Editor: David Reiss
Brooklyn Law School

September 27, 2013

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

By Ebube Okoli

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 explicitly named as a defendant in the action, the plaintiff argued that MERS lacked standing to foreclose since the note and deed of trust had been separated. The court rejected this argument.

| Permalink