April 12, 2013
In Cebrun v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. C10-5742-BHS, 2011 WL 321992 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 2, 2011), the court rejected homeowner’s claims “regarding MERS not being a beneficiary under the security instrument.” The Court considered that plaintiffs had signed a mortgage that expressly named MERS as beneficiary. The deed of trust was recorded and designated MERS as the beneficiary under the deed of trust. MERS then assigned its beneficial interest to HSBC. This assignment was made under a Pooling and Servicing Agreement and was recorded. Quality Loan Service Corporation later became the successor trustee under the deed of trust. Due to a default, the property was foreclosed and HSBC obtained the property. The court found that the claims regarding MERS not being a beneficiary under the security instrument is without merit because the homeowners did acknowledge that “MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument” and therefore, had the right to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument. Moreover, the court stated that other courts consistently hold, when evaluating similar deeds, that MERS acted as a beneficiary and possessed the rights set out above.