REFinBlog

August 26, 2013

Hawaiin Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Allegations of Fraud Against MERS and Grants Summary Judgement

The court in Sakugawa v. MERS et al, D. Hawaii, 1:10-cv-00028 (Feb. 25, 2011) granted summary judgment in favor of MERS. Thus rejecting the plaintiff’s accusations for fraud and claims of state law violations regarding loan origination. The court also found that … Continue reading →

August 20, 2013

Arizona Court Holds That MERS is the Beneficiary With the Authority to Foreclose

The court in Ciardi v. The Lending Company, Inc. et al., 2010 WL 2079735 (D. Ariz. 2010) held that that MERS is the beneficiary with the authority to foreclose. In doing so the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss … Continue reading →

August 1, 2013

Nevada Supreme Court Holds a Bank’s Mere Possession of the Note and Deed of Trust is not Sufficient to Create an “Enforceable Interest”

In Leyva v. Nat’l Default Servicing Corp., 255 P.3d 1275 (Nev. 2011) the court found in favor of Leyva that mere possession of the mortgage note does not create an “enforceable interest in the property subject of the mediation.”  The … Continue reading →

Nevada Supreme Court Holds Sanctions are Proper in Foreclosure Mediation when Bank Fails to Provide Either Documents Required by Statute or an Adequate Representative

In Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 255 P.3d 1281 (Nev. 2011), the court held sanctions are appropriate  when a bank 1) fails to provide documents required by statute at a mediation session or 2) fails to send a representative with … Continue reading →

Arkansas Court Rules That MERS Did Not Violate the State’s Statutory Foreclosure Act

The court in Coley et al v. Accredited Home Lenders Inc et al (E.D. Ark. 2011) dismissed the homeowner-plaintiff’s claims against MERS pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In granting MERS’ motion to dismiss the court considered, then … Continue reading →

July 30, 2013

Nevada Court Finds MERS Lacked Standing to Bring Foreclosure Action as it Failed to Establish Itself as a Real Party in Interest and Failed to Provide Sufficient Evidence of it Authority

In MERS v. Chong, No. 09-661 (D. Nev. 2011) the court affirmed the order from the bankruptcy court holding that MERS lacked standing to bring an action. In the underlying bankruptcy action, MERS filed its motion for relief from stay, … Continue reading →

Michigan District Court Holds That MERS Cannot Foreclose by Advertisement But Can Assign its Security Interest

In Knox v. Trott & Trott, No. 10-13175, Dist. Court, (Michigan 2011) the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3) and (4). Knox maintained that the court erred in rejecting his argument that the defendants lacked standing under … Continue reading →