REFinBlog

February 21, 2013

Ohio Appellate Court Holds that Bank Has Standing even though Assignment Was Not Recorded Before Bank Initiated Foreclosure Action

In Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Ingle, No. 92487, 2009 WL 2400852 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2009), the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company … Continue reading →

Ohio Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Bank Despite Bank Commencing Foreclosure Action Before Executing Mortgage Assignment

In Bank of New York v. Stuart, No. 06CA008953, 2007 WL 936706 (Ohio Ct. App. March 30, 2007), the appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Bank of New York (the “Bank”) despite the fact that the Bank … Continue reading →

February 19, 2013

1st Circuit Holds that MA Borrowers Can Challenge Mortgage Assignments

A First Circuit panel (including Justice Souter) ruled that under Massachusetts law, “a mortgagor has standing to challenge a mortgage assignment as invalid, ineffective, or void (if, say, the assignor had nothing to assign or had no authority to make … Continue reading →

Utah District Court Holds that Plaintiff’s TILA Claims Are Time-Barred and that MERS Does Not Need to Possess the Note in Order to Appoint a Trustee or Authorize a Trustee to Foreclose

In Rhodes v. Aurora Loan Services, No. 2:10 CV 00230 TC, 2010 WL 3219310 (D. Utah Aug. 13, 2010), the United States District Court of Utah granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims.   In October 2006, Plaintiff refinanced the … Continue reading →

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

In Burnett v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., No. 1:09 CV 00069 DAK, 2009 WL 3582294 (D. Utah Oct. 27, 2009), the United States District Court of Utah held that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (“MERS”) had authority to initiate … Continue reading →

February 17, 2013

District Court of North Dakota Finds MERS has Standing to Foreclose, Rejects All Twelve of Plaintiff’s Challenges

In Bray v. Bank of Am., 1:09-CV-075, 2011 WL 30307 (D.N.D. Jan. 5, 2011) appeal dismissed, 435 F. App’x 571 (8th Cir. 2011), the court denied plaintiff’s ten motions, including his motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants’, Bank of … Continue reading →

February 15, 2013

The Michigan District Court holds that Aurora Bank has Standing to Foreclose on Homeowners’ Property

In Horton v. Aurora Bank FSB, 1:12-CV-365, 2012 WL 3307451 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2012), the Michigan District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Aaron and Suzanne Hortons’ claims. In January 2007, the Hortons purchased property and executed a promissory note, … Continue reading →