Tag Archives: Mortgage Electronic Recording System

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.”

Arizona Court Holds That MERS is the Beneficiary With the Authority to Foreclose

Posted on by

The court in Ciardi v. The Lending Company, Inc. et al., 2010 WL 2079735 (D. Ariz. 2010) held that that MERS is the beneficiary with the authority to foreclose. In doing so the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to vacate temporary restraining order.

In December 2005, plaintiff [Bianca Ciardi] borrowed $270,500 from ‘The Lending Company’ for the purpose of purchasing real property. Plaintiff also executed a promissory note and a deed of trust. Soon after, the plaintiff’s note was sold.

Plaintiff eventually defaulted on their note and their home was nearing auction in a non-judicial trustee’s sale. A lower court granted the plaintiff’s temporary restraining order (“TRO”) without notice. Defendants removed to this court, and sought to have the TRO dissolved and Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).

In their analysis, the court noted, that the Plaintiff’s amended complaint was not the model of clarity and that the plaintiff did not allege any specific causes of action, rather much of their amended complaint was simply a narrative concerning the mortgage securitization industry.

In reaching their conclusion, the court, reviewed the plaintiff’s amended complaint. And concluded that even considering the plaintiff’s pro se status and, in so doing, construing plaintiff’s amended complaint liberally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be based. Plaintiff also sought a preliminary injunction to halt the planned foreclosure of their home. However, the court reasoned, in order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must show a likelihood of success on the merits.

Accordingly, because the court found the plaintiff’s amended complaint failed for a failure to state a claim, the court found that the plaintiff failed in showing a likelihood of success on the merits. As such, the Court denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.

MERS’ Assignments are Recognized as Valid as New York Appellate Court Overturns ‘N.Y. v. Alderazi’ & ‘LaSalle v. Lamy’

Posted on by

In the case of Bank of New York v. Eddie Sachar, et al., 95 A.D.3d 695 (2012), the court found the Bank of New York Mellon had standing to foreclose based on a MERS assignment and the delivery of the note.

The court’s ruling granted the plaintiff’s [Bank of New York Mellon] motion for summary judgment on its complaint against defendant [Sachar]. The plaintiff-bank proved its standing to commence the foreclosure action by demonstrating that it was both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action was commenced.

Although the defendant correctly alleged that, although Mortgage Electronic Registration System [MERS] validly assigned the mortgage to plaintiff, and the assignment was properly recorded in the public records, MERS had not been given any interest in the underlying note by the lender (see Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 283 [2011]).

However, the complaint and the documents annexed to plaintiff’s motion establish that an assignment of the note had been effectuated by physical delivery of the note before the current action was commenced.

Bankruptcy Court Rules MERS Has Standing and the Customary Rights of a Mortgagee Under a Mass. Mortgage and May Act Under the Mortgage

Posted on by

The Massachusetts bankruptcy court hearing In re Sonya D. Huggins f/k/a SONYA D. HICKS, Debtor Chapter 13, Case No. 05-18826-RS overruled the Huggins’ objection to the standing of the nominee to seek relief from the automatic stay and ordered an evidentiary hearing on the motion for stay relief.

After Huggins commenced her Chapter 13 case, the court denied a motion by a nominee mortgagee for relief from stay to foreclose a mortgage on the debtor’s residence but ordered monthly adequate protection payments. The nominee filed a second stay relief motion under 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d), and the debtor objected.

Huggins maintained that the nominee could not stay relief in bankruptcy because it had no rights to enforce the mortgage outside bankruptcy. The court disagreed, finding that the nominee was acting for a lender that held the note, thus there was no disconnection between the note and the mortgage. The nominee was the record mortgagee under the terms of the mortgage with its powers expressly set forth, and Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 244, § 14 expressly authorized the exercise of sale powers by a mortgagee or a person authorized to sell, which was precisely the position of the nominee.

The court concluded that the denial of the nominee’s foreclosure right as mortgagee could lead to anomalous and perhaps inequitable results, such as the lender being able to foreclose despite the fact that it was not named as mortgagee or that no one could foreclose. Thus, as the court concluded, the nominee had standing to foreclose on the lender’s behalf. As to relief from stay, the court concluded that there was no irrefutable presumption that the property was necessary for an effective reorganization under 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d)(2)(b). The debtor was required to proffer evidence on those issues.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Rules in Favor of MERS in Foreclosure Proceeding, Upholding its Power of Sale Over the Plaintiff’s Property

Posted on by

In Richardson v. Citimortgage, No. 6:10cv119, 2010 WL 4818556, at 1-6 (E.D. Tex. November 22, 2010) the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, granted the Defendants’, Citimortgage and MERS, motion for summary judgment against the Plaintiff, Richardson, in a foreclosure proceeding. The Court reiterated MERS’s power of sale and its role as an “electronic registration system and clearinghouse that tracks beneficial ownerships in mortgage loans.”

Plaintiff purchased his home from Southside Bank with a Note. As the Lender, Southside Bank could transfer the Note and it, or any transferee, could collect payments as the Note Holder. In the agreement, Plaintiff acknowledged that Citimortgage, the loan servicer, could also receive payments. A Deed of Trust secured the Note by a lien payable to the Lender.

Under a provision in the deed, Southside Bank secured repayment of the Loan and Plaintiff irrevocably granted and conveyed the power of sale over the property. The Deed of Trust also explained MERS’s role as its beneficiary, acting as nominee for the Lender and Lender’s and MERS’s successors and assigns. MERS “[held] only legal title to the interests granted by the Borrower but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, [had] the right to exercise any and all of the interests [of the Lender and its successors and assigns], including the right to foreclose and sell the property.”

Plaintiff signed the Deed of Trust but eventually stopped making mortgage payments to CitiMortgage and filed for bankruptcy protection. As a result, “MERS assigned the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to Citimortgage.” Citimortgage posted the property for foreclosure after receiving authorization from the United States Bankruptcy Court. Plaintiff brought suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and challenging Citimortgage’s authority to foreclose on the property.

In granting Citimortgage and MERS’s motion for summary judgment, the court explained that Citimortgage could enforce the loan agreements, including the power of foreclosure, after it received the Note from Southside Bank. Furthermore, under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, Plaintiff could not challenge Citimortgage’s right to enforce the Note after he “represented that it was [his] intention to surrender [the] property to Citimortgage,” in bankruptcy court. Citimortgage subsequently acquired a “valid, undisputed lien on the property for the remaining balance of the Note.”

Plaintiff also challenged MERS’s role with “respect to the enforcement of the Note and Deed of Trust.” In response, the court explained that “[u]nder Texas law, where a deed of trust expressly provides for MERS to have the power of sale, as here, MERS has the power of sale,” and that the Plaintiff’s argument lacked merit.

The court described MERS as a “[book entry system] designed to track transfers and avoid recording and other transfer fees that are otherwise associated with,” property sales. It concluded that MERS’s role in the instant foreclosure “was consistent with the Note and the Deed of Trust,” and that Citimortgage had the right to sell the Plaintiff’s property and schedule another foreclosure.

Arkansas Court Rules That MERS Did Not Violate the State’s Statutory Foreclosure Act

Posted on by

The court in Coley et al v. Accredited Home Lenders Inc et al (E.D. Ark. 2011) dismissed the homeowner-plaintiff’s claims against MERS pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In granting MERS’ motion to dismiss the court considered, then rejected the plaintiff’s contentions.

First, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to comply with the notice requirements of 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5), a provision of National Housing Act that requires private lenders servicing non-federally insured home loans to advise borrowers of any home ownership counseling that they of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development may offer. The court however, reasoned that regardless of whether the defendants were in compliance with the act or not, the act does not create a private right of action.

Next, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the state Statutory Foreclosure Act concerning non-judicial foreclosures, and they sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the foreclosure sale. They also sought an order declaring the mortgage’s notice of default and intention to sell, the limited power of attorney, and the corporate assignment of mortgage to be fatally defective and invalid. The court however rejected this contention.

Third, the plaintiffs argued that even if the assignment was valid, the subsequent notice of default and intention to sell was invalid because it was prepared and filed by the Law Offices of Shapiro & Kirsch more than two weeks before HSBC executed a limited power of attorney giving Shapiro & Kirsch the power to act on its behalf. The court rejected this argument, as they noted that whether the notice of default was valid was moot because the non-judicial foreclosure described in the notice was cancelled. Thus, Shapiro & Kirsch would be required by law to file a new notice of default and intention to sell before a sale could take place.