHELLE T. THOMAS
11 Bodman, PLC
12 1901 Saint Antoine
13 Sixth El oor
14 Detroit, Michigan 48226
15 313.393.7508
16 Appearing on behalf of the Defendants.
17
18 TIMOTHY B. MYERS
19 Orlans Associates, P.C.
20 1650 West Big Beaver Road
21 Troy, Michigan 48084
22 248.502.1362
23 Appearing on behalf of Marshall Isaacs.
24
25
6J..~J~~,~~I9S;,tSl".'ln\:hi r.nun 'l1(ICk.t~tltn
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
11/47
Page 3
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13 , 2011
13 (Exhibits attached to transcript.)
10
11
12
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
3 Witness Page
4 MARSHALL ISAACS
5
6 EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. KASED: 5
8
9 EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 1 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 2 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 3 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 4 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 5 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 6 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 7 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 8 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 9 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 10 5
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 11 5
0I;'~~1~~I9;~,!~ . . '1 . ' \ . "VI , .h i r :n l :n=. lnd:xJHn
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
12/47
Page 4
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 12 5
'1e: DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 13 5
3 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 14 5
4 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 15 5
5
6
7
8
9
~Itl~~rQS~IS;,nn"-',hif;n'~n~IClr:k.~:ljrn
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
13/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 Troy, Michigan
2 Friday, May 13, 2011
3 1:57 p.m.
4
5 MARSHALL ISAACS,
6 was thereupon called as a witness herein, and after
7 having first been duly sworn to testify to the truth,
8 the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was
9 examined and testified as follows:
10 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION:
11 DEPOSITION EXHIBITS 1-15
12 1:57 p.m.
13 MR. KASED: Let the record reflect this is
14 the deposition of Marshall Isaacs as assistant
15 secretary and vice president of Mortgage Electronic16 Registration Systems, Inc., taken pursuant to order of
17 the court after a motion for protective order was
18 sought.
19 This deposition is being taken for any and
20 all purposes authorized by the Michigan Court Rules.
21 This case is in t h e Circuit Court for Oakland County,
case number 10-107260-CK. It's in front of Judge2
23 Rae Lee Chabot.
24 EXAMINATION
25 BY MR. KASED:
~IENENSTOCI(: - ' :_J-:rJOt. .JWIUl;em 'In ImP J JliTU-a~
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
14/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Isaacs.
A. Hello.
Q. I know that you're an attorney. Have you, yourself,
participated in depositions as an attorney before?
A. I have testified at depositions, yes.
Q. Okay. Did it involve Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, do you recall?
A. No.
Q. I understand that you're familiar with depositions,
but I'm just going to go over a few ground rules so
the record in this case is clear. There is a court
reporter sitting next to you. She's taking down every
word that you or I or either of the attorneys sitting
here says. To make her job easier and for record
clarity, I'll ask that you do not speak while I'mspeaking, and I'll do my best to not speak while
you're speaking_
I'm going to ask you some questions. If
you don't understand the questions, let me know and
I'll ask it a different way. If you don't know the
answer to a question, just say you don't know_ If you
need to go to the restroom or if you need a break for
any reason, let me know and we'll accommodate that. I
just ask that if there is a question pending, I'd like
the question answered before we take a break.
~ f .% 1 i& J3 r J ;:Q ;~ IS',n.... 'w.bif:I1!!n"lI(II:k.l:JJIrI
Page 6
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
15/47
MARSHALL ISAACS
May 13, 2011
1
2
3
4
5 A.
6 Q.
7
8
9 nrl
10 Q.
11
12
13 A.
14
15 Q.
16 A.
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20 Q.
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Isaacs, are you under the influence of
any medication for any condition that might affect
your ability to provide accurate answers to my
questions today?
No.
Mr. Isaacs, you are a vice president and assistant
secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems;
correct?
Through signed documents, yes, I was given that title.
And hereinafter, I'm just going to refer to them as
MERS, if that's okay. Do you know since when you held
that title? In what year you got that title?
I believe the authority for me to sign documents was
given in 2009 for BAC.
And MERS is a nationwide company; correct?
I don't know.
Do you know on about how many mortgages they're listed
as mortgagee?
I have no idea.
Can you generally describe what MERS does?
i"lS. THOIvlAS: abjection. That r s not one of
the four topics that is listed in the Order that we're
going to -- as topics for deposition today.
MR. RASED: Noted.
MR. MYERS: I would join in that objection.
~!.;tl~~'IQ~!Sh,,\,,"w.hir~m:n;lnd~.r:rjm
Page 7
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
16/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 And, in fact -- in fact, I'm going to take the extra
2 step and instruct my witness not to answer any
3 questions that are outside of what Judge Chabot has
4 ordered. It's my understanding, and what my witness
5 has been prepared to testify to, is in accordance with
6 what Judge Chabot's Order specifically outlines, and
7 that March 31st, 2011 order is quite clear that the
8 plaintiffs are entitled to depose Marshall R. Isaacs
9 with respect to the following topics only, and that
10 would be the authority to sign -- his authority to
11 sign as an assistant secretary and vice president of
12 MERS, his employment history with MERS, MERS corporate
13 resolution authorizing him to sign documents as an
14 assistant secretary and vice president of MERS, and
15 the Assignment of Mortgage dated January 3rd, 2010,
16 and recorded on January 20th, 2011.
17 Outside of that, Counsel, we're not
18 obligated and we're not going to be answering any
19 questions outside the scope of this Order.
20 MR. KASED: Okay. The question was to
21 Mr. Isaacs, if he can describe what MERS does. Are
22 you instructing him not to answer?
23 MR. MYERS: I am instructing him not to
24 answer because that's not within the scope of
Judge Chabot's Order.5
~II~tIJ:Q;~t*,S;~.",n'd~il;nj~n,t.I.nt:k.r:fJI[l
Page 8
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
17/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1
2
3
MR. KASED: Okay.
MS. THOMAS: And I would be joining in that
instruction, as well.
4 BY MR. KASED:
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q. How did you become an assistant secretary and vice
president of MERS?
A. The issue of getting assignments prepared and executed
quickly, I guess, facilitated the giving of --
assigning authority by HERS and the BAC to the varlOUS
law firms to get the -- sign some mortgage -- signed
quicker, so MERS, along with BAC, granted signing
authority to the various law firms who do the
foreclosures so that they could, basically, assign the
assignments.
Q. So did you fill out an application?
A. No.
Q. Did you receive any training?
No.
Do you have any business cards that show that youJre a
vice president and assistant secretary of MERS?
No.
Are you paid by MERS at all?
No.
Do you attend any meetings? MERS meetings?
No.
gIENENSTOCI(: \! ,' :' : l' I flNWILHi CO llin ru~It:H~TlI":{ . : - . . rU JEOw,,\\,\.hf l:nj:n:=:tDd~.com
Page 9
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
18/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Q. Do you report to anyone at MERS?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall who asked you to accept that position?
A. No.
Q. r'm going to place in front of you, Mr. Isaacs,
exhibits that were labeled Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. I'll
direct your attention to Exhibit 1, entitled,
Agreement For Signing Authority. Do you know what
this is?
A. This would be the agreement that MERS gave to allow me
to sign documents -- assignments on their behalf.
Q. Have you seen this document before today?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Okay. Exhibit 2 is entitled, MERS, Inc., Corporate
Resolution; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen this document before today?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And Exhibit 3 is entitled, Assignment of Mortgage, and
it's concerning the plaintiffs in this case, Mr. and
Ms. Shina; correct?
Yes.
And that is your signature?
Yes, it is.
And you signed it as assistant secretary and vice
0I,I:iJ,~IQ;~,~~www .hl r.nnn 1: . .1n r- l. .c r .m
Page 10
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
19/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1
2
3 A.
4 Q.
5
6 A.
7 Q.
8
9 A.
10 Q.
11 A.
12 Q.
13
14 A.
15 Q.
16
17 A.
18 Q.
19 A.
20 Q.
21
22
23
24 A.
25 Q.
president of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems;
correct?
Yes, I did.
And that assignment was prepared and drafted by you as
an attorney for Orlans & Associates; correct?
Correct.
This document was sworn to by you and notarized by a
notary on January 3rd, 2010; correct?
No. I signed it on January 3rd, 2010.
That's what I said.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
Do you have any actual recollection of what happened
that day?
No.
And the effective date of the assignment is on or
before January3rd, 2010; correct?
Yes.
And is there a date by your signature?
Just above it there is, and just below it there is.
So this document was drafted by you as an attorney for
Orlans & Associates, and then signed by you as
assistant secretary and vice president pursuant to a
corporate resolution; is that correct?
Correct.
And that corporate resolution is what we have marked
~n~~R1~,I.Q;~I5~n\"l..\'+11rr:nlm;lni~k.c:l,rn
Page 11
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
20/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A.
Q .
A.
Q.
as Exhibit 2; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain how an assignment of a mortgage that
was signed by you and notarized on January 3rd, become
effective on or before the date it is actually
notarized?
A. I donlt understand your question.
Q. Okay. The assignment was signed by you and notarized
on January 3rd, but the effective date says, on or
before January 3rd. Can you explain how this
assignment can be effective before the date it was
actually signed and notarized?
A. Well, an assignment is nothing more than a document
that gives notice to the world that the mortgage
interest has been transferred. Mortgage interest can
be~ransferredprior to the recording assignment by
other documentation.
Q. Move on to Exhibit 4. This document is the mortgage
for the plaintiffs in this case, Mr. and Ms. Shina;
correct?
It is a mortgage for the Shinas, yes.
Do you recognize that document at all? Have you seen
it before?
It doesnlt look familiar.
But that is the same mortgage that you assigned from
~I.!t[R!tIlrg;~I~S;.'"\\"'w.bi[~nl!n;lnd~.t:Jjm
Page 12
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
21/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
MERS to BAC Horne Loan Servicing?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Exhibit 5.
MS. THOMAS: I'm going to object to any
questions regarding Exhibit 5. This is not the
assignment that's listed in the Order under section
under paragraph B. This is an assignment regarding
borrowers who are not plaintiffs to this, and it's not
regarding the subject property, so I would instruct
him not to answer any questions regarding Exhibit 5 as
it's not one of the authorized deposition topics
according to the Court's Order.
MR. MYERS: I would join with Ms. Thomas.
MR. KASED: Let the record reflect that
15 Counsel has instructed the witness not to answer any
16 questions regarding Exhibit 5.
17 BY MR. KASED:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Q.
Q. Mr. Isaacs, regarding Exhibit 3, the assignment of the
mortgage in this case, do you recall if the notary was
in your presence when she signed this?
'1\n I don't recall.
Do you have any specific recollection of signing the
document?
No.
Mr. Isaacs, are you aware of the term robo-sign?
~I~,Ii&~~I:Q;~,!~t',"\"'\\'r;rJm
Page 13
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
22/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1
2
3
4
MS. THOMAS: I 'm going to object. That is
not one of the authorized topics in the Court Order,
and instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
5 BY MR. KASED:
MR. MYERS: I would join.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q. To your knowledge, does or has Bank of America or any
of its affiliates ever engaged in robo-signing?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's not one of
the authorized topics underneath the Court's Order. I
would instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
MR. MYERS: I would join.
12 BY MR. KASED:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Q. Okay. Exhibit 6. Do you recognize this document,
Mr. Isaacs?
A. I don't recognize it, but I can tell you what it is.
Q. Go ahead.
A. It's the note executed by Eaman Shina.
Q. And, so, would that be the note which is secured by
the mortgage identified as Exhibit 4?
Yes.
Turn your' attention back to Exhibit 3 for a second.
You assigned only the mortgage; is that correct?
The assignment states: "Together with the note to
which the same is collateral."
So is there a reference to the note in Exhibit 3?
~J . }2~e r t ! r. l I .Q ;~ I~S",,,\,,~.bi~~1 !nslDr.k.r!J' nn
Page 14
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
23/47
Page 15
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A. There is.
Q. Can you read it to me?
A. "Together with the note to which the same is
collateral."
Q. Do you know if MERS has any interest in that
promissory note?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's not one of
the topics underneath the Court Order. I would
instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.MR. MYERS: I would join.
11 BY MR. KASED:
15
16
17
12
13
14
18
19
Q. Mr. Isaacs, if I told you that MERS had no interest in
the Shinas' promissory note, which is Exhibit 6, would
you agree that MERS cannot assign the promissory note
as you did in Exhibit 3?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's not one of
the topics authorized by the Court's Order. I
instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
MR. MYERS: I would join. I would also
20 object on the basis of speculation.
21 BY MR. KASED:
22
23
24
25
Q. Okay. Exhibit 7. Can you tell me what that document
is titled, Mr. Isaacs?
A. MERSCORP, Inc. Rules of Membership.
Q. And as a VP of MERS, you've surely seen this before;
~I,~t~~IQ.~I~;.n1."'\'I.".hi,:III:-n"ilnd:.C/lm
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
24/47
Page 16MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
correct?
MS. THOMAS: I'm going to object. Rules of
membership is not a deposition topic authorized by the
Court's Order. I'm going to instruct Mr. Isaacs not
to answer.
MR. MYERS: I would join.
7 BY MR. KASED:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
9
Q. Mr. Isaacs, can you turn to page 15 of this r which
would be the second page? Section 3, under Rule 3,
can you read that for me?
A. Out loud or to myself?
Q. For the record. Ou~ loud, please.
A. "Section 3 (a): Upon request from the member,
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. shall
promptly furnish to the member in accordance with
procedures a corporate resolution designating one or
more officers of such member selected by such member
as certifying officers of Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems Inc., to permit such mernber , (i),
to release the lien of any mortgage registered on the
HERS system to such member.
(ii), assign the lien of any mortgage
naming MERS as the mortgager when the member is also
the current promissory note-holder, or if the mortgage
is registered on the MERS system, is shown to be
~IB:.l~&l~~IQ~~,~SWi.\"1.\o
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
25/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 registered to the member.
2 (iii), to foreclose upon the property
3 securing any mortgage loan registered on the MERS
4 system to such member.
5 (iv), to take any and all actions necessary
6 to protect the interest of the member or the
7 beneficial owner of a mortgage loan in any bankruptcy
8 proceeding regarding a loan registered on the MERS
9 system that is shown to be registered to the member.
10 (v), to take such actions as may be
11 necessary to fulfill such member servicing obligations
12 to the beneficial owner of such mortgage loans,
13 including mortgage loans that are removed from the
14 MERS system as a result of the transfer thereof to a
15 nonmember.
16 (vi), to take action and execute all
17 necessary documents, all documents necessary to
18 finance, refinance r amend or modify any mortgage loan
19 registered on the MERS system to such member.
20 (vii), endorse checks made payable to MERS,
21 to the member that are r-ece i.ved by the member and
22 payment on any mortgage loan registered on the MERS
23 system that is shown to be registered to the member r
24 and instances where Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems Inc' r designates an officer or a member as a5
~I~t{%l~,IQ;~IIS\'\'\\."\\.ll~l:nl!r.;IIlr.k.r::jln
Page 17
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
26/47
Page 18MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
certifying officer of MERS for the limited purpose
described above, such member shall indemnify MERS and
any of its employees, directors, officers, agents or
affiliates against all loss, liability and expenses
which may" -- "they may sustain as a result of any
and all actions taken by such certifying officer."
Q. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Now, in the third line of what you read,
starting on section 3, it specifically refers to a
"corporate resolution designating one or more officers
of such member, selected by such member, as certifying
officers of MERS."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you an officer of BAC Home Loan Servicing?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's not a topic
that's listed in the Court's Order. I would instruct
Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
MR. MYERS: I join.
20 BY MR. KASED:
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Are you employed by BAC?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. You can depose
Mr. Isaacs on his employment history with MERS.
There's no other employment history that you're
allowed to depose him on, according to the Court's
~I'JitlIIQ~J~Swwwhlnnunstock.cnm
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
27/47
Page 19MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 Order. I'm going to instruct Mr. Isaacs not to
2 answer.
3 MR. MYERS; I join.
4 BY MR. KASED:
5 Q. Mr. Isaacs, do you know of any authority in the MERS
6 rules that authorizes corporate resolutions appointing
7 certifying officers of MERS to be attorneys for law
8 firms who work for the MERS members?
9 MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's not one of
10 the topics in the Court's Order. I'm going to
11 instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
12 MR. MYERS: I join.
13 BY MR. KASED:
14 Q. Mr. Isaacs, you just read a very specific -- "although
15 limited powers of certified officers within the MERS
16 rules."
17 Can you compare these to those listed in
18 the corporate resolution in Exhibit 2? And feel free
19 to take your time.
20 MR. MYERS: I'm going to object to the
question. I think it's vague and ambiguous. I'm not1
22 sure the witness understands. I certainly don't.
23 MS. THOMAS: And we've already made the
24 objection as to Exhibit 7 and we've instructed
Mr. Isaacs not to answer any questions with respect to5
~I~tipa~I.9~~,!Sw'\, ' \ \" .bi[:n '!nGlnr.k.r:r l tr t
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
28/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhibit 7 because it's not within the topics listed ln
the Court's Order as topics that you are allowed to
depose Mr. Isaacs on.
MR. KASED: Are you instructing him not to
answer my question?
7 BY MR. KASED:
MS. THOMAS: Yes, I am.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Q. Exhibit 8. Mr. Isaacs, can you tell me what this
document is entitled?A. It's entitled, Remarks and Testimony of R.K. Arnold,
President and CEO of MERSCORP, Inc., Before the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
House Financial Services Committee, November 18th,
2010.
Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
A. I have not.
Q. Do you know who R.K. Arnold is?
A. According to this, he's president and CEO of MERSCORP,
Inc.
Q. Have you heard of him before today?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the difference between MERS and MERSCORP?
MR. MYERS: Objection. That's not one of
the topics authorized in the Court's Order. I would
instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
0JJ2~1i.,I.Q~rtS.","''\yw.bll~n-E~n~lnr:k.~:nlT1
Page 20
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
29/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13 t 2011
1 BY MR. KASED:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q. Page 2 of Exhibit 8 t the second and third paragraphs,
can you read that for the record?
A. "One thing that is always clear in a mortgage document
is that if the borrower defaults on his obligation,
the lender can foreclose. If MERS holds the mortgage
lean, foreclosures can occur in two ways: Either the
MERS mortgage interest is reassigned in the land
records to the lender holding the note and the lender
initiates the action on its own, or MERS initiates the
action as the mortgagee of record in the land records.
To do this, MERS relies on specifically
designated employees of its members, called certifying
officers, to handle the foreclosure. To be a MERS
certifying officer, one must be an officer of the
member institution who is familiar with the functions
to be performed, and who has passed an examination
administered by MERS. Generally, these are the same
individuals who handle the foreclosure if the lender
was involved without MERS. The loan.file remains with
the servicer as it did before MERS. MERS is not a
repository for mortgage documents or promissory
notes."
Q. Thank you.
So on November 18th, 2010, the president of
0n~~B(tJ,~lrQ;~IS\\,,,\I,,, .. ~.llip.nnn:'lad~.':rJm
Page 21
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
30/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 MERS testified under oath to Congress that to be a
2 MERS certifying officer, one must be an officer of the
3 member institution who's familiar with the functions
4 to be performed and who has passed an examination
5 administered by MERS. Have you taken any examination
6 administered by MERS?
7 MS. THOMAS: Objection. There is no -- the
8 Court Order does not authorize testimony on that
9 topic. I would instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.10 MR. MYERS: I wound join. And I would also
11 add that I believe you're misconstruing this exhibit.
12 Page 42 specifically takes the testimony of Mr. Arnold
13 and extrapolates that as to how does one become a vice
14 president and/or assistant secretary of MERS. I think
15 this is far outside the scope of what Judge Chabot's
16 Order addresses.
17 BY MR. KASED:
18 Q. Mr. Arnold testified that, "The certifying officers
19 are the same individuals who would handle the
20 foreclosure if the lender was involved without MERS.
21 The loan file remains with the servicer as it did
22 before MERS.n
23 Do you remember, when you executed the
24 assignment in Exhibit 3, did you have the loan file?
MR. MYERS: I'm going to object. This has5
0J..ljBJiIQ;~IS; r " ! ' \ , , " ' \ \ _b i f~JH!ni ' i IGd: . . r : r J rn
Page 22
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
31/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 been asked and answered. Mr. Isaacs has already
2 testified that he has no recollection of this specific
3 file when he signed the assignment.
4 THE WITNESS: Do I answer?
5 MR. KASED: Is that a no? Can he answer
6 the question?
7 MR. MYERS: If you recall. If you can
8 answer the question.
9 A. I don't recall signing the assignment, so I don't
10 know.
11 BY MR. KASED:
12 Q. Page 3 of Exhibit 8, Mr. Isaacs, can you read the
13 second paragraph into the record?
14 A. "Earlier this year, when we became aware of
15 acceleration in the foreclosure document processing,
16 we grew concerned that some certifying officers might
17 have been pressured to perform their responsibilities
18 in a manner inconsistent with our rules. When we did
19 not get the assurances that we thought were
20 appropriate to keep this from happening, we suspended
21 our relationships with those companies.
22 When we discovered that some so-called
23 robo-signers were MERS certifying officers, we
24 suspended their authority until they could be
25 retrained and retested. We are asking our members to
6 . ! : i&1~ l I9 ;~ I !S,..w'\"-.hir;nnr.r.lm:L:.r.rJm
Page 23
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
32/47
Page 24MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
provide us with specific plans outlining how they
intend to prevent such actions in the future."
Q. Thank you.
And one more thing on page 13, just those
first two sentences.
A. "MERS has specific controls over who can be identified
by its members as a certifying officer. To be a MERS
certifying officer, one must be a company officer of
the member institution, have basic kriowl.edqe of ['1ERS
and pass a certified examination administered by
MERS.n
Q. And I have attempted to ask you if you are an officer
of the member institution, if you've passed an
examination administered by MERS, which your counsel
has instructed you not to answer. Do you know what a
MOM mortgage is?
A. A MOM?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's not one of
the topics that the Court has authorized for
Mr. Isaacs to testify to. I would instruct Mr. Isaacs
21 not to answer.
22 BY MR. KASED:
23
24
25
Q. Do you know what a MIN number is?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. MIN number is not
a topic that's authorized by the Court Order. I would
~I~J:~I%(~,IQ;~,!Swww.hinnenstock.cnrn
http://www.hinnenstock.cnrn/http://www.hinnenstock.cnrn/ -
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
33/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
2 BY MR. KASED:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q. Back to Exhibit 4 r Mr. Isaacs. Did you see the MIN
number towards the top right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any idea why that particular
identification number was not included in the
assignment of the mortgage, Exhibit 3?
A. I can only speculate, so I don't know offhand.
Probably because --
MR. MYERS: Well, I'm going to instruct the
witness not to answer this. If you cannot testify
we're here for you to answer honestlYr fully and
completelYr and if you don't know the answer r one of
the things that Mr. Kased stopped short of during his
instructions to you, as is routinely -- as witnesses
are routinely advised, and that is that if you don't
know the answer to a question, I don't know r I don't
remember r I don't recall, are generally accepted
answers.
Mr. Kased, is that one of the ground rules
that you are comfortable with?
MR. KASED: Yes. I believe I told
Mr. Isaacs that if he didn't know an answer, he could
answer I don't know.
0I,tiJl~f[9;~ISwww.biennnxtouk.cnm
Page 25
http://www.biennnxtouk.cnm/http://www.biennnxtouk.cnm/ -
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
34/47
Page 26MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 MR. MYERS: Fair enough.
2 A. I don1t know.
3 BY MR. KASED:
4 Okay. Fair enough..
5 Do you know the purpose of the MIN number?
6 MS. THOMAS: Objection. MIN numbers are
7 not a topic authorized by the Court 1s Order. I would
8 instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
9 BY l'1R. KASED:10 Q. Mr- Isaacs, do you know what a milestone report is?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. Milestone reports
is not a topic authorized by the Court's Order. I
would instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
BY MR. KASED:
11
12
13
14
15 Q. Mr. Isaacs, on page 16 of Exhibit 8, can you just read
the first two sentences?
A. In 2005, it became apparent to us that foreclosures
undertaken in Florida were relying excessively on lost
note affidavits. MERS adopted a rule forbidding the
use of lost note affidavits when foreclosures were
done in the name of MERS in Florida. That rule was
extended nationally in 2006, and is still in effect
today. MERS believes --
Q. That's it. That's all.
A. I'm sorry.
0!'t[~rtiJ:Q~J!S\\-~\'"\\.birmlm:;lfld:.!:rJm
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
35/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q . Thank you. I appreci a t e tha t .
Af t er readi ng thos e s t a t ement s , Mr. I s aacs ,
doesn ' t t ha t comple t e ly go aga i ns t your corpora te
res olut i on i n Exh i bi t 2?
A. I don ' t unders tand the ques t i on.
Q. Okay. In your corpora te res olut i on , you were
author i zed to execute los t note a ffi davi t s ; i s tha t
correc t?
A. I t does s ta t e tha t those can be s i gned, yes .
Q . All ri g h t . Ye t the pres i dent of MERS tes t i f i ed to
Cong res s unde r oa th tha t MERS adopted a rule
forbidding the use of los t note a ff i davi ts .
MS. THOMAS: Object i on . Los t note
a ffi davi t s i s not a s ubject authori zed by the Cour t ' s
Orde r. I would i ns t ruct Mr. Is aacs not to answer
ques t i ons rega rding los t note aff i davi t s .
MR. MYERS: I would joi n .
18 BY MR. KASED:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
A.
Okay . Exhi bi t 9 . I know tha t ' s a l i t t le di f f i cul t t o
read, Mr. I s aacs . Th i s was a l i s t obta ined from the
t " lERSv.Jebs i te tha t l i s t s a ll the act i ve t J !ERSmembers .
I 've pr i nt ed the as , and I know i t ' s a l i t t le bi t ha rd
to read, but do you s ee the name Orlans Associa t es
anywhere?
I do not s ee i t .
6I~~Fa~,IQ;~,*Swww.hlnnnnsmnk.cnrn
Page 27
http://www.hlnnnnsmnk.cnrn/http://www.hlnnnnsmnk.cnrn/ -
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
36/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q. Exhibit 10. Mr. Isaacs, this is the oversight report
dated November 16, 2010. Have you ever seen this
document?
A. No.
Q. Were you aware that Congress became aware that
employees at Bank of America and others had testified
that they signed and, in some cases, backdated
thousands of documents claiming personal knowledge?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. This is not a
topic authorized by the Court's Order. I'm going to
instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
MR. MYERS: I join. I also would object
based on the witness's lack of knowledge regarding
this, so lack of foundation.
15 BY MR. KASED:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q. Mr. Isaacs, page 4 of exhibit 10, can you read the
first paragraph for the record?
MR. MYERS: I'm going to object to the --
we've given you a lot of leeway on the reading into
the record. Exhibit 10 is a part of the record. It's
been aduitted as part of the deposition. The contents
of it, both the first paragraph, as well as the
remaining pages in this, speak for themselves. And if
you have a specific question regarding -- actually,
I'm going to object to anything regarding this because
~I.it!&.l~Ir.Q~!Swww.binnnnsrcnk.rnm
Page 28
http://www.binnnnsrcnk.rnm/http://www.binnnnsrcnk.rnm/ -
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
37/47
Page 29
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 the wi tnes s has i ndica t ed that he ' s never s een th i s ,
2 he has no knowledge of th i s document , and i t ' s out s i de
3 of the s cope of Judge Chabot ' s Orde r.
4 MR. KASED: Okay. I ' l l read i t for the
5 record .
6 "In the fa ll of 2010, report s began to
7 surface al leg i ng that companie s se rvi ci ng
8 $6.4 t r i l l i on i n Ameri can mortgages may have been
9 bypas sed leg al ly" -- "may have" -- excuse me -- "may
10 have bypass ed leg al ly requi red s t eps to foreclose on a
11 home. Employees or contrac tors of Bank of Ameri ca ,
12 GMAC mortgage and othe r major loan se rvi cers t es t i f i ed
13 that they s igned and, i n s ome cas es backdated ,
14 thousands of documents cla iming persona l knowledge of
15 fact s about mortg ages tha t they di d not actua lly know
16 to be t rue . "
17 BY MR. KASED:
18 Q. Okay. Exhi bi t 11. Mr. Is aacs , Exh ibi t 11 i s a recent
19 Michi gan Court of Appeals case i nvolving MERS, and i t
20 holds tha t , "MERS cannot foreclos e by adver t i s ement i n
21 Mich ig an, and that any MERS foreclosures in Michi gan
22 by HERS" -- "by adver t i s ement i s void as an i s s ue ."
23 Are you fami li a r wi th th i s cas e a t a ll?
24 A. Yes .
Q. Have you read the opi ni on?5
0I~,~,tirg;~ISwww.hfnuunstuck.cnm
http://www.hfnuunstuck.cnm/http://www.hfnuunstuck.cnm/ -
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
38/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 A. I have.
2 Q. Do you recall anywhere in the opinion where it states
3 that MERS has the authority to assign a mortgage?4 MR. MYERS: Objection. This recent case is
5 not one of the topics authorized by the Court's Order.
6 I would instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
7 BY MR. KASED:
8 Q. Would you agree that the court r in this case, ruled
9that MERS has no interest in the note or the debt?
10 MS. THOMAS: Objection. The recent
11 settlement opinion is outside of the Court's order. I
12 would object -- I would instruct Mr. Isaacs not to
13 answer.
14 BY MR. KASED:
15 Q. Exhibit 12. Have you ever seen this document before?
16 A. No.
17 Q. This is a Consent Order entered into recently with
18 MERS and various Federal regulators. About seven
19 lines down, on page 2, and I'll read it for the
20 record: "The agencies have identified certain
21 deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices by MERS
22 and MERSCORP that present financial operational
23 compliance, legal and reputational risk to MERSCORP
24 and MERS and to the participating members. Members
are institutions that use MERSCORP and MERS services5
0n~a:;r~1t!IQ~ISt'_!,\,"'1.\.llif:l1l:n~;n.r,k.r:nm
Page 30
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
39/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 and have agreed to abide by MERSCORP's rules of
2 membership. I,
3 Now, if we go to the next page, under
4 Article 7, certifying officers.
5 Mr. Myers, you want me to read it for the
6 record?
7 MR. MYERS: That's all right.
8 MR. KASED: "In the 60 days of this order,
9 MERS shall prepare and submit a plan to the deputy
10 comptroller to strengthen its governance processes
11 applicable to MERS certifying officers with respect to
12 examined members. The plan shall include, but not be
limited to: (a), policies and processes to designate3
14 or certify individuals as authorized MERS certifying
15 officers, and that only such individuals act in such
16 capacity_
17 (b), policies, processes and resources to
18 track the identity and activities of MERS certifying
19 officers and to ensure their compliance with the rules
20 and related requirements.
21 (cl, policies, processes and resources to
22 register third-party MERS certifying officers who are
23 acting for examined members.
24 (dl, policies, processes and resources to
ensure the adequacy and appropriateness of training5
~l~J:iB,~'I.Q;~,~S\'l.... vw.blnnnnsturk .. rnm
Page 31
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
40/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13 , 2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
for ce r t i fy ing offi cers .
(e) , pol i c i e s , proces s es , and res ources to
ensure that examined members comply wi th the MERS
Members h i p Rule 8 and MERS Announcement 2011-01 . "
And, "( f ) , pol i c i e s , proces s es and
resources to ensure tha t examined members and th i rd
par t i e s can quickly and accura t e ly de te rmine a
speci f i c i ndi vi dual des igna ted to act a s author i zed
MERS cert i fy i ng offi ce rs . "
Mr. I saacs , can you te l l me about how many
of thes e as s i gnment s you executed?
MS. THOMAS: Object ion . The Cour t only
au t ho r i z e s hi s t es t imony as to the as s i gnment mortg age
da ted Janua ry 3 rd , 2010 . Any th ing e ls e i s out s ide the
s cope of the Cour t ' s Orde r . I am going to i ns t ruct
Mr. I s aacs not to answer .
MR. MYERS: I would joi n.
18 BY MR. KASED:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q. Mr. I s aacs , do you know who Wi ll i am Rough ten i s ?
A. Hets the gent leman who s i gned the corpora t e
re solut i on, I be l i eve .
Q . Do you know who he i s ?
A. No.
Q. Do you know who Steven Ri s e i s ?
A. No.
~ I ; J : i l t f r , IQS~ I !~l \ \ '" . w.hll: l1l!n: ' i-Eud:.[:fJfn
Page 32
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
41/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
13
14
15
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A. We do not send them to MERS.
Q. When you prepared and executed this assignment, do you
recall who instructed you to do it?
A. The instructions would have corne from the BAC.
Q. And the assignment was done so that BAC could
foreclose on plaintiff's property in their own name
rather than in MER8' name; correct?
A. I -- yes, that is correct.
Q. Do you know what type of mortgage this was?
A. I don't understand your question.
Q. As far as an adjustable rate, fixed rate,
conventional. And if you don't know, that's fine.
A. No. Not off the top of my head, no.
Q. So the assignment was executed under instruction from
BAC; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Does the phrase, Clues System, mean anything to you?7
18
19
MS. THOMAS: Objection. Clues System is
outside the scope of the Court's Order. I'm going to
20 instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
21 BY MR. Y~SED:
22
23
24
25
Q. Do you know what the term soft market means?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. The topic of a
soft market is outside the scope of the Court's Order.
I would instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
0n~a:~a~rQ;~IS'r,"\n\'.hlf;nlm:,tr~r;k.r.rJm
Page 34
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
42/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 BY MR. KASED:
2
3
4
5
Q. Do you know what the term fast and easy loan refers
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
A. I don't know.
to?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. Fast and easy loan
is outside the scope of the Court's Order. I would
6 instruct Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
7 BY MR. KASED:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Q. Mr. Isaacs, going back to the mortgage, which I
believe is Exhibit 4, can you tell me who the lenderwas on this mortgage?
A. Countrywide Bank.
Q. And who was the mortgagee?
A. MERS.
Q. And then Countrywide merged with Bank of America.
That would be around 2008. Is that correct or you
don't know?
Q. And then this mortgage was assigned about three years
after the mortgage was executed; correct?
About two years.
Q. Do you have any idea when the foreclosure was
scheduled for in this case?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. Foreclosure is
not -- is outside the scope of the deposition -- or
outside the Court's Order. I would instruct
~I~li,IQ~IS\\'l.\"'w.l}tnJllln;lnr.k.l:t;fn
Page 35
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
43/47
Page 36MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
2 BY MR. KASEO:
3
4
5
6
Q. Do you know about how many documents you've handled as
9
10
11
a MERS officer since you became a MERS officer?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's outside the
scope of the Court's Order. I would instruct
7 Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
17
18
19
8 BY MR. KASED:
12
13
14
15
16
Q. Going back to the assignment, as an officer of MEHS,
and as the attorney who prepared the assignment, are
you both the attorney and the client on this
assignment?
A. I'm not the client, no.
Q. But you're an officer of the client?
A. I have signing authority as an officer for MERS.
Q. Do you know how many certifying officers there are ln
the country for MERS?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's outside the
scope of the Court's Order. I am going to instruct
20 Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
21 BY r"1R_ K.Zl,.SED:
22
23
24
25
Q. Have you ever heard the saying, "the mortgage follows
the note"?
MS. THOMAS: Objection. It's outside the
scope of the Court's Order. I would instruct
On~~~R:{t!rrQ~ISwww.hlcnerntnck.rnm
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
44/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
2 BY MR. KASED:
3 Q. By reading the mortgage, would you say that since the
4 mortgagee is one entity and the lender is another
5 entity, would you agree that the mortgage and the
6 note, in this case, have been split?
7 MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's outside the
8 scope of the Court's Order. I would instruct
9 Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
10 BY MR. KASED:
11 Q. Do you know if MERS has any employees?
12 MS. THOMAS: Objection. That's outside the
13 scope of the Court's order. I would instruct
14 Mr. Isaacs not to answer.
15 MR. MYERS: Counsel, I would request that
16 you stick to the four topics that Judge Chabot
17 provided as the framework for this depos t
18 We've just experienced a lengthy series of questions
19 that are clearly, in my opinion, outside the scope,
20 and if you have no desire to comply with
21 Judge Chabot's Order, let us know at this point,
22 because none of the questions you're asking right now
23 comply with the framework.
24 BY MR. KASED:
Q. Exhibits 13 through IS, Mr. Isaacs. I don't have any5
~I.tn~a~I.9;~I~'.A.!\.~"'\\'.[lir;nt!n,;ltlr:I:"'f:(Jrn
Page 37
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
45/47
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13, 2011
1 questions regarding these exhibits, I just went to
2 know if you've ever seen these documents before.
3 A. I have not seen any of these documents before.4 Q. Okay. Thank you.
5 MR. KASED: Irm just about finished. I
6 just want the record to reflect that Mr. Isaacs is not
7 a party to this lawsuit, and r to the best of my
8 knowledge, not a client of Ms. Thomas r yet he was
9 instructed by Ms. Thomas not to answer a majority of
10 my questions.
11 Thatrs all I have, Mr. Isaacs.
12 MR. MYERS: The only thing I would add on
13 that is that, to the extent I did not concur in every
14 objection, to make the record clear, that I did
15 that I do concur in Ms. Thomas's objection, and that
16 the record does reflect that at no point did I ever
17 inform Mr. Isaacs that he should answer any of those
18 questions.
19 I have no further follow-up questions or
20 anything.
21 MS. THOMAS; I have no questions for
22 Mr. Isaacs.
23 MR. KASED: Thank you, Slr.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(The deposition was concluded at 2:57 p.m.5
6I~tIRr~I.g;~r!S'i.."t"",,.I)il~nlm.I:,'[Jr.k.r:nm
Page 38
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
46/47
Page 39
MARSHALL ISAACSMay 13 t 2011
1 Signature of the witness was not requested by counsel
2 for the respective parties hereto.}
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o ' ) J : iS ;1~I9 ;~IS' i ' : . r ' \ v. . , . .'+hl.:nnn:;lnr;l:. .OJm
-
8/6/2019 Issac-Adisho v.Orlans Part 1
47/47
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SS
COUNTY OF OAKLAND
I, ALISON C. MATTHES, certify that this
deposition was taken before me on the date
hereinbefore set forth; that the foregoing
questions and answers were recorded by me
stenographically and reduced to computer
transcription; that this is a true, full and
correct transcript of my stenographic notes so
taken; and that I am not related to, nor of counsel
to, either party nor interested in the event of
this cause.
ALISON C. MATTHES, CSR-6266
Notary Public,
Oakland County, Michigan
My Commission expires: May 1, 2017