Tag Archives: foreclosure

Michigan District Court Dismisses Borrower’s Complaint After Failure to Redeem Property within Statutory Period

Posted on by

In Vollmar v. Federal National Mortgage Association, (12-cv-1119, E.D. Mich. 2012), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss each of the plaintiff’s complaints that sought to invalidate the foreclosure sale of his property and to quiet title. The judge ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing after failing to redeem the property within the allotted period.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff took out a $128,000 mortgage on his property with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the mortgagee. MERS assigned its interests to BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. (“BACHLS”) in a recorded deed on July 23, 2010. The plaintiff defaulted on his payments and BACHLS instituted foreclosure proceedings in March 2011. The property was purchased in a sheriff sale by Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), the successor by merger to BACHLS.

The Court addressed the plaintiff’s claims in conjunction with the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

1. The Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the sheriff’s sale due to his failure to redeem the property within Michigan’s 6-month statutory redemption period. At the close of the statutory period, title is vested with the purchaser and the mortgagor loses standing to challenge the sale. Rather than preserving his right to challenge the foreclosure sale by remaining in the home, as the plaintiff argued, the Court held that the ownership interest “terminated at the conclusion of the sheriff’s sale,” and the plaintiff was merely an “illegal holdover.”

2. Defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain allegations of “fraud or irregularity” that are sufficient to annul the foreclosure sale under a breach of contract claim. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were required to demonstrate by whom the foreclosure proceedings were initiated and failed to produce evidence that BANA acquired BACHLS interest in the mortgage. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s allegations, noting that the Defendant’s motion papers, foreclosure advertisements, and the initial collection letter to the plaintiff each established that BACHLS both received the mortgage interest from MERS and initiated the foreclosure proceedings. In regards to BANA’s role, the Court referenced Texas Business Organization Codes (Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code §10.008(a)(2)(C)), under which BACHLS and BANA merged on July 1, 2011), which established that after the merger of the two companies, BANA acquired all of BACHLS rights, titles, and interests without the need for “any transfer or assignment.”

3. The Court addressed the plaintiff’s slander of title and quiet title claims even though they were abandoned for failure to address them in the response brief. Because slander of title and quiet title “presuppose that plaintiff possesses the ability to establish title” and the Court has already established that the plaintiff’s rights to the property were extinguished at the end of the statutory period, both claims were dismissed.

4. Since the plaintiff failed to allege that the contract left the manner of performance open to the defendant’s discretion, and that the “manner of performance” of the mortgage rested in the defendants hands, an element required to raise a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, the Court refused to accept the cause of action, citing Meyer v. CitiMortgage, Inc. 11-13432, 2012 WL 511995 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2012) which stated that Michigan law does not recognize an independent action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when the contract cannot be construed to imply such a covenant by having left the manner of performance open to the defendant’s discretion.

5. Finally, the Court addressed the plaintiffs “seemingly abandoned” claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to reassert that “emotional damages are not available for breach of contract” claims. Citing Kevelighan v. Orlans  Assocs., P.C., 498 F. App’x 469, 472 (6th Cir. 2012) which upheld the dismissal of an emotional distress claim in a breach of mortgage contract suit.

Massachusetts District Court Limits Massachusetts Supreme Court’s Broad Holding From Ibanez By Limiting Challenges to Assignments

Posted on by

In Aliberti v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 779 F.Supp.2d 242 (D.Mass.2011), the plaintiff homeowner relied on the seemingly broad-reaching holding handed down by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 941 N.E.2d 40 (2011). On facts similar to Ibanez the plaintiff challenged the assignment from MERS to GMAC, thus challenging GMAC’s ability to foreclose.

The Supreme Court in Ibanez stated “any effort to foreclose by a party lacking jurisdiction and authority to carry out a foreclosure under Massachusetts law is void.“ Then adopted case law stating that attempts to foreclose on a mortgage by a party that “had not yet assigned the mortgage results in a structural defect that goes to the very heart of the defendant’s ability to foreclose and renders foreclosure sale void.”

This holding left the question still open as to whether mortgagors have a legally protected interest in assignments to which they are not a party. The district court read the holding from Ibanez as not providing an independent basis for mortgagors to collaterally contest previously executed mortgage assignments to which they are not a party. Further, the holding granted neither an interest nor rights to the third party.

The court noted that in Ibanez, the land court was specifically tasked with evaluating the sufficiency of the assignment process, and the banks, as foreclosing parties and actual parties to the mortgage assignment, had standing to seek court review of the validity of the assignment process.

Shaky South Carolina Opinion Finds That Bank Owned Note in Foreclosure Action

Posted on by

The South Carolina Court of Appeals held in Bank of America v. Draper et al., no. 5140 (June 5, 2013) that Bank of America had standing in a foreclosure action and had proved that it owned the mortgage note.  The Court stated that under South Carolina law, a mortgagee who has the note and the mortgage can elect to bring an action on either. The Court also stated that under South Carolina law, the servicer has standing to bring an action on behalf of the beneficial owner. Because Draper admitted that Bank of America was the servicer, the Court held that Bank of America had standing in this foreclosure action.

Draper also argued that Bank of America failed to prove that it was the owner or holder of the mortgage note. Relying on South Carolina UCC section 301, the Court found that the bank was a “person entitled to enforce.” (8) The Court reached this result because Draper did not contest the Bank’s evidence that it owned the note through a series of “transfer and mergers.” (8) The bank considered as relevant evidence of the Bank’s ownership a “ledger of payments” that showed “all transactions on the account.” (8)

One does not have a sense that this case was well briefed because the Court seems to take a lot of shortcuts.  For instance, the Court apparently assumed that the mortgage note was negotiable and thus subject to Article 3 of the UCC. There is a fair amount of controversy relating to this assumption, something that I will blog about soon.

 

(HT April Charney)

The Potentially Far Reaching Affects of The Ibanez Holding on Foreclosure Proceedings

Posted on by

The holding in U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 941 N.E.2d 40 (2011) potentially may have far reaching affects on foreclosure litigation outcomes across the nation.

Although a state case, Ibanez has national implications for several reasons; the Massachusetts Supreme Court is one of the most respected state supreme courts in the country, a majority of states have laws similar to Massachusetts, and the questions in the case stemming from irregularities in the residential securitized mortgage industry are wide spread.

In Ibanez the Massachusetts Supreme Court was faced with the issue of the validity of foreclosures when the mortgages are part of securitized mortgage lending pools. It is typical practice for mortgages to be bundled and dealt to Wall Street investors. The ownership of mortgage loans are then divided and transferred numerous times with little to no restrictions. However, the mortgage loan transfers’ recordation and documentation often times lag far behind.

The mortgage assignment in the case of Ibanez was executed “in blank” and was not actually recorded until over a year after the foreclosure process had begun. The court’s major problem with the banks was that they did not possess – and could not establish evidence of – a legally effective mortgage assignment showing that they actually held the mortgage. The banks did not posses the mortgage note, thus they lacked standing to sue. Additionally, the banks put the endorsement in blank, without naming the entity to which they were assigning the mortgage. This was a violation of Massachusetts’s law.

Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff banks – who were not the original mortgagees – failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. As a result their requests for a declaration of clear title were denied.

The court explicitly held that there must be evidence of a valid assignment of the mortgage at the time the foreclosure process commences. However, the court did not specify exactly what type of evidence would suffice to establish what evidence satisfies this requirement.This holding, if applied in its broadest sense, has the potential to ban most securitized mortgages in the country from being foreclosed upon.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Affirms Lower Court’s Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff Who Claimed the Bank Pursuing Foreclosure on His Property, Lacked Legal Standing to Do So

Posted on by

In U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 941 N.E.2d 40 (2011), the Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed a lower court’s ruling in favor of a plaintiff who alleged that the bank pursuing foreclosure on his property had no legal standing to do so.

The Supreme Court held that; the first purchaser failed to show it was the mortgage holder at time of foreclosure, the second purchaser failed to show it was the mortgage holder at time of foreclosure, the holding of note was insufficient to show authority to foreclose, post foreclosure sale assignments were insufficient to show authority, and the ruling did not warrant prospective application.

In reviewing the lower court’s ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that the lower court judge did not err in concluding that the securitization documents submitted by the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they were the holders of the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages, respectively, at the time of the publication of the notices and the sales. The judge, therefore, did not err in rendering judgments against the plaintiffs and in denying the plaintiffs’ motions to vacate the judgments

On appeal, the plaintiff raised three other arguments. First, the plaintiffs initially contended that the assignments in blank, identifying the assignor but not the assignee, not only “evidence and confirm the assignments that occurred by virtue of the securitization agreements,” but “are effective assignments in their own right.” But in their reply briefs they conceded that the assignments in blank did not constitute a lawful assignment of the mortgages.

The court noted that their concession was appropriate, citing the long-standing principle that a conveyance of real property, such as a mortgage, that does not name the assignee conveys nothing and is void; thus the court did not regard an assignment of land in blank as giving legal title in land to the bearer of the assignment.

get money in advance

Second, the plaintiffs contended that, because they held the mortgage note, they had a sufficient financial interest in the mortgage to allow them to foreclose. However, the court found that under Massachusetts’s law, where a note has been assigned but there is no written assignment of the mortgage underlying the note, the assignment of the note does not carry with it the assignment of the mortgage.

Third, the plaintiffs argued that post-sale assignments were sufficient to establish their authority to foreclose when taken in conjunction with the evidence of a presale assignment. However, the court disagreed, finding that where an assignment is confirmatory of an earlier, valid assignment made prior to the publication of notice and execution of the sale, that confirmatory assignment may be executed and recorded after the foreclosure, and doing so will not make the title defective.

Don’t Show Me The Note in Georgia!

Posted on by

The Georgia Supreme Court recently decided You v. JP Morgan Chase, No. S13Q0040 (May 20, 2013) which held that the “law does not require a party seeking to exercise a power of sale in a deed to secured a debt [a deed of trust] to hold, in addition to to the deed, the promissory note evidencing the underlying debt.” (1) The Georgia Supreme Court thus joins the Arizona Supreme Court which reached the same result in Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 277 P.3d 781 (Ariz. 2012). I discuss Hogan and cases reaching the opposite result in Show Me The Note!

The Georgia Supreme Court reached this result after reviewing the history of non-judicial foreclosure in Georgia.  It found nothing in recent statutory enactments that was inconsistent with the longstanding practice of allowing foreclosure on the mortgage alone.  The Court dismissed a number of arguments, including the contention that the UCC “prohibits a party who does not hold the note from exercising the power of sale in the deed securing the note.” (12) The Court notes that Chase is just seeking to enforce the deed of trust, not the note. The Court also acknowledges that it might be more sensible not to split the note from the mortgage, but it also notes that the Georgia legislature did not take that approach.

The court concludes the opinion with something of a cri de coeur, the type of statement one sees from a court that feels that its conscience is being constrained by binding authority:

As members of this State’s judicial branch, it is our duty to interpret the laws as they are written. See Allen v. Wright, 282 Ga. 9(1), 644 S.E.2d 814 (2007). This Court is not blind to the plight of distressed borrowers, many of whom have suffered devastating losses brought on by the burst of the housing bubble and ensuing recession. While we respect our legislature’s effort to assist distressed homeowners by amending the non-judicial foreclosure statute in 2008, the continued ease with which foreclosures may proceed in this State gives us pause, in light of the grave consequences foreclosures pose for individuals, families, neighborhoods, and society in general. Our concerns in this regard, however, do not entitle us to overstep our judicial role, and thus we leave to the members of our legislature, if they are so inclined, the task of undertaking additional reform.

 

 

 

 

(HT William Hart)

Show Me The Note!

Posted on by

KeAupuni Akina, Brad Borden and I have posted Show Me The Note! to  SSRN and BePress.  The abstract reads

News outlets and foreclosure defense blogs have focused attention on the defense commonly referred to as “show me the note.” This defense seeks to forestall or prevent foreclosure by requiring the foreclosing party to produce the mortgage and the associated promissory note as proof of its right to initiate foreclosure.

The defense arose in two recent state supreme-court cases and is also being raised in lower courts throughout the country. It is not only important to individuals facing foreclosure but also for the mortgage industry and investors in mortgage-backed securities. In the aggregate, the body of law that develops as a result of the foreclosure epidemic will probably shape mortgage law for a long time to come. Courts across the country seemingly interpret the validity of the “show me the note” defense incongruously. Indeed, states appear to be divided on its application. However, an analysis of the situations in which this defense is raised provides a framework that can help consumers and the mortgage industry to better predict how individual states will rule on this issue and can help courts as they continue to grapple with this matter.