Tag Archives: entity

Georgia Court Finds that the Assignment of the Security Deed from MERS to Ocwen Permitted it to Exercise the Power of Sale Under the Security Deed Even Though Ocwen did not Hold the Note

Posted on by

The court in deciding Thompson v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ga., 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff filed this complaint challenging the defendants’ right to foreclose on his property and alleged the following: (1) the defendants failed to provide plaintiff with statutory notice of the foreclosure sale thirty days prior to November 6, 2012, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2(a); (2) the defendants violated O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2(a) by failing to identify Freddie Mac as the secured creditor and failing to indicate Ocwen as an agent on Freddie Mac’s behalf; and (3) Ocwen lacked the authority to institute foreclosure proceedings because it only possessed the security deed while Freddie Mac was in possession of the note.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In regards to the failure to record the security deed, the plaintiff further alleges that Ocwen lacked the authority to institute foreclosure proceedings because the security deed was improperly assigned and recorded in its favor. According to the plaintiff, the security deed should have been recorded in favor of Freddie Mac, the note holder and “true secured creditor.”

The court found that the assignment of the security deed from MERS to Ocwen permitted it to exercise the power of sale under the Security Deed even though Ocwen did not also hold the note. Thus the court decided that the plaintiff was unable to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The court likewise rejected the plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Alabama Court Reverses Lower Court’s Decision Granting Summary Judgment to Foreclosing Entity

Posted on by

The court in deciding Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, 2013 Ala. Civ. App. (Ala. Civ. App., 2013) reversed the lower court’s ruling that granted summary judgment to a foreclosing entity with respect to its complaint in ejectment against a mortgagor under Ala. Code § 6-6-280(b).

The court’s decision was based on the fact that the foreclosing entity presented no evidence that it was either the assignee of the mortgage or the holder of the note at the time it foreclosed, it failed to present a prima facie case that it had the authority to foreclose and, thus, had valid title to or the right to possess the property–one of the elements of its claim in ejectment.

Ohio Court of Appeals Finds that BAC had Failed to Demonstrate that it had Standing to Accelerate the Note and Foreclose the Mortgage

Posted on by

The court in deciding BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Blythe, 2013-Ohio-5775 (Ohio Ct. App., Columbiana County, 2013) reversed the lower court’s judgment.

Appellant Walter J. Blythe appealed the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., in this foreclosure action.

Blythe challenged the lower court’s finding that BAC Home Loans Servicing had standing to foreclose in the absence of evidence that BAC was the holder of the note creating the obligation. Blythe relied on the material submitted by BAC in support of this claim. Because the copy of the note filed by BAC was specifically indorsed to Countrywide Bank, FSB, not BAC, and there was nothing to indicate otherwise, BAC had failed to demonstrate that it had standing to accelerate the note and foreclose the mortgage. Thus this court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the suit for lack of standing.

This court held that a note that had been specially indorsed to a bank under R.C. 1303.25(A) could not be enforced by a loan servicing company (LSC) that was not the transferee or successor in interest of the bank. This court also held that the LSC was not the holder of the note under R.C. 1303.32(A)(1) by virtue of the merger of the bank and a national association (NA). Further, the LSC was not a non-holder in possession entitled to enforce under R.C. 1303.31 as it had not acquired the bank’s right to the note under R.C. 1303.21.

This court noted that even if the NA had filed the foreclosure suit, there was no evidence of the transaction, merger, or mergers that gave rise to an its interest in the note. Lastly, the court held that the note was not bearer paper and could only be enforced by the bank since the note was payable to the bank, as such the bank was the real party in interest in the foreclosure action. Thus the LSC lacked standing to foreclose.