REFinBlog

March 16, 2013

Utah District Court Holds that MERS Has Authority to Assign Beneficial Interest and that Assignee Has Power to Initiate Non-Judicial Foreclosure

In King v. American Mortgage Network, No. 1:09 CV 125 TS, 2010 WL 3222419 (D. Utah Aug. 16, 2010), the United States District Court of Utah granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. In November 2007, Plaintiff received a loan … Continue reading →

Tenth Circuit Holds that MERS Has Authority to Assign Trustees After the Promissory Note Has Been Securitized and that Those Assignees Can Initiate Non-Judicial Foreclosure; Plaintiffs’ TILA Claims Were Time Barred

In Tadehara v. Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2007 HE4, 2012 WL 2581037, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ quiet title claim and TILA claim. On February 8, 2007, the … Continue reading →

Hawaii District Court Dismisses Homeowner Plaintiff Claims Against Defendants For Lack of Factual Support and Legal Authority

In Phillips v BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, CV 10-00272DAE-LEK, 2010 WL 5146433 [D Haw Dec. 13, 2010], Plaintiff Mark Phillips filed a complaint on May 7, 2010 against Defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing, MERS, and Does 1 – 20 … Continue reading →

March 15, 2013

United States Court of Appeals Holds that MERS has Standing to Foreclose on Homeowner’s Property because the Promissory Note, Mortgage, and Assignment were Valid and Homeowner Defaulted on His Loan

In Yuille v. Am. Home Mortg. Services, Inc., 483 F. App’x 132 (6th Cir. 2012), the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit held that homeowner’s quiet title claim failed because the note, mortgage, and assignment were valid and the … Continue reading →

March 14, 2013

Michigan District Court Dismisses Mortgagor’s Claims to Void a Foreclosure Sale Because the Redemption Period Had Expired

In Duff v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, No. 2:11-cv-12474, 2012 WL 692120 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 29, 2012), the District Court dismissed Mortgagor Plaintiff’s claims to void the foreclosure sale because Plaintiff failed to state a claim and the period of … Continue reading →

Michigan Court of Appeals Holds that Foreclosure is Void Because Mortgagee Commenced the Foreclosure Before It Obtained an Interest in the Indebtedness

In Davenport v. HSBC Bank USA, 739 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007), the Court of Appeals held that the foreclosure was void ab initio because Assignee Defendant did not have an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage … Continue reading →

Michigan District Court Grants MERS’s Motion for Summary Judgment because, as Mortgagee, MERS had Standing To Foreclose

In Corgan v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 1:09-cv-939, 2010 WL 2854421 (W.D. Mich. July 20, 2010), the District Court granted MERS’s motion for summary judgment because MERS had the right to foreclosure as “Mortgagee” pursuant to the mortgage … Continue reading →