Nevada Deed Trust: Fill & Download for Free

No. Doing so would constitute the crime of practicing law without a license/unauthorized practice of law. In addition to a law degree, an attorney must be licensed by the State Bar for each state he wishes to practice in. The license is required in order to represent clients in court and to provide legal advice. The examples you provided would be clear violations if the JD did not have a license to practice law.This Nevada case cited below is relevant to the situation as it discusses, not just a JD, but a lawyer licensed in Arizona who moved to Nevada and was hired by a Nevada law firm to do paralegal work. Ultimately, he did work that was considered the practice of law and was busted because he had not obtained a Nevada law license. Not only was the Arizona unlicensed attorney violating the law, but the Nevada attorney was sanctioned for allowing him to do it! The reason behind this is the law is a self-regulated profession and attorneys have an affirmative duty to report other attorneys for ethical violations. FindLaw's Supreme Court of Nevada case and opinions.ADDENDUM: I read through some of the other answers after posting mine and they reminded me of another issue that is very similar to an unlicensed JD providing the services in the question, which is paralegals and notaries doing the same thing, especially in the Southwest.Much of this comes from the differences in the role of a notary public in Mexican and South American countries, as opposed to the United States. In Mexico, notary publics handle routine legal documents like wills and deeds, whereas these services must be provided by an attorney in the United States. Notaries and paralegals often attempt to open up businesses to serve immigrant customers who are often not aware that they are not permitted to do so.

First, let's separate non-judicial foreclosure states, from judicial. In most non-judicial states there is no requirement to produce evidence that the foreclosing party holds the note (Nevada (state) recently changed their laws to add this requirement). Instead the right to foreclose is granted by the homeowner in the "deed of trust" to a trustee. The trustee can be changed through the recording of a substitution of trustee.Bruce Feldman: note that MERS does not eliminate the recording of mortgages or deeds of trust; MERS is only used to keep track of "assignments", which document changes to the "beneficiary". Note that the term "beneficiary" itself has become convoluted. These days it typically reflects the "servicer" of the note (the party you send payments to), which may be different than the "holder" of the note (the actual lender).Seems to me the crux of the problem is that state laws haven't kept up with changes in the lending industry. Specifically, I think the laws should be revised such that requirements for "servicers" vs. the acutal underlying "lender" are clearly spelled out.As to the original question, if the lender can't locate the original note, then they can file a lost note affidavit. The borrower could certainly challenge such a filing, but for the borrower to prove it never existed they'd need a plausible explanation for why a mortgage or deed of trust was recorded, and where they came up with the money for the purchase, if not from said loan. Now one could argue that it was a different lender - but that issue would be between the lenders, and shouldn't give the borrower any relief from their obligation to repay the loan.

There was no shortage of development proposals when the Marin Headlands were put up for grabs by the military after the artillery bunkers and Nike missile sites located there became obsolete in the 1960s, but anti-development activists prevailed. There was no local housing crisis at the time, and little desire to increase traffic to SF on the overtaxed Golden Gate Bridge further to support such a development.The plans for densely-occupied high-rise apartment buildings covering the headlands, to be called "Marincello," were ultimately rejected. Only developer drawings remain. The Sierra Club and local politicians were influential in preventing the urbanization of these golden hills, despite dense developments being more environmentally friendly than suburban sprawl. There was no mass transit other than busses along 101 to support a sudden population increase thereBART had been proposed on the lower structure of the GG Bridge around this time, but was rejected by Marin voters largely because of the 1/2% additional sales tax proposed to pay for it. Currently, the cost of such an extension to BART is estimated to run in the trillions of dollars, and almost certainly never happen.There was even a plan to build a second bridge from the SF waterfront near the Aquatic Park at the bottom of Van Ness, jumping to Angel Island, Tiburon, and then along the Tiburon ridge to Highway 101.Also, about 2/3 of the rest of Marin is watershed for Mount Tamalpais and a number of reservoirs on the flanks of the mountain, our water supply (rather than the Sierra Nevada meltwater pumped to SF).In addition, much of the West Marin farmland has been deeded to the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, so will never see commercial or housing development, though these properties continue as dairy or farmland for the current families living on the properties.So most older development of southern Marin is along the 101 corridor, and in Tamalpais and Ross Valley and the San Rafael flatlands, with most newer growth further north around Novato, especially where the decommissioned Hamilton Airfield has now been developed as housing and commercial property along the bay.