REFinBlog

July 31, 2013

Court Holds That MERS Assignment, in Isolation, Could Not Prove Ownership

The court deciding In Re Wilhelm (Case No. 06-51747) was faced with the issue of when actual notes prove that the note’s chain of ownership is unclear. In reaching their decision the court found that in such a situation, the … 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 →

July 25, 2013

Bates Fails to Shake MERS’ Standing in Indiana Superior Court

In Bates v. MERS, et al., 49D12-0911-CT-051734 (June 22, 2012) Bates filed suit against MERS and several lenders in the mortgage industry on behalf of all counties in Indiana, alleging that the MERS system is an attempt to falsify records … Continue reading →

MERS Has Standing to Bring Foreclosure Action as Court Ruled There Was No Question That the Defendant-Homeowner Was the Correctly Named Party

In the case of Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Ventura, No. CV 054003168S, 2006 WL 1230265 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 20, 2006) the plaintiff-lender moved for summary judgment against defendants, a husband and wife, as to liability only. After review of … Continue reading →

July 23, 2013

U.S. District Court for Hawaii Rules in Favor of MERS in Non-Judicial Foreclosure Proceeding, Validating its Right to Transfer, Foreclose, and Sell Property as the Lender’s Nominee

In Pascual v. Aurora Loan Services, No. 10–00759 JMS–KSC, 2012 WL 2355531, at 1-18 (D. Haw. June 18, 2012), the court explained the role of MERS in mortgage transfers and granted Defendant Aurora Loan Services’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff … Continue reading →

July 22, 2013

Texas Appellate Court Rules that Foreclosure can be Initiated Without Specific Endorsement in the Note and Before the Formal Transfer of the Deed

In Robeson v. MERS (Tex. App. 2012) WL 42965, No. 02-10-00227-CV the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling finding that Robeson was given adequate time for discovery, MidFirst had authority to send default notices prior to the assignment date of the … Continue reading →