REFinBlog

September 23, 2013

United States District Court for the Central District of California Finds hat MERS Was the Beneficiary and Entitled to Foreclose

The United States District Court for the Central District of California in Derakhshan v. MERS, No. SACV08-1185 AG (2009) found that MERS was the beneficiary and therefore entitled to foreclose. This case, like many others before this court, involved the … Continue reading →

September 20, 2013

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Finds That MERS Was the Beneficiary and Did Not Breach Duty of Care

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in deciding Knowledge Hardy v. IndyMac Federal Bank, et al, No. CV F 09-935 (E.D. Cal. 2009) found that MERS was the beneficiary and did not breach a duty … Continue reading →

September 19, 2013

Court Holds That California State Law Did Not Require Possession of the Note to Commence a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

The court in Chilton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1:09-cv-02187-OWW-SKO (2010), held that California state law did not necessitate possession of the promissory note in order to proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, after … Continue reading →

Court Holds MERS’ Previous Business Activities Prior to Proper Registration in California Did Not Render its Foreclosing Illegal

The court in Perlas et al v. MERS, No. C 09-4500 (N.D.Cal. 2010) held that MERS’ previous business activities prior to becoming registered to do business in California did not render its foreclosing activities illegal. Despite the plaintiff’s arguments to … Continue reading →

California Court of Appeals Holds That the Right to Challenge a Nominee’s Authority to Foreclose on Behalf of Note Holder Would Fundamentally Undermine the Non-Judicial Nature of the Process

The Fourth District California Court of Appeals in considering Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149 (2011), affirmed the lower court’s decision upholding MERS’ ability to initiate non-judicial foreclosure actions. The appellant argued that he was entitled to … Continue reading →

September 17, 2013

Arkansas Court Finds That Based on Security Agreement, MERS Was the Mortgagee

The Arkansas court considering Coley v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al, 4 10 CV01870 (E.D. Ark. 2011) ultimately granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal. The court granted the dismissal with prejudice as to the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims. The … Continue reading →

September 13, 2013

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Dismisses Borrower’s Claim of Invalid Assignment

The United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas in Kimberly Peace v. MERS, 4:09-cv-00966 (2010) granted MERS’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the assignment to MERS was valid. This also led the court to decide that BAC … Continue reading →