Tag Archives: MERS

Michigan District Court Dismisses Homeowner’s Action to Declare Foreclosure Null and Void

Posted on by

In Olesuk v Fed. Natl. Mort. Assoc., 2:12-cv-11001 (Dist. Ct. Mich. 2012), the court dismissed an action by homeowners against the parties involved in the multiple assignments of their mortgage, including MERS (Defendants). Homeowners brought the action after defaulting on their mortgage, seeking a declaration that the foreclosure action brought by the mortgagee be declared null and void. The homeowners brought the following claims: “(1) Quiet Title; (2) Fraud in the Assignment against JPMorgan and Chase Home (related to the 2009 assignment); (3) Fraud in the Assignment against Chase Home and MERS (related to the 2010 assignment); (4) Fraud in the Signatures (Robosigning); (5) that Defendants are not the real parties in interest and lack standing to foreclose, and; (6) Slander of Title.”

Homeowners’ claims rested on two facts. First, they claimed that the notarized certifications of the 2009 and 2010 assignments were false and therefore the assignments were invalid. Second, homeowners claimed that Fannie Mae executed an unrecorded assignment of the note to a REMIC, that the REMIC was not a party to the subsequent transfers of the mortgage, and thus the assignments were invalid.

The court rejected all of homeowners’ claims. The first and fifth claims were based on an argument “that Defendants may not foreclose on the property because the allegedly fraudulent or forged signatures and the transfer to the REMIC trust rendered the assignments invalid.” The court rejected this argument because “as non-parties to the assignments, [homeowners] lack standing to challenge their validity.”

The court rejected the second, third, and fourth claims because homeowners could not “establish that they relied to their detriment upon the allegedly forged signatures or fraudulent assignments.” The court then rejected the sixth claim because “the assignments, fraudulent or not, do not disparage Plaintiffs’ claim of title.”

 

MERS-Y! MERS-Y!

Posted on by

Dustin Zacks has posted Revenge of the Clerks: MERS Confronts County Clerk and Qui Tam Lawsuits, a short article that reviews litigation brought by “county clerks and private qui tam actions assert that MERS has cheated county recorders out of millions of dollars in recording fees.” (17)  Zacks writes that “the most imminent legal threat to MERS is the spate of lawsuits filed by county clerks” and that “[c]ommon to most clerk lawsuits is their assertion that all changes in beneficial ownership of home loans are required to be recorded in the public records.” (18) He reviews the arguments raised in those suits:

  • State Laws Required All Assignments to be Recorded
  • MERS Uses Deceptive Language to Avoid Recording
  • Unjust Enrichment, MERS is Evil, and Other Such Arguments (18-19)

Zacks notes that nearly all of those cases have failed to survive a motion to dismiss, with one exception.  (20)  A Pennsylvania court held that Pennsylvania’s statute “was unambiguously clear in requiring assignments to be recorded”.  (20); see Memorandum and Order, Montgomery County, PA Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc. , No. 11-cv-6968 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2012) at 12-15.

While Zacks is skeptical of this type of anti-MERS suit, he notes that

banks and their advocates must remain wary of these seemingly unending matters. Just as the tobacco lawsuits were initially met with skepticism and ridicule, one large win was all it took to turn regular routs into an industry-changing victory. Here, one verdict in favor of a clerk in a class-action suit could result in a ruling that MERS must go back and, for example, record innumerable assignments or pay millions of dollars in avoided recording fees. This, in turn, could result in a new appraisal of the viability of MERS’ manner of business. (21)

This seems to be the right assessment of where things stand.

 

Massachusetts District Court Holds that MERS, as Mortgagee and Nominee for Lender, has Authority to Assign Mortgage

Posted on by

The court in Rosa v. Mortg. Elec. Sys., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 423 (D. Mass. 2011) held that the assignee bank had standing to foreclose on the homeowners. The homeowners argued that the bank did not have standing because MERS lacked authority to assign the mortgage. They made several arguments as to why MERS lacked authority, including (1) the original noteholder did not authorize the assignment; (2) MERS could only act as nominee for the original noteholder, who dissolved in 2008; and (3) MERS did not hold the note at the time of assignment, and thus could not assign what it did not hold.

First, the court looked at MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage. The court rejected the homeowner’s argument, stating, “[s]ince Massachusetts law does not require a signatory to prove authority to execute a mortgage assignment, a mortgagee need not prove authorization from the note holder to assign a mortgage.” The court then held that the assignment by MERS to the assignee bank was valid because MERS was a mortgagee under the terms of the mortgage agreement.

Next, the court determined that the original noteholder’s dissolution had no effect on MERS’s authority to assign. The court held, “[the original noteholder’s] dissolution [did not] terminate MERS’ nominee relationship with a successor purchaser or assignee of the Note or affect MERS'[s] status as mortgagee. . . . As mortgagee, MERS continued to hold the Mortgage in trust for whomever happened to own the Note.”

Finally, the court rejected the argument that MERS must hold the note in order to assign the mortgage. They found this argument contrary to case law. The court stated, “In Massachusetts, the mortgage does not automatically follow the note and the mortgage and the note may be held by different parties. . . . An assignor of a mortgage is not required to have possession of or beneficial interest in the note in order to assign the mortgage because it holds the mortgage in trust for the note holder. ” Thus, MERS had authority to assign the mortgage despite not being in possession of the underlying note.

Ohio Court of Appeals Holds that the Note Follows the Mortgage Where Intent of Parties is Clear

Posted on by

In Bank of New York v. Dobbs, 2009-Ohio-4742, the court found that the Bank of New York (Bank) had standing to bring a foreclosure action against the homeowners. In this case, Countrywide Home Loans (Countrywide) was the original note holder, and Bank claimed that Countrywide assigned the note to MERS, who then assigned to Bank. The homeowners argued that Bank did not have standing to foreclose because there was no evidence that Countrywide assigned the note to MERS and thus the chain of title was incomplete. In determining standing, the court found that “the chain of title between Countrywide, MERS and [Bank was] not broken” because “the obligation follows the mortgage if the record indicates the parties so intended” and in this case there was “clear intent by the parties to keep the note and mortgage together, rather than transferring the mortgage alone.” Thus, the note followed the mortgage upon transfer, and Bank was the lawful holder of the note.

1st Circuit Holds that MA Borrowers Can Challenge Mortgage Assignments

Posted on by

A First Circuit panel (including Justice Souter) ruled that under Massachusetts law, “a mortgagor has standing to challenge a mortgage assignment as invalid, ineffective, or void (if, say, the assignor had nothing to assign or had no authority to make an assignment to a particular assignee).”  (14)  The court concisely sets forth what is at issue in the case:

The fact pattern here is emblematic: the mortgagor’s note was delivered to one party (the lender) and then transferred; the mortgage itself was granted to a different entity, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and later assigned to the foreclosing entity. We are asked, as a matter of first impression for this court, to pass upon not only the legality and
effect of this arrangement but also the mortgagor’s right to challenge it. The substantive law of Massachusetts controls our inquiry.  (2-3, footnotes omitted)

There are some important dicta in the case.  The court states that “there is no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the common arrangement whereby MERS holds bare legal title as mortgagee of record and the noteholder alone enjoys the beneficial interest in the loan.” (16)

Ohio Court of Appeals Holds that MERS, as Mortgagee, has Standing to Foreclose Despite Lacking a Beneficial Interest in the Note

Posted on by

In Mtge. Electronic Registration Sys., Inc., v. Mosley, 2010-Ohio-2886, the Court of Appeals of Ohio held that MERS had standing to foreclose on the homeowners. The court found that language in the mortgage naming MERS as nominee, as well as a provision explicitly giving MERS the right to foreclose on the property, was sufficient to give MERS standing to foreclose. The court was not persuaded by the argument that MERS lacked standing because MERS did not have a beneficial interest in the underlying note. In response to this argument, the court stated, “The fact that MERS, the mortgagee, lacked a beneficial interest in the note that was secured by the mortgage does not deprive MERS of standing to enforce the note and foreclose the mortgage. . . . MERS has always been the mortgagee and [thus] has had a contractual right to foreclose on the Mortgage.”

Northern District of Ohio Holds that Mortgage Conveys Beneficial Interest to MERS as Nominee, Mortgagee

Posted on by

In Meehan v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 1:11CV363, 2011 WL 3360193 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2011), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that MERS had a beneficial interest in the property based on the language of the mortgage agreement. In this case, the homeowners filed an action to quiet title, claiming, “MERS has no beneficial interest in the mortgage. . . [further,] MERS’s interest is adverse and constitutes a cloud on the title to [the] property.” MERS claimed it had a beneficial interest in the property because the mortgage named MERS as nominee for the lender as well as the mortgagee. The court found that the contract language was clear and an action to quiet title, which is an equitable remedy, was not available to the homeowners in this case. Thus, the court held that the homeowners claim was without merit and granted MERS’s motion to dismiss.