REFinBlog

February 11, 2013

Federal District Court in Idaho Grants Defendants (Bank et. al.) Motion to Dismiss in Foreclosure Case

In Cherian v. Countrywide Home Loans, 1:12-CV-00110-BLW, 2012 WL 2865979 (D. Idaho July 11, 2012), the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff Homeowner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and motion to amend his complaint. Plaintiff sought to … Continue reading →

Federal District Court in Idaho Rules for Bank on Various Claims and Dismisses Claim that MERS Was Not a Valid Beneficiary in Foreclosure Case

In Ohlsen v. Bank of America, 1:11-CV-00357-BLW, 2012 WL 4139530 (D. Idaho Sept. 18, 2012), Plaintiff Homeowners filed an objection challenging the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge that their complaint be dismissed. The Court here considered the Plaintiffs’ … Continue reading →

February 9, 2013

Utah District Court Holds that MERS has Authority to Assign Beneficial Interest

In Fowler v. ReconTrust Company, N.A., No. 2:10 CV 01143, 2011 WL 839863 (D. Utah March 10, 2011), the United States District Court of Utah held that Plaintiffs had no viable claim for quiet title because the trust deed executed … Continue reading →

Utah District Court Holds that MERS has the Right to Foreclose on Property even though the Promissory Note was Sold for Purposes of Securitization

In Commonwealth Property Advocates v. Citimortgage, Inc., No. 2:10 CV 00885 CW, 2011 WL 98491 (D. Utah Jan. 12, 2011), the United States District Court of Utah held that MERS had a right to foreclose the property at issue regardless … Continue reading →

Tenth Circuit Holds that MERS has Authority to Initiate Non-Judicial Foreclosure in Utah

In Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc, 474 F. App’x 732 (10th Cir. 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (“MERS”) had authority to initiate non-judicial … Continue reading →

Arkansas Supreme Court Holds that MERS is Not a Necessary Party in Foreclosure Proceedings

In MERS, Inc. v. Southwest Homes of Arkansas, 301 S.W.3d 1 (AK S. Ct, 2009), the Supreme Court held that MERS was not a real party in interest and need not be named or served in a foreclosure action by … Continue reading →

February 8, 2013

Minnesota Court of Appeals holds that MERS has Standing to Foreclose By Advertisement

repayments many people have In In re Sina, No. A06-200, 2006 WL 2729544 (MN. Ct. App. 2006), the Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that MERS had standing to foreclose when it held legal title to a mortgage and was acting as … Continue reading →