REFinBlog

October 9, 2013

Enforcing The Mortgage Note

Elizabeth Renuart has posted Uneasy Intersections: The Right to Foreclose and the UCC to SSRN. This is a subject that Brad and I have touched on a bit in the context of the Show Me The Note! defense, but Renuart … 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 →

October 3, 2013

Court Holds That Mortgagor Lacks Standing to Challenge the Propriety of Mortgage Assignments Under Rhode Island Law

The Rhode Island magistrate judge in Cosajay v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 10-442-M (D.R.I. June 23, 2011) issued “Reports and Recommendations,” holding that according to Rhode Island law a mortgagor “lacks standing to challenge the propriety of … Continue reading →

Washington Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Claims That MERS’ Assignment was Fraudulent

The Washington court in Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc., 2010WL891585 (W.D. Wash. Dist. Ct., March2010), rejected the plaintiff’s contentions that an assignment by MERS was executed fraudulently. The plaintiff based his claims around the execution of a mortgage assignment … Continue reading →

October 2, 2013

California Court of Appeals Holds that MERS has Authority to Assign Beneficial Interest

In Forbes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., E051309, 2011 WL 4985965 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2011), homeowner had acquired a single-family residence and later refinanced the property by obtaining two loans. Mortgage Funding, Inc. was the lender of both … Continue reading →

California Court of Appeals holds that MERS Does Not Bear Burden of Proving Valid Assignment

In Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A, No. A130478, 198 Cal.App.4th 256 (Ca. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 11, 2011), Fontenot sued Wells Fargo Bank, MERS and three other entities after she defaulted and lost the property to foreclosure. In the fourth amended complaint, … Continue reading →

September 26, 2013

California Court Rules That MERS Did Not Breach the Implied Covenant of Good Faith By Initiating Non-Judicial Foreclosure

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Winter v. Chevy Chase Bank, No. C 09-3187 SI (N.D. Cal. 2009) found that despite the plaintiff’s allegations, MERS had not committed negligence or breached the implied covenant … Continue reading →