Tag Archives: foreclosure

Jefferson County Circuit Court Holds That Fannie Mae Had Standing to Bring Ejectment Action

Posted on by

The circuit court in Fannie Mae v. Steele, Jefferson County Circuit Court No. 09-900069 (May 18, 2011) found in favor of the plaintiff [Fannie Mae], by deciding to deny the defendants’ motion to set aside the judgment for possession. The defendants contended that the judgment in favor of Fannie Mae should be vacated on the grounds it was void due to MERS’ assignment of the mortgage to Everhome Mortgage. Everhome Mortgage was the party who conveyed the property to Fannie Mae through foreclosure deed.

The defendants also argued that Fannie Mae lacked standing to eject the defendants. This claim was premised on the holding from to Crum v. LaSalle Bank, 2009 WL 2986655 (Ala. Civ. App. Sept. 18, 2009). After considering the defendants’ contentions, the court held that the MERS assignment to Everhome was valid because MERS had the ability to assign the mortgage and take other actions as the nominee of the lender and its assigns. Likewise, the court also held that Fannie Mae had standing to bring the ejectment action.

Oregon Court Holds That Oregon’s Non-Judicial Foreclosure Statute Does Not Require Presentment of the Note

Posted on by

The court in Buckland v. Aurora Loan Services, Josephine County No. 10 CV 1023 (March 18, 2011) granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for wrongful foreclosure with prejudice.

MERS, although not being a party to the case, the plaintiff’s complaint contained claims that MERS lacked the power to appoint a trustee as it was not the beneficiary of the plaintiff’s deed of trust. The plaintiff’s complaint also alleged that Aurora was required to prove it was the note holder before directing the trustee to non-judicially foreclose. The court considered the plaintiff’s contentions, but ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.

The court relied on the cases cited in Aurora’s motion to dismiss, including Stewart v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (holding that presentment of note not required and MERS is a valid deed of trust beneficiary). The court ultimately held that Oregon’s non-judicial foreclosure statute does not require presentment of the note.

Oregon District Court Finds Claim Preclusion Bars Stop-Foreclosure Action

Posted on by

In Buckland v. MERS, Or. 11-3053-CL (2011) the court dealt with res judicata and the plaintiff relitigating the same claims that were raised or could have been raised in a previous action. The court found that the same factual transaction was at issue in the plaintiff’s prior litigation and at issue in the present case. Both actions arose out of the same non-judicial foreclosure proceeding associated with the loan on the plaintiff’s property.

The plaintiff had named Aurora Loan Services as sole defendant in his state action and MERS as a nominee for American Mortgage Network as sole defendant in the current action, although he referenced each of the parties in the complaints filed in both actions and challenged foreclosure of his property in both actions. As agents for the lender, the relationship between Aurora and MERS was close enough such that the court found the parties to be in privity. Since claim preclusion applies to a party to an earlier action and to a person who was not a party in the earlier action but who was in privity with the party to the earlier action, the plaintiff’s claim was precluded.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s claims brought in this action, which arose out of the same factual transaction as the previous litigation, the court found that the claims could have been brought in those proceedings. Accordingly the claims were thus barred by claim preclusion.

Bank of America and MERS Motion for Dismissal Granted Against Homeowner-Plaintiff in Reconsideration of Order Denying Preliminary Injunction in Foreclosure Proceeding

Posted on by

In Harris v. Americas Wholesale Lender, No. 2011-659-CH (Macomb Cty. Cir. Ct. June 8, 2011) the court granted the defendant’s motion for dismissal of all the homeowner-plaintiff’s claims in foreclosure proceeding.

Defendants Countrywide, Bank of America, and MERS moved for summary disposition against plaintiff-homeowner under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(8). Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the lower court’s denial for preliminary injunction and another motion for entry of default judgment.

Plaintiff alleged five counts; [1] fraud, [2] breach of contract, [3] collusion, [4] conversion, and finally [5] unjust enrichment. In assessing these claims the court found that they were all without merit.

In regards to the plaintiff’s alleged fraud claim the court dismissed it as frivolous as plaintiff could not, and had not, produced any evidence to support the allegation. Upon considering the second count, the court likewise dismissed as the plaintiff failed to show any cognizable allegation of a breach of contract.

The claim of collusion was also dismissed as the court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the claim with particularity. Accordingly, the claim of conversion was also dismissed as the plaintiff failed to explain, to the court’s satisfaction, how a claim of conversion could be supported. Finally, the claim of unjust enrichment was found to be without merit, as the court found that the plaintiff failed to show how an unjust enrichment took place.

First Circuit Grants Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Homeowner’s Suit to Preclude Foreclosure Sale

Posted on by

The court in McKenna v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Case No. 11-1650 (C.A. 1, Aug. 16, 2012) was faced with questions relating to the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Here, Wells Fargo’s primary assertion in its removal papers – “that there was federal question jurisdiction present in the case” – turned out to be mistaken as no federal claim was present. However, diversity jurisdiction was found to be sufficient enough to support the state statutory claims that were asserted in the complaint.

Wells Fargo brought a foreclosure action against the plaintiff [McKenna], the plaintiff responded by asserting a right to rescind the mortgage and then filed suit to preclude the foreclosure sale.

The plaintiff claimed a right to rescind on the grounds that [1] Wells Fargo had provided her with only one Truth in Lending disclosure statement at the time of the loan rather than two copies, and [2] Wells Fargo had understated the finance charge in its Truth in Lending statement by more than $35. The lower court then issued a preliminary injunction restraining Wells Fargo from taking further action to sell the plaintiff’s home.

On March 10, 2010, Wells Fargo removed the case to the federal district court in Massachusetts. Wells Fargo asserted that federal question jurisdiction existed. The bank then moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and the district court granted the motion. On review, the court found that diversity jurisdiction existed as Wells Fargo was a bank and a citizen of the state where it is “located.” The bank’s location being North Dakota, and the plaintiff being a citizen of Massachusetts, allowed for diversity jurisdiction.

On review the court determined that the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Wells Fargo made certain misrepresentations. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to specify the time or place of these misrepresentations or their real content and, as the district court held, these assertions were “too vague to meet the particularity requirement of Rule 9.” The First Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Further, the suit was not timely under the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), and the complaint failed to state claims under the equivalent state law.

Washington District Court Denies Plaintiff Mortgagors’ Motion for Injunctive Relief Against Foreclosure Sale

Posted on by

In Erickson v. IndyMac Bank, No. C11-598RAJ (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2011), plaintiff mortgagors Gregory Erickson and Aleksandra Makarova filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against defendant mortgagee Indymac Bank for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Plaintiff failed to file its opposition on time, and the court denied its motion for an extension. However, the court went on to note that defendant’s motion to dismiss had merit. The court observed that plaintiff’s “show me the note” complaint had been dismissed in an earlier action for failure to state a claim. The earlier claim, which sought an injunction to stop the foreclosure, was dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Washington law providing the basis for mortgagors to obtain an injunction against a foreclosure sale. The court concluded that its earlier order dismissing plaintiff’s claim was dispositive.

The court noted, however, that plaintiff’s request for damages, which had not been included in the earlier complaint, was not barred by the previous litigation and that it may fit within a fraud exception to the Washington law that barred their clam for injunctive relief.

Ohio Court Grants in Part Securitization Sponsors’ Motions to Dismiss

Posted on by

In Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Residential Funding Co., No. A1105042, slip op. at 15 (Ohio Ct. Common Pleas June 6, 2012), an Ohio state trial court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss brought by defendants involved in the securitization and sale of mortgage backed securities. The court granted in part a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations and granted a motion to dismiss brought by officers of one of the defendant corporations on the ground that it lacked personal jurisdiction over those individuals. The rest of the motions were denied.

In connection with the purchase of $200 million of mortgage backed securities, plaintiffs Western & Southern Life Insurance Company, Western and Southern Life Assurance Company, Columbus Life Insurance Company, Integrity Life Insurance Company, National Integrity Life Insurance Company, and Fort Washington Investment Advisors brought an action alleging various kinds of fraud against defendants, a group of entities that participated in the securitization and sale of mortgage backed securities. The sponsors of the ten securitization actions in this case include Residential Funding Company, LLC, GMAC Mortgage, and Residential Accredit Loans. The underwriters included UBS Securities, RBS Securities, J.P. Morgan Securities, Deustche Bank, and Citigroup Global Markets.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ fraudulent behavior included misrepresentation about owner occupancy rates, loan origination guidelines, appraisals and loan value ratios, underwriting guidelines, borrowers’ ability to pay, and transfer title issues. This case was before the court following oral argument on motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on several grounds, defendants arguing (1) that the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted; (3) that plaintiffs failed to plead that the misrepresented or omitted matters were material; (4) that plaintiffs failed to properly plead reliance; (5) that plaintiffs failed to state the fraud and misrepresentation claims with sufficient particularity; (6) that plaintiffs failed to properly plead civil conspiracy; (7) that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a claim for negligent misrepresentation; (8) that plaintiff National Integrity’s claims must be dismissed because its purchases occurred in New York, and (9) that the court lack personal jurisdiction over RFC Officers.

The Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of the statute of limitations. The relevant statute provided that no action “shall be brought more than two years after the plaintiff knew, or had reasons to know, of the facts by reason of which the actions of the person or directors were unlawful, or more than five years from the date of such sale or contract for sale, whichever is shorter.” The court rejected defendants’ claims that plaintiffs had constructive notice more than two years before the complaint was filed because of rising delinquency rates and credit agency downgrades. The Court concluded that there was no “storm of warnings” sufficient to put plaintiffs on notice more than two years before the complaint was filed. However, the court granted defendants’ motion for all of plaintiffs’ claims within the 5 year statute.

The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that plaintiffs had pled facts sufficient to state claims for misrepresentation of underwriting guidelines, transfers of title, appraisals and loan to value ratios, credit ratings, and owner occupancy data.

The Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to plead materiality of misrepresented material, failure to plead reliance, failure to state fraud with particularity, failure to plead the elements of civil conspiracy, and failure to plead negligent misrepresentation. The Court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently pled all of these elements. The Court also denied defendants’ motion to dismiss National Integrity’s claims.

With regard to defendants’ jurisdictional claim, the court found that although Ohio’s long arm statute extended jurisdiction to the officer defendants, such jurisdiction would not meet the requirements of due process with regard to the RFC officers.