Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts Finds Bank had Failed to Prove it was Present Title Holder of the Mortgage, Denies Relief from Automatic Stay

Posted by & filed under 2010, Bankruptcy litigation, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by state, Massachusetts, MERS/Bank lacks standing, Note ownership litigation.

In In re Moreno, 08-17715-FJB, 2010 WL 2106208 (Bankr. D. Mass. May 24, 2010), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts found that creditor/Property Asset Management, Inc. (“PAM”) had failed to prove its burden that it had standing to foreclose on the property in question. Accordingly, the court denied PAM’s motion for relief from… Read more »

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Finds No Wrongdoing in MERS’s Assignment & Deutsche Bank’s Ensuing Foreclosure

Posted by & filed under Downstream litigation, Illinois, MERS/Bank has standing, Note ownership litigation.

In Long v. One West Bank, No. 11 C 703 (N.D. Ill. 2011), the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied OneWest Bank, MERS & Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss in part as moot, and granted the motion in part. Additionally, the court denied defendant Albertelli’s motion to dismiss as moot. Plaintiff Tammy… Read more »

District Court of Arizona Rejects Homeowners’ Motion to Remand, Grants Lender’s Motion to Dismiss, Without Prejudice

Posted by & filed under 2010, Arizona, MERS/Bank has standing, Note ownership litigation.

In Kane v. Bosco, 10-CV-01787-PHX-JAT, 2010 WL 4879177 (D. Ariz. Nov. 23, 2010) the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand, and granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, without prejudice. In 2005 plaintiffs/homeowners, Peter and Diane Kane, refinanced their residential loan for $120,000. The corresponding deed of trust named Downey Savings and Loan Association, F.A. (“Downey”) as… Read more »

District Court of Arizona Grants Lender’s Motion to Dismiss in Part, Denying Relief Only on Homeowners’ Quiet Title Claim

Posted by & filed under 2011, Arizona.

In Higton v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2:10-CV-01320 JWS, 2011 WL 333357 (D. Ariz. Jan. 31, 2011) the court granted defendant, Quicken Loans, Inc.’s (“Quicken”), motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in part and denied relief in part. In 2007, plaintiffs/homeowners Graham and Janet Higton refinanced their home, borrowing $600,000 from Quicken. Plaintiffs… Read more »

District Court of Illinois Grants Ocwen Loan Servicing’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Finding MERS had Authority to Assign Mortgage & Note

Posted by & filed under 2011, Illinois, MERS/Bank has standing.

In Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC v. Kroening, 10 C 4692, 2011 WL 5130357 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2011), the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Ocwen Loan Servicing’s motion for summary judgment to foreclosure. Defendant/homeowner, Victoria Kroening had originally executed a note and mortgage with Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corporation (“TBW”)… Read more »

District Court of Arizona Finds MERS has Authority to Transfer a Lender’s Interest Under a Deed of Trust, Denies Plaintiffs’ Request for a Temporary Restraining Order

Posted by & filed under 2011, Arizona, Downstream litigation, MERS/Bank has standing.

In Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, CV11-0197-PHX-DGC, 2011 WL 683887 (D. Ariz. Feb. 18, 2011) reconsideration denied, CV11-0197-PHX-DGC, 2011 WL 767302 (D. Ariz. Mar. 1, 2011) the District Court of Arizona denied plaintiff/homeowners’ petition for a temporary restraining order, finding plaintiffs had failed to prove a likelihood of success on the merits of their case…. Read more »

Superior Court of New Hampshire Denies Homeowners’ Consumer Protection Claims, Finds MERS has Authority to Assign Mortgage

Posted by & filed under Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by state, MERS/Bank has standing, New Hampshire.

In Powers v. Aurora Loan Services, 2011 WL 4428713, the Superior Court of New Hampshire denied plaintiff/homeowners’ petition for injunctive relief and lifted the stay on foreclosure. Plaintiffs had sued Aurora for numerous violations of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, including deceptive debt collection (RSA 358-C); fraud, and negligence. Plaintiffs had originally executed a… Read more »