REFinBlog

December 6, 2012

New York Supreme Court Holds that MERS Does Not Have Standing to Foreclose if it Does Not Own Both Note and Mortgage

In LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Lamy, 824 N.Y.S.2d 769 (NY S. Ct., 2006), the court held that MERS did not have standing to foreclose because it did not own the note and mortgage. Court reasoned that “well established case authorities … Continue reading →

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds that without a Recordable Assignments, MERS has no Standing

In US Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez , 2009 WL 3297551, (MA S. Judicial Ct, 2011), the court held that a party lacks standing to foreclose when it holds a mortgage note endorsed in blank and an assignment of the … Continue reading →

New York Supreme Court Holds that County Clerks Have a Statutory Duty to Record and Index Mortgages

In Merscorp, Inc. v. Romaine, 861 N.E.2d 8 (NY S. Ct., 2002), court had to decide whether the Suffolk County Clerk  was compelled to record and index mortgages, assignments of mortgage and discharges of mortgage, which name MERS as the lender’s … Continue reading →

Kansas Supreme Court Holds that Non-lenders Like MERS Lack Standing to Intervene in Foreclosure Actions

In Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler , 216 P. 3d 158 (KS S. Ct., 2009) MERS appealed a lower court decision that held that a non-lender like MERS is not a contingently necessary party in a mortgage foreclosure action. On … Continue reading →

Minnesota Supreme Court Holds that MERS is not Requred to Record Assignment of Mortgage in Order to Commence Foreclosure

In Jackson v. MERS, 770 N.W.2d 487 (MN S. Ct., 2009), mortgagors brought actions against MERS to enjoin the non-judicial mortgage foreclosure sales on grounds that MERS failed to comply with Minnesota’s statutory requirement to record all assignments of the … Continue reading →

Florida Third District Court of Appeals Holds that MERS has Standing to Foreclose because no Rights are Affected

In MERS, Inc. v. Revoredo, 955 So.2d 33 (FL 2d DCA, 2007), MERS brought a foreclosure action against plaintiffs, based on a note of which it was the holder. MERS did not “own” the note even though it was called … Continue reading →

December 5, 2012

Washington State Supreme Court Holds that MERS is Not a Lawful Beneficiary Under Washington’s Deed of Trust Act and Homeowners May Have a Cause of Action Against MERS Under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act

Sitting en banc, the Washington Supreme Court in Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc., 285 P.3d 34 (Wash. 2012) answered two of three certified questions from the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington in favor of two … Continue reading →