Tag Archives: lawful assignment

Michigan Dissmisses Plaintiff’s Action Seeking to Set Aside Sale of His Residence

Posted on by

The court in deciding Liddell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153897 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 28, 2013) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff commenced the action seeking to set aside a sheriff’s sale of his residential property. Plaintiff’s Complaint raised the following claims: Count I, Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Count II, Estoppel; Count III, Negligence; Count IV, Violation of Michigan’s Occupational Code, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 339.915 and .918; and Count V, Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k.

Defendants maintained that all of plaintiff’s claims challenging the foreclosure sale were subject to dismissal because plaintiff failed to redeem the property within the redemption period. Defendants further argued that even if plaintiff’s claims were not barred by the expiration of the statutory redemption period, his claims were subject to dismissal because he failed to state any valid claims upon which relief can be granted.

The Court agreed that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege any claims upon which relief may be granted.

Texas Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Wrongful Foreclosure Action, as MERS was Authorized to Assign the Note and Deed of Trust to Defendant

Posted on by

The court in deciding Perez v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153947, 2013 WL 5781208 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2013) dismissed the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure.

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s foreclosure action was wrongful. Also plaintiff alleged that the deed of trust was not enforceable due to that lack of ownership in the note by the defendants.

Plaintiff asserted that First NLC, rather than MERS, was the only party authorized to assign the note and deed of trust to the defendant; she asserted that assignment is only complete upon recording, and recording has not been effectuated; and she asserted that the deed of trust and the transfer of lien document were fraudulently created, and therefore ineffective as a security instrument and assignment, respectively. Additionally, plaintiff asserted that the note and deed of trust were not enforceable because they had been split.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant argued that plaintiff has not stated a claim for wrongful foreclosure because she has not alleged that her home had been foreclosed.

Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claims and the broader legal theories she asserted; however, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend to allow her an opportunity to assert a valid claim.

United States District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Intentional Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation Claims

Posted on by

The court in Hoffman v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155092, 2013 WL 5797623 (D. Nev. Oct. 28, 2013) dismissed both of the plaintiff’s intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Plaintiffs asserted two claims in their complaint: intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. In regards to the first claim, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claim for the misrepresentation failed because it was not pled with specificity as required by Rule 9(b). Nowhere in the complaint did plaintiffs allege who made the fraudulent statements, when the statements were made, or where they were made.

Plaintiffs failed to allege the specific content of the fraudulent statements—their allegations include only broad generalizations. Plaintiffs also failed to identify precisely what reliance they placed on the “misrepresentations” such that plaintiffs are entitled to damages or equitable relief.

Lastly, the court found that the plaintiffs also nakedly assert a claim for “negligent misrepresentation,” and that the claim suffered from the same deficiencies as the first claim.

United States District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Wrongful Foreclosure, Wrongful Ejectment, and Quiet Title Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Billete v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155544, 2013 WL 5840105 (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 2013) dismissed with prejudice the portions of plaintiff’s actions, including: Count I (wrongful foreclosure, wrongful ejectment, and quiet title), Count III (fraud), and Count V (unfair and deceptive acts and practices) based upon the closure of Deutsche Bank’s trust, to which MERS purportedly assigned plaintiffs’ loan, and any other alleged violations of the Trust’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”).

The court granted in part and denied in part Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Specifically, the defendant’s motion was denied as to the portions of Amended Counts I, III, and V based on the assertion that the assignment was invalid because HCL was dissolved prior to the assignment.

Further, the defendant’s motion regarding the portions of the plaintiffs’ claims that alleged that the foreclosure was invalid because Deutsche Bank failed to comply with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5 were denied without prejudice.

California Court Determines Plaintiff’s Claims are Barred by Res Judicata

Posted on by

The court in deciding Maxwell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155930, 2013 WL 5882457 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2013) concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata and therefore granted [with prejudice] the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants Deutsche, OneWest, and MERS. Plaintiff alleged various violations of California and federal consumer protection statutes. The plaintiff asserted a claim for an invalid transfer of a trust deed, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the claims were barred by res judicata. The court, after considering the evidence presented, concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Michigan Court Finds MERS Had Capacity to Assign Mortgage, and Bank of New York Mellon Had Capacity to Accept MERS’s Assignment of the Mortgage

Posted on by

The court in Maslowski v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155970, 2013 WL 5876608 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2013) found that dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is appropriate.

The plaintiff in this case [Maslowski] challenged a foreclosure and foreclosure sale. Essentially, the plaintiff claimed that the foreclosure proceedings were invalid because defendant MERS lacked capacity to assign the mortgage, and defendant Bank of New York Mellon lacked capacity to accept MERS’s assignment of mortgage.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s reasoning and noted that once the redemption period has expired, a plaintiff must meet a high standard for a federal court to invalidate or set aside a mortgage foreclosure by advertisement in Michigan. In particular, a plaintiff must show both fraud related to the foreclosure process itself and that he or she was prejudiced by the defendant’s failure to comply with the foreclosure statute’s requirements. The Court agreed with the lower court and found that the plaintiff had made no allegations or showing of prejudice, and that therefore, dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is appropriate.

Georgia Court Affirms That The Holder of a Deed to Secure Debt is Authorized to Exercise the Power of Sale in Accordance With the Terms of the Deed

Posted on by

The court in deciding Sanford v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156084, 2013 WL 5899238 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2013), found that each of the plaintiff’s arguments lacked merit and subsequently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure against BANA was based on three theories: (1) invalid assignment of the security deed; (2) improper notice under O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2; and (3) BANA’s lack of authority to foreclose as a non-secured creditor.

The court rejected plaintiff’s second and third arguments based on previous case law. The court cited a previous holding, noting that “the holder of a deed to secure debt is authorized to exercise the power of sale in accordance with the terms of the deed even if it does not also hold the note or otherwise have any beneficial interest in the debt obligation underlying the deed.”

Furthermore, the court noted that the notice requirement is satisfied if the notice identifies the individual or entity with full authority to negotiate, amend, and modify the terms of the mortgage, regardless of whether that entity is a secured creditor, note holder, deed holder, or none of the above.