Tag Archives: Downstream Litigation

Arkansas Court Finds That Based on Security Agreement, MERS Was the Mortgagee

Posted on by

The Arkansas court considering Coley v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al, 4 10 CV01870 (E.D. Ark. 2011) ultimately granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal. The court granted the dismissal with prejudice as to the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims. The court however, did not apply dismissal with prejudice to the plaintiff’s fraud claim.

The court held MERS acted within its role as agent when it transferred the mortgage to the foreclosing lender. Likewise, the court held, and ruled that the assignment to MERS was valid as such the court dismissed the wrongful foreclosure claim.

The plaintiffs based their argument on the allegation that the foreclosing lender lacked standing to foreclose. The plaintiff based this assertion on the claim that MERS was not authorized to transfer or assign the mortgage to the foreclosing lender and that the lender named in the security agreement was the only entity that could pursue foreclosure. The court, however found that MERS was the mortgagee under the security agreement as an agent of the originating lender.

Arkansas Court Denies MERS’ Motion to Set a Decree of Foreclosure

Posted on by

The Arkansas court in MERS v. Southwest Homes of Arkansas, 301 S.W.3d 1 (2009) denied MERS’ motion to set a decree of foreclosure, therein affirming the decision from the lower court. As the record beneficiary of the deed of trust, MERS received no foreclosure notice. The court in their finding, applied Arkansas law, and found that the lender was the deed of trust beneficiary not MERS, since MERS did not receive payment of the debt.

MERS alleged that the lower court erred in ordering foreclosure because as the holder of legal title it was a necessary party that was never served. However, In affirming the lower court decision, the court disregarded the written terms of the mortgage contract that selected MERS as the deed of trust beneficiary entitled to notice.

The court went on further to hold that under the recorded deed of trust in this case, James C. East, as trustee under the deed of trust, held legal title. Moreover, as the court reasoned, MERS was at most the mere agent of the lender Pulaski Mortgage Company, Inc., and it held no property interest and was not a necessary party.

Arizona Court Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of MERS in Show Me the Note Claim

Posted on by

The Arizona court in deciding the case of Sparlin v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, CA-CV-2010-0173 (Ct. Ap. AzDiv. 2, 2011), had to consider arguments based on the theory of ‘show me the note.’ Sparlin had appealed the lower court decision to grant summary judgment to MERS. Upon reconsideration, the court affirmed the lower court decision and granted summary judgment.

In arguing their ‘show me the note’ claim, the borrowers alleged that MERS was required to actually prove that it was in possession of the original promissory note in order to execute a substitution of trustee appointing Recon-Trust as the substitute trustee and executing an assignment to BAC Home Loans Servicing. These were the documents that allowed the trustee to initiate foreclosure.

The court, in affirming the lower court’s dismissal, found that MERS, as the beneficiary on the deed of trust, had the right to enforce the security instrument. Additionally, the court found that under Arizona law, it was not required of MERS to be the note holder.

Arizona Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Show-Me-The-Note Claim in Its Entirety

Posted on by

The Arizona Court that decided AOM Group LLC et al v. Mortgage IT, Inc. et al., No. CV 09-2639-PHX-SRB (D.Ariz.)(2010) held that the plaintiff’s ‘show me the note’ argument was lacking in merit.

The plaintiff brought an action that challenged the validity of completed trustee sale. The plaintiff made several allegations, one of which was unlawful fraudulent foreclosure by MERS and the servicer. The court after considering the arguments dismissed the plaintiff’s action its entirety.

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona Reasons That the Plaintiff Agreed to Empower MERS to Foreclose

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, in Silvas v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al., cv00265 (AZ Dist., 2009), reaffirmed MERS’ standing as the beneficiary of a deed of trust.

In the present case, the plaintiff brought a host of claims against the defendant. One such claim included conspiracy to commit fraud by making use of the MERS System. The court considered the plaintiff’s arguments, however the court rejected them. In rejecting the plaintiff‘s contentions, the court found that they were not only inaccurate, but that the claims were also insufficient to support the plaintiff’s assertions.

The court also reasoned that the plaintiff agreed to empower MERS to foreclose. In reaching this conclusion the court noted that the deed of trust designated MERS as the beneficiary, and authorized MERS to take any action to enforce the loan. One such right included the power to foreclose.

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona Finds That the Borrower Gave MERS the Ability to Take Any Action, Which the Lender Would be Able to Take

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, in Blau v. America’s Servicing Company, et al, No. CV-08-773 (D. Ariz., 2009), acknowledged that MERS, acting as a beneficiary, was the proper party to execute an assignment of the deed of trust.

The borrower gave MERS the ability to take any action, which the lender would be able to take. Thus, this included the ability to assign, foreclose, and even substitute the trustee. The court also found that MERS had no liability under The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) since it had not been involved in making the loan to the plaintiff.

Alabama Court Holds That MERS’ Assignment to Current Servicer of the Mortgage Loan was Valid

Posted on by

The Alabama court in Mortensen v. MERS et al, S.D. Ala. No. CV10-234-S (2010) after considering both arguments, granted summary judgment to MERS as well as all defendants.

The court found that the borrower, from his own volition, knowingly and willingly gave a mortgage interest in the property to MERS. The court also found that the mortgage in this case expressly stated that MERS was the mortgagee under the security instrument.

Accordingly, the court held that the MERS’ assignment to the current servicer of the mortgage loan was valid and assigned all MERS’ interest in the mortgage to the servicer.