Under the FDCPA [In Jerman v. Carlisle], the Court ruled that if a debt collector makes an incorrect statement of law during communications with a debtor, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the debt collector cannot claim they merely misinterpreted the FDCPA in order to shield themselves from a lawsuit. The Court reasoned that ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to unfair debt collection tactics. A debt collector is not a fiduciary and by its own admission the debt collector has acknowledged it purposes is not that within the duties of a trustee or trustee’s agent acting in a fiduciary capacity. In allowing MERS to represent a succession of successors and assigns MERS none the less must disclose the parties of interest to who it is engaged and serves as nominee. Where MERS nominates an agent for purposes of appointing the debt sector to a fiduciary role the title company is under no obligation to release the custodial hold it has on the grant deed offered by the borrower in a nonjudicial power so sale understanding Title company the custodian is none the less compelled to reluctantly release its interest in MERS and does so upon conditioning the subsequent sale for the borrower title to realty by placing upon the deed of sale transferring deed a disclaimer to all parties which warns of the statutory non- compliance and potential for the in valid nature of the Debt collectors role as appointed by MERS or where MERS executes the assignment and grants the debt collector its authority.
Deed of Sale Transferring Deed, and Disclaimer