REFinBlog

October 15, 2013

Southern District of California Holds that Production of Original Note is Not Required to Proceed with a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California in Putkkuri v. Recontrust Co., Case No. 08cv1919 WQH (AJB) (S.D.Cal. 2009) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff in this case demanded written proof of the defendants’ … Continue reading →

Georgia District Court Holds Foreclosure May Be Wrongful Where Security Deed and Note Are “Split”

In Morgan v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 1:10-cv-3555-AT (N.D.Ga. July 7, 2011), homeowner obtained a residential mortgage loan memorialized by two documents: a promissory note and a security deed. The original grantee of the promissory note was Guaranteed Rate. The original grantee … Continue reading →

Missouri Court of Appeals Holds that MERS Does not have Authority to Assign without Holding Note

In Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 621 (MO Ct. of App., E. D., Mar. 3, 2009), the court held that MERS did not have the authority to assign its interest because it did not hold the promissory … Continue reading →

California District Court Holds that Deed of Trust Authorizes MERS to Take Certain Actions

In Wadha v. Aurora Loan Services,  CIV. NO. S-11-1784 KJM KJN (Dist. Ct., E.D. California. Feb 8, 2013), homeowners filed claims for wrongful foreclosure alleging that Aurora Loan Services was never assigned the beneficial interest in the deed of trust … Continue reading →

California Superior Court Upholds Language in Deed of Trust

In Obst v. Fannie Mae, No. 171619 (Shasta Cty. Super. Ct. July 11, 2011), the court denied the homeowner’s claim and upheld the language in the Deed of Trust. The original lender was Mortgageit, Inc. with MERS listed as the … Continue reading →

October 9, 2013

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Remands Lower Court’s Decision by Ordering a Hearing With Reasonable Notice on the Whether the Injunction Should be Continued

After the decision handed down from Fryzel v. MERS, No. CA 10-352 (D.Ri., 2011) On appeal, the plaintiff-appellees in United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, [(Fryzel, et. al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., No. 12–1526 (D.Ri., 2013)] brought … Continue reading →

Rhode Island Court Rules That under State law, Only Parties to a Contract May Seek to Have Rights Declared Under a Contract

The Rhode Island court in deciding Fryzel v. MERS, No. CA 10-352 (D.Ri., 2011) decided that under Rhode Island law, only parties to a contract may seek to have rights declared under a contract. The court found that the plaintiff … Continue reading →