Tag Archives: foreclosure

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Affirms MERS’ Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by

The Pennsylvania appellate court in MERS v. Estate of Harriet L. Watson, et al., Superior Court of Pennsylvania # 637 WDA (2006), affirmed the standing of MERS to foreclose.

The case involved counter-claims as well as affirmative defenses filed by the estate of a deceased borrower in response to a foreclosure suit brought by MERS in 2003. The estate’s defenses and counter-claims included the theory that MERS, in someway, lacked standing because it was not the “real party-in-interest.” Moreover, MERS could not bring a foreclosure suit in Pennsylvania since it did not register as a foreign corporation doing business in Pennsylvania.

After consideration of the estate’s claims, the appellate court disregarded the estate’s challenges to MERS standing to foreclose due to the clear language of the mortgage itself. The court then held that MERS was not required to register as a foreign corporation because the act of acquiring, recording, or enforcing a mortgage lien constituted a specific exception under 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 4122 to the general requirement that companies “doing business” in Pennsylvania must obtain a certificate of authority in order to file suit in Pennsylvania. Such actions, by statutory definition, do not constitute “doing business.”

Georgia Court Authoritatively Recognizes MERS’ Right to Foreclose

Posted on by

The court in American Equity Mortgage, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chattahoochee National Bank, # 05-cv-1951 (Forsyth Cty. Sup. Ct., Dec. 29. 2005) authoritatively recognized the right of MERS to foreclose. This case involved an action to enjoin an immediate judicial sale due to equitable subrogation in which the court recognized the validity of a lien held by MERS and MERS’ ability to enforce it.

After considering arguments and an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that “MERS, in its capacity as grantee in the deed to secure debt and as nominee for American, or its successor in interest as the holder of the note, is the entity that would suffer irreparable harm if [Chatahoochee] foreclosed on its judgment lien and is the entity entitled to seek an injunction in this case. MERS is entitled to enforce the American Deed to Secure Debt per its terms.”

The court awarded MERS a permanent injunction precluding Chatahoochee or its successors or assigns from selling or foreclosing on the property as long as the deed held by MERS remained in effect.

Arkansas Court Holds That MERS Had Standing to Seek Relief for its Writ of Assistance

Posted on by

The court in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Stephanie Gabler, et al., (Circuit Court of Garland County # 2004-17-II) held that “MERS has standing to seek relief for its Writ of Assistance and is the proper party to foreclose the mortgage as MERS is the mortgagee of record and holder of the promissory note.”

The borrowers claimed that MERS did not own the note, thus they did not have standing. However, the court reasoned that ownership of the note was not required to have standing.

The court held that MERS had standing. MERS subsequently obtained a foreclosure judgment, held the foreclosure sale, and obtained a post-judgment order for writ of assistance to remove the occupants, including the named defendant [Gabler.] Shortly after the writ was obtained in June 2004, the pro se borrowers sought removal to federal court, and the Western District of Arkansas rejected jurisdiction. A subsequent emergency appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals was also denied. The borrowers then filed for bankruptcy, but voluntarily dismissed the bankruptcy action four months later.

The borrowers then went back to state court in the eviction action and filed an objection to the writ of assistance, a request for injunction, and a counterclaim. The borrowers claimed in their objection that they were not properly served in the foreclosure proceedings and that MERS does not have standing because it is not the owner of the note.

The court rejected all of the contentions made by the borrowers and ordered that MERS may execute its writ with the assistance of the county Sheriff.

Court Rules MERS is Not Required to Register With the Secretary of State Because Enforcing Deeds of Trust Does Not Qualify as “Doing Business” in California

Posted on by

The court in Sulak v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., DCA No. E039775, (2004) found that the lower court properly denied the preliminary injunction and that the orders denying the TRO were proper.

instant money

In this case, the plaintiffs-borrowers stopped making payments on their loan and initiated a suit for damages and injunctive relief against MERS. The plaintiff claimed that stoppage of payment was proper as they alleged that MERS could not enforce or collect the note and deed of trust [1] without holding a Certificate from the Secretary of State, [2] without responding to multiple requests for validation of the debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and [3] without having endorsements on the note or recorded assignments to successors in interest to the original lender.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s contentions and went further to characterized the plaintiff’s approach as “[e]ssentially, plaintiffs called ‘Olly-olly oxen free’ on the note and deed of trust, and stopped making payments.”

Arizona Court Holds That MERS is the Beneficiary With the Authority to Foreclose

Posted on by

The court in Ciardi v. The Lending Company, Inc. et al., 2010 WL 2079735 (D. Ariz. 2010) held that that MERS is the beneficiary with the authority to foreclose. In doing so the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to vacate temporary restraining order.

In December 2005, plaintiff [Bianca Ciardi] borrowed $270,500 from ‘The Lending Company’ for the purpose of purchasing real property. Plaintiff also executed a promissory note and a deed of trust. Soon after, the plaintiff’s note was sold.

Plaintiff eventually defaulted on their note and their home was nearing auction in a non-judicial trustee’s sale. A lower court granted the plaintiff’s temporary restraining order (“TRO”) without notice. Defendants removed to this court, and sought to have the TRO dissolved and Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).

In their analysis, the court noted, that the Plaintiff’s amended complaint was not the model of clarity and that the plaintiff did not allege any specific causes of action, rather much of their amended complaint was simply a narrative concerning the mortgage securitization industry.

In reaching their conclusion, the court, reviewed the plaintiff’s amended complaint. And concluded that even considering the plaintiff’s pro se status and, in so doing, construing plaintiff’s amended complaint liberally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be based. Plaintiff also sought a preliminary injunction to halt the planned foreclosure of their home. However, the court reasoned, in order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must show a likelihood of success on the merits.

Accordingly, because the court found the plaintiff’s amended complaint failed for a failure to state a claim, the court found that the plaintiff failed in showing a likelihood of success on the merits. As such, the Court denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.

MERS’ Assignments are Recognized as Valid as New York Appellate Court Overturns ‘N.Y. v. Alderazi’ & ‘LaSalle v. Lamy’

Posted on by

In the case of Bank of New York v. Eddie Sachar, et al., 95 A.D.3d 695 (2012), the court found the Bank of New York Mellon had standing to foreclose based on a MERS assignment and the delivery of the note.

The court’s ruling granted the plaintiff’s [Bank of New York Mellon] motion for summary judgment on its complaint against defendant [Sachar]. The plaintiff-bank proved its standing to commence the foreclosure action by demonstrating that it was both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action was commenced.

Although the defendant correctly alleged that, although Mortgage Electronic Registration System [MERS] validly assigned the mortgage to plaintiff, and the assignment was properly recorded in the public records, MERS had not been given any interest in the underlying note by the lender (see Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 283 [2011]).

However, the complaint and the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion establish that an assignment of the note had been effectuated by physical delivery of the note before the current action was commenced.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Rules in Favor of MERS in Foreclosure Proceeding, Upholding its Power of Sale Over the Plaintiff’s Property

Posted on by

In Richardson v. Citimortgage, No. 6:10cv119, 2010 WL 4818556, at 1-6 (E.D. Tex. November 22, 2010) the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, granted the Defendants’, Citimortgage and MERS, motion for summary judgment against the Plaintiff, Richardson, in a foreclosure proceeding. The Court reiterated MERS’s power of sale and its role as an “electronic registration system and clearinghouse that tracks beneficial ownerships in mortgage loans.”

Plaintiff purchased his home from Southside Bank with a Note. As the Lender, Southside Bank could transfer the Note and it, or any transferee, could collect payments as the Note Holder. In the agreement, Plaintiff acknowledged that Citimortgage, the loan servicer, could also receive payments. A Deed of Trust secured the Note by a lien payable to the Lender.

Under a provision in the deed, Southside Bank secured repayment of the Loan and Plaintiff irrevocably granted and conveyed the power of sale over the property. The Deed of Trust also explained MERS’s role as its beneficiary, acting as nominee for the Lender and Lender’s and MERS’s successors and assigns. MERS “[held] only legal title to the interests granted by the Borrower but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, [had] the right to exercise any and all of the interests [of the Lender and its successors and assigns], including the right to foreclose and sell the property.”

Plaintiff signed the Deed of Trust but eventually stopped making mortgage payments to CitiMortgage and filed for bankruptcy protection. As a result, “MERS assigned the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to Citimortgage.” Citimortgage posted the property for foreclosure after receiving authorization from the United States Bankruptcy Court. Plaintiff brought suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and challenging Citimortgage’s authority to foreclose on the property.

In granting Citimortgage and MERS’s motion for summary judgment, the court explained that Citimortgage could enforce the loan agreements, including the power of foreclosure, after it received the Note from Southside Bank. Furthermore, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, Plaintiff could not challenge Citimortgage’s right to enforce the Note after he “represented that it was [his] intention to surrender [the] property to Citimortgage,” in bankruptcy court. Citimortgage subsequently acquired a “valid, undisputed lien on the property for the remaining balance of the Note.”

Plaintiff also challenged MERS’s role with “respect to the enforcement of the Note and Deed of Trust.” In response, the court explained that “[u]nder Texas law, where a deed of trust expressly provides for MERS to have the power of sale, as here, MERS has the power of sale,” and that the Plaintiff’s argument lacked merit.

The court described MERS as a “[book entry system] designed to track transfers and avoid recording and other transfer fees that are otherwise associated with,” property sales. It concluded that MERS’s role in the instant foreclosure “was consistent with the Note and the Deed of Trust,” and that Citimortgage had the right to sell the Plaintiff’s property and schedule another foreclosure.