California Court Found That MERS Held Interests in the Property and Rejected the Plaintiff’s Argument that MERS Lacked Standing

Posted by & filed under 2009, California, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Equity, Foreclosures, MBS industry, MERS/Bank has standing.

The California court in deciding Nacif v. White-Sorensen, et al., NO. D056993. (San Diego Ct. Sup. Ct., 2009), determined that MERS held interests in the property and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that MERS had no standing because it was not qualified as a foreign corporation. The court found that the under California law, MERS’s status… Read more »

Court Finds That MERS, as the Beneficiary Under the Deed, Had the Authority to Assign its Beneficial Interest

Posted by & filed under 2009, California, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Equity, Foreclosures, MBS industry, MERS/Bank has standing.

The United States District Court, Northern District California in Benham v. Aurora Loan Services, No. C-09-2059, (N.D.Cal. 2009) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in the entirety. The plaintiff brought a litany of claims. Among the plaintiff’s claims, was that MERS and violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA” or “Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ. Code 1788… Read more »

Southern District of California Holds that Production of Original Note is Not Required to Proceed with a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted by & filed under 2009, California, Downstream litigation, Equity, Foreclosures, MBS industry.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California in Putkkuri v. Recontrust Co., Case No. 08cv1919 WQH (AJB) (S.D.Cal. 2009) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff in this case demanded written proof of the defendants’ right to proceed in foreclosure, and the plaintiff claimed that no such proof had been… Read more »

Missouri Court of Appeals Holds that MERS Does not have Authority to Assign without Holding Note

Posted by & filed under 2009, Downstream litigation, MERS/Bank lacks standing, Missouri.

In Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 621 (MO Ct. of App., E. D., Mar. 3, 2009), the court held that MERS did not have the authority to assign its interest because it did not hold the promissory note. BNC Mortgage Inc. (BNC) was the lender and payee of the promissory note. In… Read more »

United States District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Contentions Against MERS, Alleging Wrongful Foreclosure and Unfair Business Practices

Posted by & filed under 2009, California, Downstream litigation, Foreclosures, Note ownership litigation.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California in deciding Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al. 5:09cv016015 (N.D. Cal., 2009) affirmed MERS’ authority to foreclose. MERS’ ability to foreclose was again affirmed in this case, contrary to plaintiff contentions alleging wrongful foreclosure, unfair business practices, failure to disclose information regarding the… Read more »

California Court Rules That State Law Did Not Require Possession of the Promissory Note in Order to Initiate a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted by & filed under 2009, California, Downstream litigation, Foreclosures, MBS industry.

The Eastern District of California in deciding Chilton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1:09; 2187 (E.D. Cal., 2010) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint claiming wrongful foreclosure and lack of standing. The court held that California law did not require possession of the promissory note in order to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure. Although MERS was not… Read more »

California Court Held That State Law Did Not Require Possession of the Note as a Precondition for Initiating a Foreclosure Sale

Posted by & filed under 2009, California, Downstream litigation, Note ownership litigation.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court in deciding Linares, et al. v. JLM Corporation, et al., No. YC060372 (2009), after considering the plaintiff’s contentions, rejected them in favor of the defendant’s argument. In accepting the defense’s argument, the court held that California law did not require the possession of the original note as a precondition… Read more »