REFinBlog

January 31, 2013

United States District Court in California Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief, Allowing Non-Judicial Foreclosure

In Chilton v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 1:09-CV-02187 OWW SM, 2009 WL 5197869 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2009), the United States District Court, in the Eastern District of California denied Chilton’s motion for temporary injunctive relief. Chilton filed a complaint … Continue reading →

January 30, 2013

Rhode Island Superior Court Addresses Challenged to MERS

One of the earliest opinions addressing challenges to MERS in Rhode Island is Bucci v. Lehman Bros. Bank, No. PC-2009-3888 (R.I. Sup. August 25, 2009). The plaintiff challenged MERS’s standing to foreclose on their house following the plaintiff’s default on … Continue reading →

January 5, 2013

Alabama Civil Court of Appeals finds that MERS Assignee has Standing to Initiate Foreclosure Proceedings

In Crum v. LaSalle Bank, 55 So.3d 266, (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), the court held that the assignee of the mortgage, LaSalle Bank had standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings. The court reasoned that MERS and the assignee were not delivered a … Continue reading →

December 6, 2012

Kansas Supreme Court Holds that Non-lenders Like MERS Lack Standing to Intervene in Foreclosure Actions

In Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler , 216 P. 3d 158 (KS S. Ct., 2009) MERS appealed a lower court decision that held that a non-lender like MERS is not a contingently necessary party in a mortgage foreclosure action. On … Continue reading →

Minnesota Supreme Court Holds that MERS is not Requred to Record Assignment of Mortgage in Order to Commence Foreclosure

In Jackson v. MERS, 770 N.W.2d 487 (MN S. Ct., 2009), mortgagors brought actions against MERS to enjoin the non-judicial mortgage foreclosure sales on grounds that MERS failed to comply with Minnesota’s statutory requirement to record all assignments of the … Continue reading →

December 2, 2012

Federal Bankruptcy Court in Idaho Rules that MERS was not a Party in Interest and Lacked Standing to Bring Motion for Stay of Relief

In In re Sheridan, 08-20381-TLM, 2009 WL 631355 (Bankr. D. Idaho Mar. 12, 2009), the Idaho Bankruptcy court held that a party making a motion for stay of relief must be a party in interest. This was defined to mean … Continue reading →