April 12, 2013
By Gloria Liu
In Maxwell v. Chase Home Finance, No. H-09-4038, 2011 WL 181345 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2011), the court dismissed homeowner’s “cookie cutter” complaint that MERS lacked standing to sue. Maxwell, the homeowner, alleged (1) that Chase Home Finance violated these provisions, (2) that they did not supply or execute a Promissory Note to accompany the Texas Security Deed, and (3) that the Texas Security Deed was transferred and sold without proper notice. He further complained that MERS was used to foreclose on his real property and conclusorily charged that MERS has no standing to bring an action for foreclosure. The court found most of the claims to be barred by the statute of limitations. It also found that the complaint was a “third bite of the apple” and that permitting another amendment to the complaint would not only be inappropriate, but would be prejudicial. Therefore the motion was dismissed.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support REFinBlog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Sandy Smith on Noncompliance with PSA Voids Assignment of Note and Mortgage
- tevans evans on Georgia District Court Allows Homeowner Plaintiff to Amend Fraud Claim but Dismisses Wrongful Disclosure Claim
- terry evans on The 11th Circuit Court in Georgia Holds that Homeowners’ Claim of Wrongful Foreclosure Must be Dismissed Because there Has Not Been an Actual Foreclosure Sale on the Property Yet
- terry evans on United States District of Georgia Rejects Wrongful Foreclosure Claim
- JohnR on Careful When Putting Shoe on Other Foot
- A Resilient NYC
- Georgia Court Dismisses RESPA, TILA, and HOEPA Claims
- GSE Shareholders Taking Discovery
- Armed, Unarmed or Harmed by Knowledge?
- Good Data for the FHFA