Tag Archives: MERS

Florida Court Dismisses Class Action Against MERS Over Unpaid Recording Fees

Posted on by

The court in Fuller v. MERS, No. 11cv-1153 (M.D. Fla., June 27, 2012) was “confronted with an old problem: the difficulty of reconciling new technology with old law, thus raising the centuries old separation of powers controversy.” In deciding this case the court found that the Florida statute, which created the recording system, was a creature of statute, as such the remedy the plaintiff sought was to be granted by the legislature and not the courts.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the statute creating Florida’s public recording system did not provide a private right of action, as such Fuller was barred from bringing common law claims based on the statute. Fuller’s claims included civil conspiracy, a Writ of Quo Warranto, unjust enrichment, as well as fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. Fuller claimed that these claims were independent of the Florida statute, however, he admitted that the statute was the only source of his authority.

The court found that all of Fuller’s claims failed on their merits. Fuller argued that MERS attempted to usurp his function as the recorder of public instruments and sought a Writ of Quo Warranto. However, MES successfully argued that no law required payment of recording fees when a mortgage is assigned but not recorded.

Fuller failed to establish a conspiracy, as MERS did not commit an unlawful act. The court noted that the recording of mortgages is “at the complete discretion of the party wishing to record the document.” Accordingly, MERS was under no legal obligation to record the assignment or pay the recording fees. Fuller’s unjust enrichment claim was also rejected, as MERS had no duty to record, so Fuller could not establish that he had conferred any benefit on MERS. Lastly, Fuller’s fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims were based on the assumption that MERS falsely designated itself as the mortgagee on recorded instruments. The court rejected this assumption.

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.

Assignment Ball and Chain

Posted on by

An undated Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. “White Paper” (actually, more of an advertorial), Understanding Current Assignment Verification Practices, is making the rounds of the blogosphere. It opens,

The scrutiny of the completeness of collateral review and valid assignment chains has hit the mortgage industry hard, primarily because the industry went from  a securitization process that didn’t  require assignments to be recorded to a heavily scrutinized process requiring complete chains to be recorded at the county. This has made compliance extremely difficult for many lenders and others, especially because the industry went for so many years without this  level of scrutiny. (1)

I’ll say!

This widespread lack of assignments could have negative consequences under the REMIC Rules. This is particularly a concern if it undercuts claims by purported REMICs that they acquired mortgages within the time required by statute.

I also found this passage intriguing:

just because a loan is supposed to be in MERS doesn’t always mean it is. We’ve found many examples of loans never having been assigned to MERS on land record, as well as loans that have been assigned multiple times out of MERS by prior investors/servicers, I would assume due to a poor review and preparation process . . ..(4-5)

I am not sure how courts would unwind such transactions. But I am sure we will find out . . ..

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.

Kansas Supreme Court Holds That a Non-Lender to a Mortgage is Not a Necessary Party in Foreclosure Action

Posted on by

In Landmark Nat. Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158 (KS 2009), the court dealt with the issue of what exactly constitutes a necessary party to a foreclosure action. MERS and Sovereign Bank sought review of a lower court judgment, which held that a non-lender is not a contingently necessary party in a mortgage foreclosure action and that due process does not require that a non-lender be allowed to intervene in a mortgage foreclosure action.

At the heart of this appeal was whether the lower court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment and refusing to join MERS as a contingently necessary party. The Supreme Court of Kansas found no such abuse and denied the motion to set aside the motion, a finding in line with the lower court.

The Supreme Court of Kansas held, as a matter of first impression, that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the company’s motion to set aside default judgment or its motion to intervene as a contingently necessary party.

MERS contended further, that due process rights were violated as foreclosure action was consummated without MERS receiving notice of the proceeding and without MERS having the opportunity to intervene in the action. However, the court found that MERS failed to demonstrate that it possessed any tangible interest in the mortgage beyond a nominal designation as the mortgagor. Accordingly, the court held that the lower court’s refusal to allow the company to intervene did not violate its due process rights.

Michigan Supreme Court Rules MERS’s Foreclosure Valid

Posted on by

The Michigan Court of Appeals considered two cases involving MERS-related foreclosures, Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Saurman and Bank of New York v. Messner, 292 Mich. App. 321 (April 21, 2011) deciding whether MERS is an entity permitted to foreclose by advertisement or if it must go through a judicial foreclosure. The Court of Appeals held that MERS doesn’t meet the statute’s requirements to foreclose by advertisement, however, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that MERS had standing to foreclose.

In both cases the original lender was Homecoming Financial, LLC, with the mortgages providing rights to foreclose upon default. MERS was named as the mortgagee and nominee for the lender. After default, MERS began foreclosure by advertisement on both properties, purchasing the properties at their respective sales, and quit-claiming title to the plaintiffs, Residential Funding and Bank of NY. Upon eviction, the homeowners questioned MERS’s authority but were denied by the district court. The circuit courts affirmed the district court’s decision, and the Michigan Court of Appeals considered whether MERS, as mortgagee but not note-holder, can foreclose non-judicially by advertisement.

The Court of Appeals discussed implications of the MERS system, which allows entities to transfer loans without having to record the transactions, since the mortgagee, MERS, is never changed despite the change of ownership among other entities. The statute in question, MCL § 600.3204(1)(d), states that a party may foreclose by advertisement if: “the party foreclosing the mortgage is either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage.” Since MERS is not the servicing agent or the owner of the debt, the Court of Appeals held MERS lacked authority to foreclose by advertisement under the statute. The court further explained “in order for a party to own an interest in the indebtedness, it must have a legal share, title, or right in the note,” and that an interest in the mortgage is not enough, as these are two separate instruments with different rights. The mortgage provides an interest in the property, while the note documents a debt to be repaid. Since the statute requires that the foreclosing party must own an interest in the indebtedness, the court held that MERS cannot act on behalf of Homecoming as agent or nominee to advertise the foreclosure. The decision of the Circuit Court enforcing the eviction was reversed, granting defendant-homeowners’ summary judgment.

disabled veteran loan

Judge Wilder dissented, believing MERS to have an ownership interest in the loan by way of the language in the mortgage giving MERS explicit rights to foreclose upon default. As mortgagee, MERS owned a “contractual interest” in the indebtedness, with the ability to take any action required by it, including its right to foreclose if the debt is not paid. The purpose of the mortgage is to create a security interest “specifically linked to the debt” to ensure payment. Since the mortgage gives MERS the right to “take any action required of it,” MERS has “a greater interest than just an interest in the property as security for the note,” giving MERS the right to act on behalf of Homecomings.

Plaintiffs Residential Funding and Bank of NY appealed the decision and the case was considered by the Michigan Supreme Court in late 2011, ultimately reversing the Court of Appeals order. 807 N.W.2d 412, rev’d 805 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. 2011). The Supreme Court agreed with the dissenting opinion from the Court of Appeals, holding that the foreclosure was valid. MERS has an ownership interest in the indebtedness, and therefore the right to foreclose because MERS’s “contractual obligations as mortgagee were dependent upon whether the mortgagor met the obligation to pay the indebtedness which the mortgage secured.” Though this does not give MERS an ownership interest in the note, the court held that the note and mortgage do not need to be held by the same entity in order to foreclose under Michigan law.

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.