REFinBlog

October 16, 2013

California Court Found That MERS Held Interests in the Property and Rejected the Plaintiff’s Argument that MERS Lacked 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 … Continue reading →

October 15, 2013

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

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 … Continue reading →

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

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’ … Continue reading →

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

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 … Continue reading →

September 27, 2013

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

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 … Continue reading →

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

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 … Continue reading →

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

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 … Continue reading →