Tag Archives: misrepresentation

Borden and Reiss on High-Stakes MBS Litigation

Posted on by

Brad and I posted Goliath Versus Goliath in High-Stakes MBS Litigation on SSRN (and BePress).  The abstract reads,

The loan-origination and mortgage-securitization practices between 2000 and 2007 created the housing and mortgage-backed securities bubble that precipitated the 2008 economic crisis and ensuing recession. The mess that the loan-origination and mortgage-securitization practices caused is now playing out in courts around the world. MBS investors are suing banks, MBS sponsors and underwriters for misrepresenting the quality of loans purportedly held in MBS pools and failing to properly transfer loan documents and mortgages to the pools, as required by the MBS pooling and servicing agreements. State and federal prosecutors have also filed claims against banks, underwriters and sponsors for the roles they played in creating defective MBS and for misrepresenting the quality of the assets purportedly held in MBS pools. This commentary focuses on the state of this upstream litigation. It reviews claims of several complaints and discusses some decisions on motions for summary judgment in several of the cases. The commentary is not a comprehensive review of all the activity in this area, but it does provide an overview of the issues at stake in this litigation. The litigation in this area is still relatively new, but with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, it will likely last for years to come and should reshape the MBS landscape.

Arizona Court Affirms a Lower Court Decision That Possession of Note Was Not Needed for a Party to Initiate a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted on by

The Arizona court in Maxa v. Countrywide Loans, Inc., 2010 WL 2836958 (D. Ariz. 2010) affirmed a lower court decision that possession of the note was not needed for a party to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure. The court also affirmed that MERS had the authority under the deed of trust to commence foreclosure.

The court in reaching their decision rejected the plaintiff‘s claim that the defendants lacked the right to enforce the note; therein making the foreclosure was invalid. The court noted that a trustee’s sale was not an action to enforce the note, but rather it was an exercise of the power of sale upon default.

The court explicitly held that Arizona law bestowed power of sale on the trustee upon default or breach of the contract secured by the trust deed without reference to enforcing or producing a note or other negotiable instrument.

The court in reaching their decision also found that the plaintiff not only gave the power of sale to the trustee, but also agreed to empower MERS, as the lender’s nominee, to exercise the right to foreclose. Lastly, the court directly rejected the plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation based upon the notion that MERS was not a valid beneficiary.

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona Found the Mere Use of MERS Nid Not Constitute Common Law Fraud

Posted on by

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, in Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., No. 09-cv-00517 (D.Ariz. 2009), dismissed all state and federal claims brought by all three of the borrowers. The borrowers filed a complaint against MERS as well as a group of other defendants

After considering the borrowers’ arguments, the court found the mere use of MERS did not constitute common law fraud on the borrowers. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to allege what effect, if any, listing the MERS system as a ‘sham’ beneficiary on the deed of trust had upon their obligations as borrowers.

Subsequently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of MERS. Accordingly, the Court held that a borrower lacked the basis to challenge the standing of an entity such as MERS. Further, the court, however, drew attention to a legal reference that such a borrower still had legal recourse by bringing an action to have the trustee’s sale set aside.

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.

Court Rules MERS is Not Required to Register With the Secretary of State Because Enforcing Deeds of Trust Does Not Qualify as “Doing Business” in California

Posted on by

The court in Sulak v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., DCA No. E039775, (2004) found that the lower court properly denied the preliminary injunction and that the orders denying the TRO were proper.

instant money

In this case, the plaintiffs-borrowers stopped making payments on their loan and initiated a suit for damages and injunctive relief against MERS. The plaintiff claimed that stoppage of payment was proper as they alleged that MERS could not enforce or collect the note and deed of trust [1] without holding a Certificate from the Secretary of State, [2] without responding to multiple requests for validation of the debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and [3] without having endorsements on the note or recorded assignments to successors in interest to the original lender.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s contentions and went further to characterized the plaintiff’s approach as “[e]ssentially, plaintiffs called ‘Olly-olly oxen free’ on the note and deed of trust, and stopped making payments.”

MBS Representations Regarding Ratings Based on False Data Are Actionable

Posted on by

In Capital Ventures International v. UBS Securities LLC et al., No. 11-11937 (D. Mass. July 22, 2013), Judge Casper held that the inclusion of credit ratings based upon “false data” in offering materials for mortgage-backed securities “constitutes an actionable misrepresentation and omission” under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act (the relevant provisions of which are substantively similar to those of the Securities Act of 1933). (11) The Court also held that UBS’ “representation that a certain [ratings] process will be used is an actionable statement of fact.” (12)

Capital Ventures had purchased over $100 million of certificates of RMBS that were underwritten by UBS.  The investors in those RMBS “were not given access to the loan files and had to rely upon the representations in the Offering Materials about the quality and nature of the loans that formed the security for their Certificates.” (2) The offering materials stated that the “rating process addresses structural and legal aspects associated with the Offered Certificates, including the nature of the underlying mortgage loans.” (3, emphasis in the original)

Capital Ventures alleged that “UBS knew the ratings were based on false and misleading data such as owner-occupancy and LTV statistics and underwriting quality and thus knew that the ratings were not the product of a process designed to judge the risk presented by the Certificates (as represented in the Offering Materials), but rather reflect the Rating Agencies’ judgment as to the risk presented by a ‘hypothetical security Capital Ventures was promised, but did not receive.'” (3, quoting amended complaint)

The holding in itself is important, but I am curious as to what effect it will have on representations in deals going forward.  Underwriters may very well give investors the opportunity to review the underlying mortgage loans in order to ensure that they are not exposed to this type of liability. Or perhaps the risk is remote enough that they will chance it again.  Time will tell.

Minnesota District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Fraud Claims and Holds That MERS Had Legal Title and Authority to Foreclose

Posted on by

The Minnesota District Court in Allen v. Wilford & Geske et al.,No. 70-CV-10-29502 (D. Minn. May 9, 2011), after hearing the plaintiff’s contentions, dismissed his complaint for foreclosure fraud. The court held that MERS had legal title and authority to foreclose.

By granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court found that, “MERS was not required to register every assignment of the loan or to track that history in its foreclosure documents…” and “…it was not a misrepresentation for  MERS to identify itself as the mortgagee in the foreclosure documents and not to identify all past and present lenders.”