Tag Archives: MERS

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona Finds That the Borrower Gave MERS the Ability to Take Any Action, Which the Lender Would be Able to Take

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, in Blau v. America’s Servicing Company, et al, No. CV-08-773 (D. Ariz., 2009), acknowledged that MERS, acting as a beneficiary, was the proper party to execute an assignment of the deed of trust.

The borrower gave MERS the ability to take any action, which the lender would be able to take. Thus, this included the ability to assign, foreclose, and even substitute the trustee. The court also found that MERS had no liability under The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) since it had not been involved in making the loan to the plaintiff.

Homeowner Can Challenge Mortgage Assignment

Posted on by

Judge Kennelly has ruled that a homeowner can challenge a mortgage assignment under Illinois law in Elesh v. MERS et al., No. 12 C 10355 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2013). The Court stated that

Defendants argue that Elesh is not a party to the assignment and thus lacks standing to challenge it. Only one of the cases upon which defendants rely, however, is an Illinois case, and that case makes it clear that this supposed “rule” has exceptions. See Bank of America Nat’l Ass’n v. Bassman FBT, LLC, No. 2-11-0729, 2012 IL App (2d) 110729, 981 N.E.2d 1, 6-11 (2012). The basic requirements of standing are that the plaintiff suffered an injury to a legally cognizable interest and is asserting his own legal rights rather than those of a third party. See id. at 6. Elesh unquestionably meets the first requirement; the recorded assignment constitutes a cloud on his title, and Deutsche Bank recently relied on the assignment to prosecute a foreclosure action against him. Elesh also has a viable argument that in challenging the validity of the assignment, he is asserting his own rights and not someone else’s rights. For example, given Deutsche Bank’s apparent lack of possession of the original note, Elesh is put at risk of multiple liability as long as Deutsche Bank claims to hold the mortgage. See id. at 7-8 (citing cases indicating that an obligor has an interest in ensuring that he will not have to pay the same claim twice). In any event, Illinois law, to the extent there is much of it on this point, appears to recognize an obligor’s right to attack an assignment as void or invalid under certain circumstances. (3)

This is a pretty significant case, at least in Illinois, as it provides homeowners with a way to defend against a foreclosure action that does not rely upon whether the loan is in default or not. The Court takes seriously the possibility that the homeowner could otherwise be liable for the same debt twice.  Commentators and courts have downplayed that risk, so it is notable that this Court has taken this position. Time will tell if other courts do so as well.

 

 

 

 

[HT April Charney]

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Affirms MERS’ Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by

The Pennsylvania appellate court in MERS v. Estate of Harriet L. Watson, et al., Superior Court of Pennsylvania # 637 WDA (2006), affirmed the standing of MERS to foreclose.

The case involved counter-claims as well as affirmative defenses filed by the estate of a deceased borrower in response to a foreclosure suit brought by MERS in 2003. The estate’s defenses and counter-claims included the theory that MERS, in someway, lacked standing because it was not the “real party-in-interest.” Moreover, MERS could not bring a foreclosure suit in Pennsylvania since it did not register as a foreign corporation doing business in Pennsylvania.

After consideration of the estate’s claims, the appellate court disregarded the estate’s challenges to MERS standing to foreclose due to the clear language of the mortgage itself. The court then held that MERS was not required to register as a foreign corporation because the act of acquiring, recording, or enforcing a mortgage lien constituted a specific exception under 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 4122 to the general requirement that companies “doing business” in Pennsylvania must obtain a certificate of authority in order to file suit in Pennsylvania. Such actions, by statutory definition, do not constitute “doing business.”

Illinois Federal Appellate Court Rules That MERS Had Sufficient Authority to Commence Foreclosure Proceeding in its Capacity as an Agent

Posted on by

The federal appellate court in MERS v. Estrella, 390 F.3d 522 [7th Cir. 2004] ruled that MERS had a sufficient authority to commence a foreclosure proceeding, in its capacity as an agent on behalf of its principal.

https://absoluterentals.com/absolutegov/

At issue in this case was an application to confirm a sale. On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal based upon well-established law that Court orders denying confirmation to judicial sales are not final decisions, and thus are not appealable.

Additionally, implicit in the court’s holding was recognition that MERS has standing to commence a foreclosure proceeding as agent on behalf of its principal. Indeed, the Estrella Court did not dismiss the proceeding in its entirety for lack of standing by the agent, rather cited to Indiana Gas Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 141 F.3d 314, 319 [7th Cir. 1998] which recognized the capacity of an agent to commence a proceeding “[w]hen the principal’s interests are affected by the litigation, the principal’s citizenship counts even if the agent is the sole litigant.”

The federal appellate court did not issue a blanket ban to suits commenced by MERS as an agent on behalf of its principals. Instead, in suits brought by agents, it directs federal district courts to ascertain the citizenship of the principal of the plaintiff to determine whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists.

Georgia Court Authoritatively Recognizes MERS’ Right to Foreclose

Posted on by

The court in American Equity Mortgage, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Chattahoochee National Bank, # 05-cv-1951 (Forsyth Cty. Sup. Ct., Dec. 29. 2005) authoritatively recognized the right of MERS to foreclose. This case involved an action to enjoin an immediate judicial sale due to equitable subrogation in which the court recognized the validity of a lien held by MERS and MERS’ ability to enforce it.

After considering arguments and an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that “MERS, in its capacity as grantee in the deed to secure debt and as nominee for American, or its successor in interest as the holder of the note, is the entity that would suffer irreparable harm if [Chatahoochee] foreclosed on its judgment lien and is the entity entitled to seek an injunction in this case. MERS is entitled to enforce the American Deed to Secure Debt per its terms.”

The court awarded MERS a permanent injunction precluding Chatahoochee or its successors or assigns from selling or foreclosing on the property as long as the deed held by MERS remained in effect.

Arkansas Court Holds That MERS Had Standing to Seek Relief for its Writ of Assistance

Posted on by

The court in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Stephanie Gabler, et al., (Circuit Court of Garland County # 2004-17-II) held that “MERS has standing to seek relief for its Writ of Assistance and is the proper party to foreclose the mortgage as MERS is the mortgagee of record and holder of the promissory note.”

The borrowers claimed that MERS did not own the note, thus they did not have standing. However, the court reasoned that ownership of the note was not required to have standing.

The court held that MERS had standing. MERS subsequently obtained a foreclosure judgment, held the foreclosure sale, and obtained a post-judgment order for writ of assistance to remove the occupants, including the named defendant [Gabler.] Shortly after the writ was obtained in June 2004, the pro se borrowers sought removal to federal court, and the Western District of Arkansas rejected jurisdiction. A subsequent emergency appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals was also denied. The borrowers then filed for bankruptcy, but voluntarily dismissed the bankruptcy action four months later.

The borrowers then went back to state court in the eviction action and filed an objection to the writ of assistance, a request for injunction, and a counterclaim. The borrowers claimed in their objection that they were not properly served in the foreclosure proceedings and that MERS does not have standing because it is not the owner of the note.

The court rejected all of the contentions made by the borrowers and ordered that MERS may execute its writ with the assistance of the county Sheriff.

Florida Court Dismisses Class Action to Declare MERS in Violation of Florida Consumer Protection Laws

Posted on by

The debtors in Trent v. MERS, 288 Fed. App’x 571 (11th Cir. 2008) argued that Mortgage Systems sent them deceptive notices that were in violation of section 559.72(9) of the Collection Act. The debtors further argued that the notice misidentified Mortgage Systems as their “creditor.” Lastly, the debtors alleged that the lower court should have applied the “least-sophisticated-debtor” standard to determine whether these notices were misleading.

The debtors also argued that MERS violated the Collection Act when it filed foreclosure actions against them, but the court rejected this argument. The court reasoned that even if MERS engaged in “debt collection activities” under the Collection Act, MERS did not violate section 559.72(9), because MERS had the authority to file foreclosure actions.

Ultimately the court decided that the debtors’ arguments failed. The court found that under the mortgage contracts, MERS had the legal right to foreclose on the debtors’ property. Mortgage Systems was the mortgagee, the notices sent to the debtors restated information from the mortgage contracts and were not likely to mislead even the least sophisticated debtor.