Tag Archives: fraud

Eastern District of California Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Claims of Federal Statutory Violations, Unlawful Foreclosure, Fraud, Equitable Estoppel & Accounting

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in deciding Herrejon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157126 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint as it failed to allege cognizable claims. The plaintiff’s complaint purported to allege claims for federal statutory violations, unlawful foreclosure, fraud, equitable estoppel and accounting.

reporting authorized accounts

The plaintiffs (Ricardo G. Herrejon and Rosa E. Navarro-Herrejon) filed this action, which challenged the foreclosure of their property. The plaintiffs also sought to enjoin a November 4, 2013 property foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs’ complaint accused defendants of “unlawful foreclosure.” However, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s action in the absence of viable claims, the court also denied plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief, and entered judgment on dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims.

Rating Agency 1st Amendment Defense Weakened, Again

Posted on by

Federal District Judge O’Toole (D. Mass.) issued an Opinion and Order in Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial Inc. et al., No. 11-10952 (Sept. 30, 2013)  relating to the potential liability of S&P and Moody’s (the Rating Agency Defendants) for their ratings. The case “arises from the purchase of private label mortgage-backed securities” (PLMBS) by the plaintiff, FHLB Boston. (1)  FHLB Boston alleges that the rating agency defendants knew that their ratings “were inaccurate and based on flawed models, and that their conduct gives rise to” a claim for fraud as well as other causes of action. (1) The Rating Agency Defendants sought to have the claims dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court rejected this as to the fraud claim:

The Rating Agency Defendants’ argument that their ratings are non-actionable opinions is unconvincing. As discussed in Abu Dhabi I, “[a]n opinion may still be actionable if the speaker does not genuinely and reasonably believe it or if it is without basis in fact.” 651 F. Supp. 2d at 176 (internal citations omitted). Here the Bank has pled with sufficient particularity that the Rating Agency Defendants issued ratings that they did not genuinely or reasonably believe. For example, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Rating Agency Defendants diluted their own standards and carried out their ratings procedures in an intentionally lax manner as to PLMBS while maintaining higher standards in other contexts. The Bank has also sufficiently pled scienter, alleging that the Rating Agency Defendants competed for business by artificially inflating ratings, as they were only paid if they provided high ratings. (4)

Rating agencies were able to avoid liability for decades, claiming that their ratings were like min-editorials that were protected by the First Amendment. A number of recent cases reject that defense in a variety of contexts (See here, here and here for instance). It is unclear what will happen when these cases are appealed, but for now it appears that a number of courts have identified situations where an opinion can be more than an opinion — it can amount to actionable fraud.

Arizona Court Affirms a Lower Court Decision That Possession of Note Was Not Needed for a Party to Initiate a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted on by

The Arizona court in Maxa v. Countrywide Loans, Inc., 2010 WL 2836958 (D. Ariz. 2010) affirmed a lower court decision that possession of the note was not needed for a party to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure. The court also affirmed that MERS had the authority under the deed of trust to commence foreclosure.

The court in reaching their decision rejected the plaintiff‘s claim that the defendants lacked the right to enforce the note; therein making the foreclosure was invalid. The court noted that a trustee’s sale was not an action to enforce the note, but rather it was an exercise of the power of sale upon default.

The court explicitly held that Arizona law bestowed power of sale on the trustee upon default or breach of the contract secured by the trust deed without reference to enforcing or producing a note or other negotiable instrument.

The court in reaching their decision also found that the plaintiff not only gave the power of sale to the trustee, but also agreed to empower MERS, as the lender’s nominee, to exercise the right to foreclose. Lastly, the court directly rejected the plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation based upon the notion that MERS was not a valid beneficiary.

Arkansas Court Rules That MERS Did Not Violate the State’s Statutory Foreclosure Act

Posted on by

The court in Coley et al v. Accredited Home Lenders Inc et al (E.D. Ark. 2011) dismissed the homeowner-plaintiff’s claims against MERS pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In granting MERS’ motion to dismiss the court considered, then rejected the plaintiff’s contentions.

First, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to comply with the notice requirements of 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5), a provision of National Housing Act that requires private lenders servicing non-federally insured home loans to advise borrowers of any home ownership counseling that they of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development may offer. The court however, reasoned that regardless of whether the defendants were in compliance with the act or not, the act does not create a private right of action.

Next, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the state Statutory Foreclosure Act concerning non-judicial foreclosures, and they sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the foreclosure sale. They also sought an order declaring the mortgage’s notice of default and intention to sell, the limited power of attorney, and the corporate assignment of mortgage to be fatally defective and invalid. The court however rejected this contention.

Third, the plaintiffs argued that even if the assignment was valid, the subsequent notice of default and intention to sell was invalid because it was prepared and filed by the Law Offices of Shapiro & Kirsch more than two weeks before HSBC executed a limited power of attorney giving Shapiro & Kirsch the power to act on its behalf. The court rejected this argument, as they noted that whether the notice of default was valid was moot because the non-judicial foreclosure described in the notice was cancelled. Thus, Shapiro & Kirsch would be required by law to file a new notice of default and intention to sell before a sale could take place.

Michigan District Court Holds That MERS Cannot Foreclose by Advertisement But Can Assign its Security Interest

Posted on by

In Knox v. Trott & Trott, No. 10-13175, Dist. Court, (Michigan 2011) the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3) and (4). Knox maintained that the court erred in rejecting his argument that the defendants lacked standing under Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3204(1)(d) to foreclose on his property.

Plaintiff based his request on a previous Michigan court of appeals case, Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merchandising, Inc. 538 F.3d 448, 455 (6th Circ. 2008). However, the court distinguished that case from the present case, as the former dealt with the narrow issue of whether MERS could foreclose by advertisement or whether it must use judicial foreclosure. In the present case, the court stressed that absent a showing by MERS that it owned “an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage,” it lacked authority under the Michigan statute to foreclose.

In the present case, however the court found that MERS was not the foreclosing entity. As such, its status as defendant in the litigation fell outside the parameters of the issue resolved in Residential Funding.

Minnesota District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Fraud Claims and Holds That MERS Had Legal Title and Authority to Foreclose

Posted on by

The Minnesota District Court in Allen v. Wilford & Geske et al.,No. 70-CV-10-29502 (D. Minn. May 9, 2011), after hearing the plaintiff’s contentions, dismissed his complaint for foreclosure fraud. The court held that MERS had legal title and authority to foreclose.

By granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court found that, “MERS was not required to register every assignment of the loan or to track that history in its foreclosure documents…” and “…it was not a misrepresentation for  MERS to identify itself as the mortgagee in the foreclosure documents and not to identify all past and present lenders.”

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.