REFinBlog

October 27, 2013

Eastern District of California Dismisses Plaintiff’s Wrongful Foreclosure Claims Due to Plaintiffs’ Lack of Tender

The United States District Court, Eastern District of California in deciding the case of Small v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., No. 2:09-CV-0458 (E. D. Cal., 2010), concluded that dismissing the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims due to lack … Continue reading →

October 16, 2013

California Court Found That MERS Held Interests in the Property and Rejected the Plaintiff’s Argument that MERS Lacked Standing

The California court in deciding Nacif v. White-Sorensen, et al., NO. D056993. (San Diego Ct. Sup. Ct., 2009), determined that MERS held interests in the property and rejected the plaintiff’s argument that MERS had no standing because it was not … Continue reading →

October 15, 2013

Court Finds That MERS, as the Beneficiary Under the Deed, Had the Authority to Assign its Beneficial Interest

The United States District Court, Northern District California in Benham v. Aurora Loan Services, No. C-09-2059, (N.D.Cal. 2009) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in the entirety. The plaintiff brought a litany of claims. Among the plaintiff’s claims, was that MERS and violated … Continue reading →

California Eastern District Court Notes There is no Requirement for the Production of the Original Note to Initiate a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sale Under California Law

The California Eastern District Court in Castaneda et al v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. et al., No. 2:2009cv01124 (E.D. Cal. 2010) dismissed the plaintiff’s claim alleging wrongful foreclosure due to foreclosing party’s lack of note. Plaintiffs Cesar and Suzzanne Castaneda … Continue reading →

Southern District of California Holds that Production of Original Note is Not Required to Proceed with a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California in Putkkuri v. Recontrust Co., Case No. 08cv1919 WQH (AJB) (S.D.Cal. 2009) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff in this case demanded written proof of the defendants’ … Continue reading →

October 9, 2013

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 →