Tag Archives: lawful assignment

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.

Massachusetts District Court Dismisses Homeowner-Plaintiff’s Claim of Alleged Inadequacies in Foreclosure and Assignment of His Mortgage

Posted on by

In Butler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 2012 WL 3518560 (D Mass 2012), the court dealt with alleged inadequacies in the assignment and foreclosure of a mortgage. The plaintiff and mortgagor, Frank Butler, claimed that the defendant [Deutsche Bank] had wrongfully foreclosed on two separate occasions, slandered the property’s title, and violated G.L. c. 93A. Deutsche Bank moved to dismiss the complaint on the theory that the alleged inadequacies were not based on actionable legal theories that support the plaintiff’s claims. The court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff offered a number of theories to support his claim as to the invalidity of one or both of the foreclosure actions. First, he contended that the foreclosure actions were invalid because the bank did not hold the note secured by the mortgage and the mortgage assignments were not made in compliance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

Next, the plaintiff contended that the foreclosure auctions were invalid because the assignments from MERS were invalid and a robo-signer was used. Lastly, he contended that the foreclosure auctions were invalid as the assignment was made without identifying the relevant trust.

how to get a quick loan with bad credit

After review of the plaintiff’s contentions, the court found that they all lacked merit. The court relied on case law that dealt directly with all of the plaintiff’s contentions. Because none of the plaintiff’s theories as to the invalidity of either the assignment or the foreclosure was actionable, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Massachusetts District Court Dismisses Homeowner-Plaintiff’s Challenge to Assignment Due to Lack of Standing

Posted on by

The two actions from Oum v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al, 1:11-cv-11663, No. 23 (D.Mass. Jan. 4, 2012) reflected nearly identical facts. Both cases arose from an allegedly invalid assignment of a mortgage from defendant Sand Canyon to Wells Fargo.

Plaintiffs argued that because the assignments of their mortgages were invalid, the foreclosures by Wells Fargo as trustee on their homes were invalid as well. After considering the plaintiff’s contentions, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, after holding that the non-party plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the assignment.

Plaintiffs had asked the court to enjoin Wells Fargo from proceeding with any eviction action [Count 1]; to quiet title by declaring them the “sole owners” of the properties [Count 2]; and to grant appropriate relief for Wells Fargo as trustee’s breach of the duty of good faith and reasonable diligence [Count 3].

Defendants argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignments Sand Canyon made to Wells Fargo as trustee of their respective mortgages because plaintiffs were neither parties to the contractual assignments, nor were they third-party beneficiaries. Plaintiffs argued that because they had a “claim of rightful legal ownership” to the respective properties, they have standing to contest the “cloud” on their wrongfully divested title. The court sided with the defendants, finding that an assignment is a contract, and the plaintiffs were not parties to the contract.

Massachusetts District Court Interprets Ibanez Narrowly in Deciding That Plaintiff-Homeowner Lacked Standing to Challenge Bank’s Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by

This action arose out of an attempted foreclosure by defendant Aurora Loan Services on plaintiff David Kiah’s property. Based on the recent holding from U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 941 N.E.2d 40 (2011), Kiah sought a declaratory judgment to make the “mortgage on record legally null and void.” The Massachusetts District Court in deciding Kiah v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, No. 10-40161-FDA, 2011 WL 841282 (D.Mass. Mar.4, 2011) considered the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s holding from Ibanez, along with the plaintiff-homeowners’ arguments, and concluded that granting the defendant’s dismissal was proper.

The court found that the plaintiff’s claims were merit-less, as he challenged neither the note nor the note’s assignment to Aurora. As expressed in Ibanez “By law, the transfer of the note automatically transfers an equitable interest in the underlying mortgage, even without a formal assignment.” An equitable right to the mortgage was thus transferred to Aurora along with the note.

The court noted that the Ibanez holding did not require a reconsideration of the lower court’s judgment. In Ibanez the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that a foreclosure sale made by a party who holds the note but not the mortgage is void as a matter of law. In that case, the note holder provided no evidence of assignment prior to foreclosure. However here, there was a facially valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS to Aurora prior to the foreclosure sale. To the extent the assignment was defective, the court interpreted Ibanez required, at most, that a confirmatory assignment be executed and recorded.

Rhode Island Superior Court Deems PennyMac Foreclosure Proper

Posted on by

In Rutter v. MERS, et al., C.A. No. PC 10-4756 (R.I. Super. March 12, 2012) the Rhode Island Superior Court held that PennyMac’s foreclosure sale was proper, as the court upheld Rhode Island case law supporting the validity of MERS’s assignments and subsequent foreclosures.

In July 2007, the Rutters procured a loan with First National Bank of Arizona (FNBA) as lender. MERS was designated the mortgagee acting as nominee for the lender, FNBA. The loan was ultimately assigned by MERS to PennyMac.

The Rutters defaulted in November 2008, and received proper notice of both the intent to foreclose and the foreclosure sale, scheduled for February 2010. Although the Rutters attempted to submit a qualified written request under RESPA, PennyMac found their request insufficient and proceeded with the foreclosure sale. After the sale, the Rutters filed the within action to quiet title and sought damages for alleged RESPA violations by MERS and PennyMac, who counterclaimed for slander. Here, the court considers MERS and PennyMac’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that notice of foreclosure and the foreclosure sale were proper and that the assignment to PennyMac was valid. The motion further argues that even if the assignment were invalid, the Rutters lack standing to challenge it.

The court first considers the role MERS plays in current mortgage transactions, giving a brief history of MERS’s origination and its operational aspects. MERS was designed to promote efficiency and accuracy in transactions and recordkeeping, though the system is not without fault. Although some courts differ on how to manage MERS-affected foreclosures, the “clear majority” holds the MERS foreclosures are valid. The court criticizes the Rutters’ argument as lacking substance and failing to distinguish recent case law. The Rutters’ argument merely claimed that those decisions enforcing the MERS foreclosures were “flawed.”  Rhode Island courts have continuously held that “foreclosure sales conducted by MERS or one of MERS’s assignees [a]re valid.” Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398, slip op. at 5. Here, the clear and unambiguous language in the Rutters’ mortgage is identical to the language of mortgage documents in precedent MERS cases, giving MERS statutory power with the right to foreclose as mortgagee and nominee of the lender.

The Rutters raised the show me the note argument claiming that the note and mortgage must be held by the same entity under Rhode Island law, citing case law only from other states, such as Eaton v. Fed. Nat‟l Mortg. Ass‟n, No. 11-1382 (Mass. Super. Jun. 17, 2011). The court cites Bucci, which held that requiring an entity to possess both the note and mortgage would prevent loan servicing, which is a major part of the mortgage industry. 2009 R.I. Super. LEXIS 110. The court did not, however, have to do decide whether the contradicting Eaton decision was binding in Rhode Island because PennyMac held both the note and mortgage at the time of the foreclosure sale.

As to the assignment from MERS to PennyMac, the court found the assignment valid under Rhode Island law. Even if the assignment were found to be invalid, the Rutters, as a non-party to the assignment lack standing to challenge its validity. Regarding allegations of “robosigning,” the court cited Payette, stating that the “contention that MERS’s assignments were executed by an unauthorized signatory is a mere conclusion or legal opinion that is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to defeat [a] Motion for Summary Judgment.” 2011 WL 3794700, slip op. at 19. Furthermore, MERS and PennyMac set forth the full chain of the note’s indorsements, which are presumed authentic.

The court found that PennyMac responded properly in rejecting the Rutters’ QWR attempt under RESPA, as RESPA no longer applied and the Rutters failed to prove that they suffered any actual damages. The fact that the Rutters submitted their QWR just days before the scheduled sale is emphasized heavily, as they had over 2 years to submit the QWR to PennyMac after their default. The Rutters also failed to act on a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure agreement which would have extended their occupancy in the property by 60 days.

The court granted MERS and PennyMac’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff homeowners failed to prove any existence of material factual disputes.

Fieldstone Mortgage Company’s Bankruptcy Won’t Impact HSBC’s Right to Foreclose in Massachusetts

Posted on by

In Marron v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Bankruptcy Appeal No. 11-40191-NMG (D. Mass. September 26, 2012), the District Court denied homeowners’ request for certification regarding MERS’s authority to assign their mortgage, and dismissed homeowners’ bankruptcy appeal holding that the Bankruptcy Court properly lifted the automatic stay allowing HSBC to foreclose.

The homeowners procured a loan from Fieldstone Mortgage Company, with MERS designated as nominee and mortgagee. MERS assigned the mortgage to HSBC, which began foreclosure proceedings in 2007 after the homeowners defaulted. In November of 2007, Fieldstone filed for bankruptcy.  The homeowners filed for bankruptcy in 2010, automatically staying foreclosure proceedings. In response, HSBC filed a petition for relief from the automatic stay, which was granted by the Bankruptcy Court.

Here, Trustee appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s order lifting the stay and seeks to certify the following questions: 1) whether the assignment by MERS is valid under Massachusetts law without proof of authorization from the note holder, and 2) if the recorded assignment alone can establish the truth of its contents. The District Court upheld the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, holding that certification is not warranted, as Massachusetts law is reasonably clear regarding assignment validity.

There is no Massachusetts statute preventing MERS from assigning its mortgages, and the court notes that the Massachusetts Land Court acknowledged the validity of MERS’s assignments in several cases.  Randle  v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, No. 09 MISC 408202 GHP (Mass. Land Ct. Oct. 12, 2010); Amtrust Bank v. T.D. Banknorth, N.A., No. 07 MISC. 350750 KCL (Mass. Land Ct. 2010).  The court also notes that it has, on numerous occasions, held that MERS has authority to assign mortgages, citing Kiah, in which the court held that even if MERS doesn’t hold the beneficial interest in the property, MERS has authority to transfer the mortgage on behalf of the beneficial owner. CIV.A. No. 10-40161-FDS (D. Mass. Mar. 4, 2011).

As to the bankruptcy of the lender, the court held that “a lender’s bankruptcy does not affect the ability of MERS to assign a mortgage,” citing Kiah. The clear language of the mortgage grants MERS authority as the nominee for the “lender and its assigns” to transfer the mortgage, unaffected by the lender’s bankruptcy status. The court notes that similar reasoning was used in Rosa, holding “the dissolution of the original lender does not affect MERS’s authority to assign a mortgage.” 821 F. Supp. 2d at 431.

The court further found the assignment valid pursuant to M.G.L. Ch. 183 § 54B. MERS’s assignment complies with the statute’s requirements and is therefore presumed valid. The court cites Culhane for this explanation of validity, finding no way in which MERS’s method for assigning mortgages contradicts the statute. 826 F. Supp. 2d at 373.

The court dismissed appellant’s argument that the foreclosure was improper, as HSBC didn’t hold the note. In Eaton , the court held that the term “mortgagee” refers to “the person or entity then holding the mortgage and also either holding the mortgage note or acting on behalf of the note holder.” Eaton v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 462 Mass. 569 (2012). To avoid overuse of this broad interpretation, the court held that the ruling in Eaton would not impact foreclosures commenced before the Eaton decision. Since HSBC’s foreclosure occurred pre-Eaton, HSBC was entitled to foreclose. As a result, appellant’s argument that an evidentiary hearing should have been held to determine ownership of the note was also dismissed by the court as immaterial. The appeal was denied, and the foreclosure sale upheld.