REFinBlog

April 12, 2013

District Court of Oklahoma Upholds MERS’ Standing

MERS v. William C. Warden, CJ-2005-7027, District Court of Oklahoma City (Mar. 3, 2006), the court refused to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and concluded that plaintiff’s argument that MERS lacked standing to pursue was without merit.

Southern District Court of Texas Dismissed Complaint that MERS Lacked Standing

In Maxwell v. Chase Home Finance, No. H-09-4038, 2011 WL 181345 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2011), the court dismissed homeowner’s “cookie cutter” complaint that MERS lacked standing to sue. Maxwell, the homeowner, alleged (1) that Chase Home Finance violated these … Continue reading →

Texas Court of Appeals Upholds MERS’ Authority to Conduct a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

In Athey v. MERS, 314 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010), the appellate court affirmed trial court’s grant of summary judgment to MERS, holding that MERS was the beneficiary of the deed of trust and, therefore, had authority to conduct a … Continue reading →

Texas Court of Appeals Holds that MERS has Standing

Hunt v. MERS, No. 03-10-00031-CV, 2010 WL 3271966 (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2010), the court rejected the homeowner’s argument that MERS lacked standing.  The court found that the homeowner did not present any arguments or authorities addressed to the … Continue reading →

April 11, 2013

District Court of Oregon Holds that Assignment is Proper

In Stewart v. MERS, No. CV-09-687-PK, 2010 WL 1055131 (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2010), the court granted MERS’ motion to dismiss and found that U.S. Bank was a real party in interest because the assignment from MERS to U.S. Bank … Continue reading →

April 10, 2013

Can’t Stand It, Just Show Me The Note

The federal District Court for Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order in Ross v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company that has two interesting aspects. First, it follows the 1st Circuit’s recently decided Culhane. Second, it reaffirms that “show me the … Continue reading →

April 9, 2013

United States District Court of Nevada Holds that under Nevada Law, Foreclosure Proceedings can be Commenced by the Beneficiary

In Ramos v. MERS, No. 2:08-CV-1089, 2009 WL 5651132 (D. Nev. Mar. 5, 2009), court concluded that, under Nevada law, foreclosure proceedings can be commenced by “the beneficiary, the successor in interest of the beneficiary, or the trustee” and, thus, … Continue reading →