REFinBlog

September 26, 2013

California Court Finds that MERS Was Not Liable for Wrongful Foreclosure, Breach of Contract, and Breach of the Implied Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

The United States District Court for the Central District of California hearing Gaitan v. MERS, et al, 09-1009 (C.D. Cal. 2009) found that MERS had the right to initiate foreclosure proceedings. The court also found that MERS was not liable … Continue reading →

California Court Rules That MERS Did Not Breach the Implied Covenant of Good Faith By Initiating Non-Judicial Foreclosure

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Winter v. Chevy Chase Bank, No. C 09-3187 SI (N.D. Cal. 2009) found that despite the plaintiff’s allegations, MERS had not committed negligence or breached the implied covenant … Continue reading →

September 25, 2013

Another Federal Judge Can’t Take It Anymore

Magistrate Judge Brown (EDNY) issued a memorandum and order in Pandit v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., CV 11-3935 (June 5, 2013) that reflects, to my mind, judicial frustration with mortgage industry companies.  This frustration arises, no doubt, from the many … Continue reading →

September 24, 2013

Federal Judge Declares War on Wells Fargo

Never saw this before: And so, Wells Fargo wins on a technicality.  The Court never addresses the merits of this case and expresses no opinion thereon. Still, it is appropriate to point out that, were Henning to prove his case … Continue reading →

September 23, 2013

Deane Finds Us East of Eden

Last week, I discussed a NYLJ article about the “Show Me The Note” argument in New York. The article discussed a recent case, Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Deane, 2013 Slip Op. 23244 (Sup. Ct. Kings Country July 11, 2013). … Continue reading →

United States District Court for the Central District of California Finds hat MERS Was the Beneficiary and Entitled to Foreclose

The United States District Court for the Central District of California in Derakhshan v. MERS, No. SACV08-1185 AG (2009) found that MERS was the beneficiary and therefore entitled to foreclose. This case, like many others before this court, involved the … Continue reading →

September 21, 2013

Court Rules That When MERS Assigned its Interest, it Did Not Commit Negligence Against the Borrower

The United States District Court of the Eastern District of California in deciding Baisa v. Indymac, MERS, et al, No. Civ. 2:09-1464 (E.D. Cal. 2009), found that MERS had the right to execute an assignment of the deed of trust … Continue reading →