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 →

California Eastern District Court Notes There is no Requirement for the Production of the Original Note to Initiate a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sale Under California Law

The California Eastern District Court in Castaneda et al v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. et al., No. 2:2009cv01124 (E.D. Cal. 2010) dismissed the plaintiff’s claim alleging wrongful foreclosure due to foreclosing party’s lack of note. Plaintiffs Cesar and Suzzanne Castaneda … 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 →

Georgia District Court Holds Foreclosure May Be Wrongful Where Security Deed and Note Are “Split”

In Morgan v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-3555-AT (N.D.Ga. July 7, 2011), homeowner obtained a residential mortgage loan memorialized by two documents: a promissory note and a security deed. The original grantee of the promissory note was Guaranteed Rate. The original grantee … 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 →

California District Court Holds that Deed of Trust Authorizes MERS to Take Certain Actions

In Wadha v. Aurora Loan Services,  CIV. NO. S-11-1784 KJM KJN (Dist. Ct., E.D. California. Feb 8, 2013), homeowners filed claims for wrongful foreclosure alleging that Aurora Loan Services was never assigned the beneficial interest in the deed of trust … Continue reading →