Why yes, the wording & paperwork matter. A lot.

August 20, 2010 9:46 PM

Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic shortcut makes it impossible for banks to establish their ownership of property titles--and therefore to foreclose on mortgaged properties. The logical result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure-proof.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey (54 comments total)

sweet . . .
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:56 PM on August 20, 2010

Oops!
posted by Forktine at 10:00 PM on August 20, 2010

There's no way this will stand. Laws will be changed, if necessary. If 62 million loans become impossible to collect on, and if you guess that they average $100,000 each (which is probably low) then you're looking at $6 trillion in loans that have to be written off.

That would cause the world banking system to collapse. No way that the government will let that happen. The judge in this case was interpreting the law, but laws can be changed.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:05 PM on August 20, 2010 [11 favorites]

"Could." Yeah, it could.

Sounds to me like this MERS can't sue, they're arguing, because they're not the actual title holder. But someone holds that title, no? Seems a bit weird that it would just default back to the resident. They got the money to purchase that home from somewhere...

?
posted by chasing at 10:06 PM on August 20, 2010

This is a two-edged sword -- if the bank (via MERS) does not hold the title, well then the "homeowners" don't either, so how could they ever legally sell their house if they wanted to move?

But I guess if you're fine holding your house in your family, mortgage-free (though still subject to local taxes), forever and ever, then that's not really a problem.
posted by Asparagirl at 10:12 PM on August 20, 2010

iamfacingforeclosure.com/
mandelman.ml-implode.com/
market-ticker.org/
www.alternet.org/

Sounds like these people can't be foreclosed on in the same way Wesley Snipes doesn't actually have to pay his taxes.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:15 PM on August 20, 2010 [12 favorites]

The problem isn't the title, the problem is the note. MERS allows the holder of the mortgage note to transfer the note without recording it, thus leaving no evidence of who owns the note. This is the entire POINT of MERS - to allow holders of mortgages to circumvent state recording requirements. Because of MERS, under state laws it is no longer possible to determine who the real party in interest is with respect to the mortgage note, and none of the banks or investors can prove that they own it. MERS cannot sue on its own behalf because it is, by its own admission, nothing but a smokescreen for defeating state laws. This entire arrangement is void as against public policy, and it's amazing that it took this long to figure it out.
posted by 1adam12 at 10:20 PM on August 20, 2010 [9 favorites]

Does this mean I can stop paying taxes? Cuz that's what my uncle said..
posted by LordSludge at 10:21 PM on August 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Is there any more credible analysis of this problem? All the links are clearly biased.

It's certainly an interesting documentation fuck-up, but I doubt it will have any lasting impact.
posted by temancl at 10:25 PM on August 20, 2010

Curious if your home is one of the ones whose note is owned (or "owned") by MERS? Here's their free online look-up tool.
posted by Asparagirl at 10:31 PM on August 20, 2010 [6 favorites]

It's hard to tell, reading the breathless mortgage conspiracy sites, whether the court ruled that MERS just doesn't work at all, or whether it ruled that with respect to this particular mortgage, MERS just fucked up.

As I gather, MERS is supposed to be the record owner of the underlying note, so beneficial interests can freely trade. The court said that no evidence was presented that MERS owned the note, though. It sounds like maybe they just lost it? It happens, and wouldn't imply that all MERS-recorded mortgages are foreclosure proof.
posted by planet at 10:32 PM on August 20, 2010

Asparagirl But I guess if you're fine holding your house in your family, mortgage-free (though still subject to local taxes), forever and ever, then that's not really a problem.

If enough time elapses you should gain the title under adverse possession.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:38 PM on August 20, 2010

Asparagirl wrote: "This is a two-edged sword -- if the bank (via MERS) does not hold the title, well then the "homeowners" don't either, so how could they ever legally sell their house if they wanted to move?"

It doesn't work that way. The house is deeded to you as the person buying the home. There is a mortgage on the property, but that doesn't mean that you don't own it, only that if you don't pay your mortgage they can take the property away from you. If they can prove they have standing to file a foreclosure action, anyway.

You aren't renting from the bank with the understanding that you get the property after 30 years or whatever.

And regardless of that you certainly signed a promissory note, for which the mortgage is security, so if they can prove that they own that they can collect the debt, just not by foreclosure. Now, if they lost all the documentation, they're pretty much good and screwed.
posted by wierdo at 11:11 PM on August 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

I am not an attorney, but I do work in a California Recorder's office.

MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.) is listed as the beneficiary on the Deeds of Trust issued by a number of lenders. To the best of my recollection, most of the forms concerning MERS read something to the effect of "X is the Trustor, Y is the Trustee, and Z in the Lender under this instrument. MERS is the beneficiary under this Deed of Trust..." In California, Deeds of Trust are the loan documents comparable to mortgages: the borrower is the trustor, who gives the lender (beneficiary) an I.O.U. for the amount borrowed, and who also gives "bare legal title" to the third-party trustee. The trustee's "bare legal title" is basically what lets him/her act on the part of the beneficiary in case the trustor defaults on the loan.

The (purported/ostensible) benefit to the arrangement was that MERS as the beneficiary meant that the organization acted as a holding company for the lenders with whom it contracted, meaning that the sale of loans within its own lender network did not require the recordation of an Assignment of Deed of Trust - that loans could be traded within MERS' own network without evidence on the public record. On the one hand, I assume it meant that the property owners had a consistent address for their mortgage payments; on the other hand, I can see room for abuse.
posted by Graygorey at 11:20 PM on August 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

Also, per MERS' site:

Any loan registered on the MERS® System is inoculated against future assignments because MERS remains the nominal mortgagee no matter how many times servicing is traded. MERS as original mortgagee (MOM) is approved by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, FHA and VA, California and Utah Housing Finance Agencies, as well as all of the major Wall Street rating agencies.
posted by Graygorey at 11:24 PM on August 20, 2010

Graygorey I can see room for abuse.

Your gift for understatement is impressive. :)
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:24 PM on August 20, 2010

Yeah, this is a great pieface story, but we all know that the laws will be rewritten or forcibly reinterpreted following a few million dollars' worth of extra lobbying, and that will be that. And the media won't cover the story becauMUSLIM PRAYER ROOM AT O'HARE! SARAH PALIN'S RESPONSE AFTER THESE MESSAGES!
posted by No-sword at 11:27 PM on August 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

Does this mean we're all going to die?
posted by dirigibleman at 11:43 PM on August 20, 2010

when greedy, selfish people can't even summon up the competency to ensure what theirs is truly theirs, you know just what a clusterfuck the next few years are going to be

this is the real failure of corporatism - that the people running it just don't know what they're doing
posted by pyramid termite at 11:55 PM on August 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

Can someone explain the way this could be abused?
posted by Mitheral at 11:59 PM on August 20, 2010

It seems like if they can go back to the original documents and create a good chain of title to the mortgage or deed of trust prior to filing the foreclosure action, standing could be sorted out. If those documents have been lost or destroyed, it seems like there's going to be sad pandas all around. If they can't be bothered to file a proper lawsuit, they deserve to lose.
posted by wierdo at 12:05 AM on August 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

It doesn't work that way. The house is deeded to you as the person buying the home.

That's usually true, but as Graygorey pointed out, here in California the title can technically be owned by MERS. (Our closing procedures are different too, often handled by the escrow company and not a lawyer.)

And regardless of that you certainly signed a promissory note, for which the mortgage is security, so if they can prove that they own that they can collect the debt, just not by foreclosure.

Again, that's usually true, but California is a non-recourse state -- so assuming that you do not have a second mortgage and have not refinanced and do not have a HELOC, if you "jingle mail" your home in that situation, they cannot sue to collect a deficiency judgment for the full value of the debt. They just get the house.

What can I say, it's a weird state. *shrugs*
posted by Asparagirl at 12:16 AM on August 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Where does standing come into play if there's no judicial action involved?
posted by wierdo at 12:51 AM on August 21, 2010

> Can someone explain the way this could be abused?

The system allowed banks to foreclose on your house without actually presenting hard evidence that they owned the mortgage. Tons of opportunities there for abuse, doncha think?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:02 AM on August 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Where does standing come into play if there's no judicial action involved?

It doesn't. Contracts are 'divorce documents' - used to settle a dispute.

Now you could start a controversy in court by asking the court to determine the rightful title holder....

The system allowed banks to foreclose on your house without actually presenting hard evidence that they owned the mortgage. Tons of opportunities there for abuse, doncha think?

Who created the 'bad contract'? Was it the homeowner? Or someone else? If someone else creates a bad contract and gets screwed over - am I to 'feel bad' for the someone else or the homeowner?
posted by rough ashlar at 3:40 AM on August 21, 2010

this is the real failure of corporatism - that the people running it just don't know what they're doing

Strikes me as one party was trying to 'get over' on another party. And what ya gonna do - challenge the mortgage holder?

Helpful hint:
Do the math on your mortgage.

Other links on the topic:

http://remediesinrealestate.com/ (I believe Mr. Kelton has actual 'do the math' spreadsheets)
http://www.endlessfrauddetection.com/ (will "help" you for/out of $2500)

If you dont wanna read
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Skidmore.xml

And if you happen to think the whole MERS thing is overblown and hating banks is for wack-jobs - well....
http://thepeacock.com/ (because I've not posted him for a while.)
http://www.achieveradio.com/cash-flow/ (bank hate at its finest. Along with psychics, some guy who is channeling, a husband and wife, and commercialized-reliable-excess-power-producing-cold fusion. If you wanna trash talk MERS-haters by association to other stuff this is the link to go to.)
posted by rough ashlar at 3:59 AM on August 21, 2010

And the always economic gloom and doom The Automatic Earth features mortgage talk today.

with:
How'd you like them apples? Gross has the actual guts to paint a picture of, well, let's say, what a mortgage looked like prior to heavy-handed government meddling in the market. He also makes clear that he doesn't want that, though: his fortune was made precisely because the government is into the housing market up to its ears.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:08 AM on August 21, 2010

Hmmmm....I haven't fully explored this, but --- the benefit of MERS was that, within its system, loans could be transferred without having to re-register the change with the County. There would be a servicer of record on the deed when the mortgage was issued, plus MERS. If I understand this Housing Wire article correctly, Fannie is now requiring that, for all its loans, the deed be transferred from MERS back to the servicer, so that when action is brought in the state housing court to foreclose there's no discrepancy.

The pea went under the middle cup, you moved the cups around a lot, but as long as it's middle cup that sues and the pea's under middle cup when we look, no problem from the perspective of the state courts. Whether the pea was under middle cup all along within MERS, as it were, is no concern of theirs. At least that's my rough reading, could be wrong....
posted by Diablevert at 5:44 AM on August 21, 2010

There's quite a bit to think about here, but my initial reaction is, "Ha, ha!"
posted by ob1quixote at 6:26 AM on August 21, 2010

I'm always amazed when the really smart, if ethically challenged, people behind these kinds of schemes manage to overlook a small but important detail. You'd think that people who live and die by the niggling details would pay a little more attention to them. But I guess when you're dealing with rules that vary from state to state it's almost inevitable that mistakes will be made. And, hey, they can count on a little lobbying money to route around any serious screwups.

So, since my mortgage is "owned" by MERS I can just stop paying, right? Right? Oh.
posted by wintermind at 6:28 AM on August 21, 2010

In an ideal world, this would bring about legislation that would kill-off the whole mortgage selling, parceling, re-selling, re-parceling, etc. etc. industry. Require mortgage lenders to hold those mortgages intact. The whole industry is nothing but a huge human centipede of middlemen.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:41 AM on August 21, 2010 [3 favorites]

Metafilter: nothing but a huge human centipede of middlemen
posted by furtive at 7:52 AM on August 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

Buying out the mortgages should have been what the bailout bought us. "Yes you can have half of our GDP, but the people in the houses get the houses." The MERS directory shouldn't be a list of mortgages that are in a tenuous legal limbo. It should be a list of debt-free homeowners.
posted by clarknova at 8:48 AM on August 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

BANK ERROR IN YOUR FAVOR - COLLECT $100,000+
posted by malocchio at 8:50 AM on August 21, 2010 [6 favorites]

The actual court decision referred to seems to be the one on page 4 of this PDF.

The Debtor objects to the Claim on the basis that BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP has not offered any evidence that it is the beneficiary of the note and deed of trust or otherwise legally able to assert the claim. The Deed of Trust and Note attached to the Proof of Claim list PMAC Lending Services, Inc. as the mortgagee. The note is not endorsed and no evidence is offered to show that the Deed of Trust has been assigned to another.

Honestly, I am surprised that this approach to fighting foreclosure has not received more attention.
posted by exogenous at 9:04 AM on August 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Between this case and the Prop 8 case headed to the 9th Circuit right now, the "little people" of California seem to be using the unusually nitpicky issue of "who has standing" as a great way to cut the schmucks off at their knees.
posted by Asparagirl at 9:13 AM on August 21, 2010

There's no way this will stand. Laws will be changed, if necessary. If 62 million loans become impossible to collect on, and if you guess that they average $100,000 each (which is probably low) then you're looking at $6 trillion in loans that have to be written off.

I think that's a pretty lowball number, and we aren't even considering the MBSs and other forms of leveraged alphabet soup.
posted by malocchio at 9:16 AM on August 21, 2010

I'm a tad confused. Even if the ruling stands, and the whole MERS scheme is invalidated (possibly correct in regards to the law, but I'd guess unlikely to stand anyway) isn't the only real effect that instead of BAC filing a claim, PMAC has to? And, I suppose, BAC then sues PMAC for the money? It sounds to me as if the homeowner loses the house anyway,.
posted by tyllwin at 9:44 AM on August 21, 2010

I'm not sure the "logical" conclusion would be the voiding of several hundred billion dollars of mortgage payments.
posted by QuarterlyProphet at 10:26 AM on August 21, 2010

isn't the only real effect that instead of BAC filing a claim, PMAC has to? And, I suppose, BAC then sues PMAC for the money? It sounds to me as if the homeowner loses the house anyway,.

What if PMAC doesn't file a claim by the deadline, or doesn't care to file a claim at all? After all PMAC hasn't been servicing the mortgage, probably for years, they likely wouldn't even be aware of the foreclosure action. And what action could they take if they had been paid in full by BAC hadn't accepted a payment from the homeowner in years anyway? The homeowner wins.
posted by MikeMc at 11:08 AM on August 21, 2010

There's been a lot of litigation involving MERS, but most cases generally dealt with MERS inability to show it was a holder in due course/assignee - in other words, MERS didn't have the right piece of paper. The California case is different because it goes to the heart of the issue:

"Earlier cases focused on the inability of MERS to produce a promissory note or assignment establishing that it was entitled to relief, but most courts have considered this a mere procedural defect and continue to look the other way on MERS' technical lack of standing to sue. The more recent cases, however, are looking at something more serious. If MERS is not the title holder of properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken, and no one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest in title, and the court agreed." (From the OP alternet article link).
posted by webhund at 11:26 AM on August 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

exogenous wrote: "Honestly, I am surprised that this approach to fighting foreclosure has not received more attention."

Actually, there have been quite a few suits in quite a few states. Most I've read have failed, although a lot of them seem to have failed for want of competent (or any) legal representation, and would have at least stood a chance with a good attorney. It seems that it's common for them to transfer the mortgage/deed of trust from MERS to the entity holding the promissory note prior to suing, at least in some states.
posted by wierdo at 12:06 PM on August 21, 2010

It seems that it's common for them to transfer the mortgage/deed of trust from MERS to the entity holding the promissory note prior to suing, at least in some states.

Right, but if MERS really "is not the title holder of properties held in its name," then one could claim easily that the transfer was faulty because you can't transfer the deed from someone who someone who never held it in the first place.

Ultimately, 62 million homes won't be foreclosure proof. However, this is a darn good delaying tactic, and in this case, time is most certainly money. Drag a foreclosure out for six months, and that's six months of living in your home without mortgage payments. That's a lot of time to try to build up a pretty sizable cushion of savings for when you eventually do move.

Seems like there's decent money to be made here by cash-strapped counties arguing that MERS is merely a giant racket on the part of the lenders to avoid recording fees. Property recording systems may be cumbersome, but there's a reason why civilization has put a great deal of effort throughout history into systems of title: it's really useful to know who owns what, and it's really difficult to buy and sell property when you can't be darned sure of its ownership. The modern system of recording and title insurance guarantees that when you buy a house, no one else can show up later and insist that they are the real owners, or at least if this happens, you (and the bank) are insured against this situation. MERS is a scheme to avoid this entire system in the name of convenience for lenders who bundle and sell loans, but clearly, people were on to something when they came up with the rules, and it wasn't the most brilliant of ideas to throw them away.
posted by zachlipton at 1:59 PM on August 21, 2010

zachlipton wrote: "Right, but if MERS really "is not the title holder of properties held in its name," then one could claim easily that the transfer was faulty because you can't transfer the deed from someone who someone who never held it in the first place. "

Sure, but given that they've already got procedures in place to make a transfer from MERS to the note holder, it seems like it shouldn't be too hard for them to stop filing foreclosure suits for a month while they figure out a system to transfer the deed or mortgage from the original holder to the present holder, and I don't really see how that could be argued in court.

This presumes that the documentation is intact, which in many cases it may not be given how many mortgage funders have gone belly up recently.

Basically, I think it'll get some people off the hook entirely because their loan documents were lost, so a good chain of title to the mortgage/deed of trust will be impossible to create, but that in most cases, it will at best cause a delay of a month or two while the Is are dotted and the Ts crossed and the foreclosure suit is filed. Once they get in the habit of doing that, it'll be difficult at best for the homeowner to delay further.

Of course, my assessment depends on courts finding it OK that the mortgage is recorded only when it's first made and at the end to the final owner of it and the note just prior to foreclosure. It'll be a lot harder if MERS is required to file proper assignments for each and every time the mortgage was transferred within MERS' system.

I agree the whole thing is jacked. It reeks of a scam to get out of paying recording fees.
posted by wierdo at 2:50 PM on August 21, 2010

The homeowner wins. Oh No!! We can't have that! It's so unfair to the rest of us.
posted by carping demon at 2:52 PM on August 21, 2010

Oh No!! We can't have that! It's so unfair to the rest of us.

You can say serves them right all you want, but at the end of the day, it's not the evil bank execs who take the hit, it's the perhaps overly trusting pension funds and such who bought the evil banks' CDOs.

And of course, we have been here before. Wonder if the California connection influenced the judge's thinking.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:26 PM on August 21, 2010

Speaking from experience working for a foreclosure firm in Columbus, OH, MERS is both good and bad. It's good when it work, and the paper trail is left intact, but when it's not, it's terrible. When I worked in Ohio (ca 2008), Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), had the most foreclosures of any county in the state. And in Cuyahoga, a judge saw fit to require the foreclosing bank to prove that they actually own the mortgage in question before they filed the complaint. It was a revolutionary action on the part of the judge and forced our large firm to completely restructure an already complicated procedure for Cuyahoga County.

I've seen several folks wondering why they can't just ask the original servicer to sign the paperwork, but the simple answer is that the original servicer often doesn't exist, at least not in the way they did when the mortgage was originally filed. I was a skip-tracer who specialized in commercial lienholders, and let me tell you, the trail connecting the original mortgage holder to the current one (often our client who was foreclosing) is winding, tenuous, and sometimes non-existent. So, even if Clermont County Savings and Loan originated the loan back in 1990, it may have been merged with Greater Cincinnati Bank, which then merged with National City Bank, who is now owned by PNC. Well, who at PNC will have any idea what happened to the paperwork that was signed at the Clermont County S&L? That paperwork is long gone, and now they want to foreclose, because SURELY they have it somewhere....if not???

Well, now when the judge wants proof before they can foreclose, they have a nifty trick I was witness to (and prepared), a Lost Note Affidavit. Basically, an affidavit filed with the court saying, ostensibly, well, we looked everywhere and just can't find the note...but trust us, we promise we own it...we just can't seem to track it down...honest.

Now, I would like to think that all of the mortgages we foreclosed on were legit and that our client had genuine claim to, I can only imagine with the volume of cases coming through our office alone, that many of them did not.
posted by ThaBombShelterSmith at 5:40 PM on August 21, 2010 [3 favorites]

I know first hand how MERS opened the door for really shady business practice. In the first three years with my current mortgage it changed hands four times, the last one to a mortgage servicing company that completely changed due dates, rates and fees for various things like late payment and payment method. Things that were clearly spelled out as permanent and not changeable in my 30 year fixed rate contract. I didn't find out about these changes until months later when I got a notice saying that I faced forclosure if I didn't pay $11,000 immediately.

I've since worked it out, barely, but I can definitely see why so many are so willing to simply default and let the cards fall where they fall.

(I haven't gone to war with this company. I can't afford a lawyer, and really they're so big it's like trying to fight city hall. It ain't working for me.)
posted by snsranch at 5:57 PM on August 21, 2010

ThaBombShelterSmith wrote: "Well, now when the judge wants proof before they can foreclose, they have a nifty trick I was witness to (and prepared), a Lost Note Affidavit. Basically, an affidavit filed with the court saying, ostensibly, well, we looked everywhere and just can't find the note...but trust us, we promise we own it...we just can't seem to track it down...honest."

Now that's dumb. If they could find someone with personal knowledge of the mortgage and note to attest that they do in fact own them, you'd think that person would know where the paperwork from Blogistania National Bank went during the merger.

Honestly, I am a bit on the side of "too damn bad for you!" This wouldn't be a problem for them if they had been recording everything properly. They gambled and lost.
posted by wierdo at 6:00 PM on August 21, 2010

This is the reflection of the loan-->securitizer-->rating agency-->investor racket. The securitizers (the "banks" that pooled the loans and set up the trusts to issue the CDOs) needed certain ratings, so they made it difficult for the analysts at the rating agencies to vet the CDOs and pressured them into giving them the ratings they wanted. At the same time, servicing all the loans in a CDO, sometimes thousands, was expensive, and left a clear document trail from the CDO back to the original loan. So the securitizers paid MERS (and others) to claim that they (MERS) were the owners of the note, for servicing purposes, (which services include BK judgements,) but without actually registering that supposed ownership, thus contributing to the confusion about who owns what and incidentally cutting counties out of registration fees.

This is so often framed as the bad ol' bankers on one side against the bad ol' irresponsible borrowers on the other, but the real culprits were those who insinuated themselves between investors and borrowers, and took from both sides. (No reference to ThaBombShelterSmith is intended.)
posted by carping demon at 6:02 PM on August 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

snsranch wrote: "Things that were clearly spelled out as permanent and not changeable in my 30 year fixed rate contract. I didn't find out about these changes until months later when I got a notice saying that I faced forclosure if I didn't pay $11,000 immediately."

Sounds like the makings of a nice class action if you can find some other people who had the same thing happen to them..
posted by wierdo at 6:03 PM on August 21, 2010

This is a two-edged sword -- if the bank (via MERS) does not hold the title, well then the "homeowners" don't either, so how could they ever legally sell their house if they wanted to move?

This is what the process of 'quiet title' addresses.
posted by Muirwylde at 11:37 PM on August 21, 2010

If Lost Note Affidavits are accepted by the courts, there will obviously be banks issuing them fraudulently for liens they held & resold, or liens they never held at all, defrauding both the homeowner and the legit lien holder. It follows the courts should require real proof from the bank before foreclosure, period. Yeah, the banks must spend more money sorting through their records, fine. Isn't that bump in employment desirable in a recession?
posted by jeffburdges at 4:51 AM on August 22, 2010

If Lost Note Affidavits are accepted by the courts, there will obviously be banks issuing them fraudulently for liens they held & resold, or liens they never held at all...

What makes you think that could happen?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:22 AM on August 22, 2010 [1 favorite]