REFinBlog

October 3, 2013

Ohio Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Claim That Defendant Lacked Standing to Foreclose

The Ohio court in Turner v. Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, 776 F.Supp.2d 498 (2011) granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant [Lerner] engaged in the widespread practice of filing and … Continue reading →

October 2, 2013

Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court Holds that MERS’ Role as Beneficiary Does Not Provide Protection Against Foreclosure Deficiencies

In In re Doble , BK 10-11296-MM13, 2011 WL 1465559 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2011), the court held that MERS’ limited role as beneficiary of the deed of trust did not provide protection against foreclosure deficiencies. MERS’ role did … Continue reading →

California Court of Appeals Holds that MERS has Authority to Assign Beneficial Interest

In Forbes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., E051309, 2011 WL 4985965 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2011), homeowner had acquired a single-family residence and later refinanced the property by obtaining two loans. Mortgage Funding, Inc. was the lender of both … Continue reading →

California Court of Appeals holds that MERS Does Not Bear Burden of Proving Valid Assignment

In Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A, No. A130478, 198 Cal.App.4th 256 (Ca. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 11, 2011), Fontenot sued Wells Fargo Bank, MERS and three other entities after she defaulted and lost the property to foreclosure. In the fourth amended complaint, … 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 →