loans processed through the MERS System is very difficult, often impossible. The MERS System has also facilitated the bundling of promissory notes into investment pools, and the sale of interests in those pools to downstream investors. Before the mortgage loan crisis in 2008, the bundling of notes and sale of interests to investors greatly encouraged the flow of money into the overheated residential mortgage market. Some states have enacted legislation to mitigate the difficulties created by the widespread use of the MERS System 252 (Nev.2012) (stating that, although a split note and deed are not enforceable, under Nevada law “any split is cured when the promissory note and the deed of trust are reunified”); Bucci v. Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB, 68 A.3d 1069, 1081, 1083-89 (R.I.2013) (<HOLDING>). Other state supreme courts have reached
holding that in a case in which an omitted junior mortgagee foreclosed its mortgage the junior mortgagee had the absolute right to redeem from the senior mortgagee who had purchased the property at a sale following foreclosure of the senior mortgage holding that the debtor had the right to cure the default because the foreclosure sale was not complete under state law until it was confirmed by a court holding that the mortgagee had no right to rents under its assignment of rents during the redemption period because it purchased the property for the full amount of the mortgage debt at its foreclosure sale holding that mers had the contractual authority to invoke the power of sale and the right to foreclose and that rhode island law did not preclude foreclosure where the noteholder and the mortgagee were not the same entity holding that where a mortgagee is acting on behalf of the note holder there is no disconnection between note and mortgage and the mortgagee may foreclose