Editor: David Reiss
Brooklyn Law School

February 21, 2013

Rhode Island Court Compares Case to Kriegal

By Karl Dowden

In Chhun v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, et al., C.A. No. PC 2011-4547, (R.I. Super. June 26, 2012), the plaintiff sought a declaration from the court to quiet title following a foreclosure sale.  The plaintiff claimed that the foreclosing party did not have the statutory power of sale at the beginning of the foreclosure proceedings.

The defendant made a motion to dismiss, which the court addressed in this opinion. The court found the allegations similar to the facts in Kriegel v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and adopted the reasoning in the case.

The court notes that the plaintiff failed to distinguish their case from Rhode Island precedent and instead criticized both Kriegel and Payette. The plaintiff also argued that Bucci should not be followed because of the mortgagor’s allegations of fraud. The court dismissed these arguments as unpersuasive.

The plaintiff argued that the assignment between the Lender and MERS was invalid. However, the court found the plaintiff relied on case law from other jurisdictions that were not binding on this court. The court dismissed challenges to the assignment based on Colorado and Massachusetts case law and distinguished their holdings from the precedent in Rhode Island. The court also found that an allegation that “robo-signers” existed was not substantiated with facts to explain the allegation. The court then dismissed the challenge of the assignment because the plaintiff lacked standing.

The court ultimately held that the same outcome in Kriegel, a dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim of relief, is warranted in this case.


| Permalink