Tag Archives: lawful assignment

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Cross-Move to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3)

Posted on by

The court in deciding Waterfall Victoria Master Fund, Ltd. v Hayle, 2013 N.Y. Misc. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 11, 2013) denied the defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s lack of standing is denied. The court granted the motion proffered by the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs brought an action to foreclose on the defendant’s property, and sought summary judgment in its favor against the defendant’s affirmative defenses and counter claims. Defendants, Parkers, opposed the plaintiff’s motion and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3), asserting that plaintiff lacked standing to maintain the action.

The court found that the plaintiff’s well documented motion which included a copy of the note endorsed in blank, the written assignment of the mortgage by MERS, the subsequent assignments of the mortgage and note to Waterfall Victoria Master Fund, and the assignment of the mortgage and note Waterfall Victoria Master Fund, established its entitlement to summary judgment, including its standing. As such the court granted the plaintiff’s motion.

Minnesota Court Rejects Tweaked Version of Show-Me-the-Note Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding Mutua v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 Minn. Dist. 65 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2013) found that since the defendant had a valid legal title to plaintiffs’ mortgage. Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim against either defendant and their respective motions to dismiss are granted.

This Court reasoned that there was a valid assignment of plaintiffs’ mortgages to defendant which gave defendant legal title to the mortgages and allowed Defendant to foreclose on plaintiffs’ properties.

The court noted that both the Minnesota Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had rejected the legal theory, which has become known as “show-me-the-note,” advanced by plaintiffs.

In the present action, the court noted that plaintiffs merely tweaked this legal theory and argued that based on the language of the plaintiffs’ mortgage and note, an entity different from defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company had the legal right to foreclose on plaintiffs’ homes. This argument was rejected.

Tennessee Court Dismisses TILA, RICO, and RESPA Claims

Posted on by

The Tennessee court in deciding Mhoon v. United States Bank Home Mortg., 2013 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Tenn., 2013) dismissed the complaint of the plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Plaintiff [Mhoon] filed a complaint against defendant U.S. Bank. This case was an action to prohibit a non-judicial foreclosure of real property. The complaint alleged that U.S. Bank was engaged in efforts to illegally foreclosure on Mhoon’s home. The complaint also alleged that U.S. Bank acted with gross negligence and violated its duty of good faith.

In addition, the complaint alleged breach of contract because U.S. Bank failed to send any and all acceleration, default, and foreclosure notices to Mhoon in the manner required by the deed of trust.

The complaint further alleged U.S. Bank violated Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”); violated Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) by failing to provide a good faith estimate; violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) statute and engaged in fraud; and lacked standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings on the Property.

The court ultimately held (1) plaintiff has not sufficiently plead a breach of contract claim; (2) plaintiff’s claims for gross negligence and violation of the duty of good faith fail as a matter of law; (3) plaintiff’s allegations based on violations of the TILA and the RESPA were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and failed to state a claim because U.S. Bank was not the originating lender; and (4) plaintiff’s claims for fraud violations of the RICO, and lack of standing all failed as a matter of law.

For those reasons, this court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Ohio Court Decides Bank’s Possession of Note was Properly Shown

Posted on by

The court in deciding M & T Bank v. Strawn, 2013-Ohio-5845 (Ohio Ct. App., Trumbull County, 2013) ultimately affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The court decided that the bank’s possession of the note was shown by the affidavit, along with attached copies of the note endorsed to the bank, and the court found that one in possession of a note endorsed to that party was a holder, for purposes of R.C. 1301.201(B)(21)(a). As such the court decided that the bank was thus entitled to enforce the instrument under R.C. 1303.31.

The court found that the affidavit for the bank clearly stated that the bank had been in possession of the original promissory note, and the affidavit was sufficient for the lower court to have held that the affiant had personal knowledge. The court further noted that nothing suggested that voided endorsements affected the bank’s status as a holder, and thus it did not create an issue of fact.

Lastly the court found that the bank acquired an equitable interest in the mortgage when it became a holder of the note, regardless of whether the mortgage was actually or validly assigned or delivered. Based on these conclusions this court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Ohio Court Decided There Was no Basis to Challenge Standing Through a Civ.R. 60(B) Motion

Posted on by

The court in deciding Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Santisi, 2013-Ohio-5848 (Ohio Ct. App., Trumbull County, 2013) ultimately denied the motion to vacate and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Santisi appealed the lower court’s decision and raised the following assignments of error:

1) plaintiff (appellee) failed to present an affidavit or any other record evidence sufficient to meet its burden to establish it had standing to pursue a foreclosure action.

2) Plaintiff (appellee) failed to establish standing as there was no admissible evidence to explain material inconsistencies regarding the promissory note.

The bank asserted its standing to foreclose the mortgage by alleging that it was the holder and owner of a note in its complaint, and that allegation was legally sufficient to establish the bank’s standing to foreclose. The bank also provided evidence of standing by virtue of holding the note. The also bank established its interest in both the note and the mortgage, which was not disputed by the mortgagor prior to judgment and, thus, properly invoked the trial court’s jurisdiction. Based on these facts this court upheld the lower court’s decision.

 

Georgia Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration

Posted on by

The court in deciding White v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ga., 2013) ultimately denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, therein upholding the decision of the lower court.

Plaintiffs alleged that because BANA did not hold the note and it was not the assignee of the security deed it lacked the authority to foreclose. Plaintiffs alleged further that defendants falsely represented that BANA was the plaintiffs’ secured creditor. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.

On May 10, 2013, the lower court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. The lower court found that the plaintiffs executed the security deed with the power of sale in favor of MERS, and that MERS assigned its rights under the security deed to BACHLS; that BACHLS merged into BANA; and that, as a result of the merger, BANA acquired the rights and interests of BACHLS, including the security deed.

The lower court concluded that BANA, as holder of the Note and Security Deed, was entitled to foreclose on the property and that the plaintiffs had not, and could not, state a claim for relief under any legal theory based on BANA’s alleged lack of authority to foreclose on the Property.

On appeal, the plaintiffs reassert their argument that BANA lacked standing to foreclose on the property because it did not also hold the note. Plaintiffs argued that the note was “unauthenticated” and thus the endorsement from First Option to Countrywide is not valid.

After considering the plaintiff’s contentions, this court found that the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on this basis should be denied.

Appeals of Michigan Dismisses Fraud and Improper Assignment Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. Robinson, 2013 Mich. App. (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) ultimately dismissed the Robinson’s claims, therein affirming the decision from the lower court.

The Robinsons raised two issues. First, the Robinsons argued that MERS, through its predecessor, committed fraud in the execution of the mortgage. Second, the Robinsons allege that plaintiff did not have the right to foreclose because there is no evidence of record that the Robinsons’ note was assigned to plaintiff. After considering the Robinson’s arguments, the court dismissed them.