Tag Archives: Downstream Litigation

Eastern District of California Finds That MERS Was Not Required to Register to do Business in California

Posted on by

The Eastern District of California in deciding Bogdan v. Countrywide Home Loans, CIV-F-09-1055 AWI SMS (E.D. Cal. 2010), found that MERS was not required to register to do business in California. Based off of this finding the court subsequently dismissed fraud and unfair competition claims against MERS.

Plaintiff brought a litany of claims; (1) violation of Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”) against Decision One; (2) violation of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”) against Countrywide, Select Portfolio, Decision One, and Recontrust; (3) negligence against all Defendants; (4) violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) against Countrywide, Select Portfolio, and Decision One; (5) breach of fiduciary duty against Morales, Home Sweet, Decision One, and Roman; (6) fraud against all Defendants; (7) violation of California’s Business & Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”) against all Defendants ; (8) breach of contract agains Countrywide and Decision One; (9) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Countrywide and Decision One; and (10) wrongful foreclosure against Countrywide, Select Portfolio, and Recontrust.

Upon review the court reviewed the claims and subsequently dismissed them, finding that MERS was not required to

California Northern District Court Dismissed Plaintiff’s Claims Due to Flawed Reliance on Non-California Law

Posted on by

The California Northern District Court in deciding Newbeck v. Washington Mutual Bank, et al., No. C 09-1599 CW (N.D. Cal., 2010), dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

In reaching this conclusion, the California Northern District Court noted that plaintiff‘s reliance on non-California law was flawed.

The court further noted that the plaintiff, in using non-California law to analyze judicial foreclosures, was erroneous and misplaced. The court noted that the law cited also did not support a claim to set aside a non-judicial foreclosure.

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

Posted on by

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 qualified as a foreign corporation.

The court found that the under California law, MERS’s status as a “nominee” on a deed of trust means that it had the right to initiate foreclosure proceedings as the lender’s agent.

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

Posted on by

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 the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA” or “Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et seq. FAC ¶¶ 62-65. Plaintiff also alleged negligence and fraud.

After considering the plaintiff’s contentions the court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. The court found, that MERS as the beneficiary under the deed of trust had the authority to assign its beneficial interest under the deed of trust to assignee.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Remands Lower Court’s Decision by Ordering a Hearing With Reasonable Notice on the Whether the Injunction Should be Continued

Posted on by

After the decision handed down from Fryzel v. MERS, No. CA 10-352 (D.Ri., 2011) On appeal, the plaintiff-appellees in United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, [(Fryzel, et. al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., No. 12–1526 (D.Ri., 2013)] brought suit to prevent foreclosure or eviction, on the shared ground that ostensible assignments of their mortgagees’ legal titles are invalid, leaving the assignees without the right to foreclose.

By appeal and mandamus petition, the group of plaintiffs claimed error in the district court’s failure to provide notice and hearing before issuing successive orders imposing a stay in the nature of a preliminary injunction against foreclosure and possessory proceedings, and in its failure to set limits of time and cost when referring the mortgagors’ cases challenging foreclosure to a Special Master for mandatory mediation.

After considering the plaintiffs’ collective arguments, the First Circuit remanded with instructions to hold a prompt hearing with reasonable notice on the question whether the injunction should be continued, in belated compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), and to establish specific limits of time and expense if the reference for mediation is to remain in effect.

Rhode Island Court Rules That under State law, Only Parties to a Contract May Seek to Have Rights Declared Under a Contract

Posted on by

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 lacked standing to challenge the transfer of the promissory note or assignment of mortgage granted by Plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s complaint disputed AHMSI’s ability to foreclose by challenging the validity of the assignments of their mortgage. The plaintiff further claimed that AHMSI was not entitled to foreclose under the terms of the ‘Pooling and Servicing Agreement’. However, the court found that it was undisputed that plaintiffs were not parties to the assignment agreements or to the PSA. Thus, plaintiffs did not have standing to assert legal rights based on the specified documents.

Court Holds That Mortgagor Lacks Standing to Challenge the Propriety of Mortgage Assignments Under Rhode Island Law

Posted on by

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 mortgage assignments and the effect those assignments, if any, could have on the underlying obligation.”

The Plaintiff challenged the validity of the assignments on multiple grounds, including MERS’ authority to execute the assignment. The magistrate however determined that under Rhode Island law, only parties to a contract may seek to have rights declared under a contract.