REFinBlog

September 21, 2013

Court Rules That MERS, as the Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust, Had the Authority to Make a Substitution of Trustee

The United States District Court of the Northern District of California in deciding Lomboy v. SCME Mortgage Bankers, Inc. et al, No. C-09-1160 SC (N.D. Cal. 2009) held that under California law, MERS was not required to register to do … Continue reading →

September 20, 2013

Northern District of California Rules That MERS Had the Authority to Appoint a Substitute Trustee

The United States District of the Northern District of California dismissed fraud claims brought by plaintiff against MERS in Labra v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., No. C 09-02537 PJH (C.D. Cal. 2010). The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive … Continue reading →

California Court Finds That Under State Civil Code Section 2924(a), MERS Had the Right to Foreclose

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California Oakland Division in deciding Earl A. Dancy v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, No: C10-2602 SBA (2010) found that the plaintiff’s contentions lacked merit. The court found that the plaintiff’s … Continue reading →

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Finds That MERS Was the Beneficiary and Did Not Breach Duty of Care

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in deciding Knowledge Hardy v. IndyMac Federal Bank, et al, No. CV F 09-935 (E.D. Cal. 2009) found that MERS was the beneficiary and did not breach a duty … Continue reading →

September 19, 2013

Court Holds That California State Law Did Not Require Possession of the Note to Commence a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

The court in Chilton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1:09-cv-02187-OWW-SKO (2010), held that California state law did not necessitate possession of the promissory note in order to proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, after … Continue reading →

Court Holds MERS’ Previous Business Activities Prior to Proper Registration in California Did Not Render its Foreclosing Illegal

The court in Perlas et al v. MERS, No. C 09-4500 (N.D.Cal. 2010) held that MERS’ previous business activities prior to becoming registered to do business in California did not render its foreclosing activities illegal. Despite the plaintiff’s arguments to … Continue reading →

California Court of Appeals Holds That the Right to Challenge a Nominee’s Authority to Foreclose on Behalf of Note Holder Would Fundamentally Undermine the Non-Judicial Nature of the Process

The Fourth District California Court of Appeals in considering Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149 (2011), affirmed the lower court’s decision upholding MERS’ ability to initiate non-judicial foreclosure actions. The appellant argued that he was entitled to … Continue reading →