Tag Archives: Mortgage Electronic Recording System

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.

Rhode Island Superior Court Deems PennyMac Foreclosure Proper

Posted on by

In Rutter v. MERS, et al., C.A. No. PC 10-4756 (R.I. Super. March 12, 2012) the Rhode Island Superior Court held that PennyMac’s foreclosure sale was proper, as the court upheld Rhode Island case law supporting the validity of MERS’s assignments and subsequent foreclosures.

In July 2007, the Rutters procured a loan with First National Bank of Arizona (FNBA) as lender. MERS was designated the mortgagee acting as nominee for the lender, FNBA. The loan was ultimately assigned by MERS to PennyMac.

The Rutters defaulted in November 2008, and received proper notice of both the intent to foreclose and the foreclosure sale, scheduled for February 2010. Although the Rutters attempted to submit a qualified written request under RESPA, PennyMac found their request insufficient and proceeded with the foreclosure sale. After the sale, the Rutters filed the within action to quiet title and sought damages for alleged RESPA violations by MERS and PennyMac, who counterclaimed for slander. Here, the court considers MERS and PennyMac’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that notice of foreclosure and the foreclosure sale were proper and that the assignment to PennyMac was valid. The motion further argues that even if the assignment were invalid, the Rutters lack standing to challenge it.

The court first considers the role MERS plays in current mortgage transactions, giving a brief history of MERS’s origination and its operational aspects. MERS was designed to promote efficiency and accuracy in transactions and recordkeeping, though the system is not without fault. Although some courts differ on how to manage MERS-affected foreclosures, the “clear majority” holds the MERS foreclosures are valid. The court criticizes the Rutters’ argument as lacking substance and failing to distinguish recent case law. The Rutters’ argument merely claimed that those decisions enforcing the MERS foreclosures were “flawed.”  Rhode Island courts have continuously held that “foreclosure sales conducted by MERS or one of MERS’s assignees [a]re valid.” Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398, slip op. at 5. Here, the clear and unambiguous language in the Rutters’ mortgage is identical to the language of mortgage documents in precedent MERS cases, giving MERS statutory power with the right to foreclose as mortgagee and nominee of the lender.

The Rutters raised the show me the note argument claiming that the note and mortgage must be held by the same entity under Rhode Island law, citing case law only from other states, such as Eaton v. Fed. Nat‟l Mortg. Ass‟n, No. 11-1382 (Mass. Super. Jun. 17, 2011). The court cites Bucci, which held that requiring an entity to possess both the note and mortgage would prevent loan servicing, which is a major part of the mortgage industry. 2009 R.I. Super. LEXIS 110. The court did not, however, have to do decide whether the contradicting Eaton decision was binding in Rhode Island because PennyMac held both the note and mortgage at the time of the foreclosure sale.

As to the assignment from MERS to PennyMac, the court found the assignment valid under Rhode Island law. Even if the assignment were found to be invalid, the Rutters, as a non-party to the assignment lack standing to challenge its validity. Regarding allegations of “robosigning,” the court cited Payette, stating that the “contention that MERS’s assignments were executed by an unauthorized signatory is a mere conclusion or legal opinion that is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to defeat [a] Motion for Summary Judgment.” 2011 WL 3794700, slip op. at 19. Furthermore, MERS and PennyMac set forth the full chain of the note’s indorsements, which are presumed authentic.

The court found that PennyMac responded properly in rejecting the Rutters’ QWR attempt under RESPA, as RESPA no longer applied and the Rutters failed to prove that they suffered any actual damages. The fact that the Rutters submitted their QWR just days before the scheduled sale is emphasized heavily, as they had over 2 years to submit the QWR to PennyMac after their default. The Rutters also failed to act on a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure agreement which would have extended their occupancy in the property by 60 days.

The court granted MERS and PennyMac’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff homeowners failed to prove any existence of material factual disputes.

Michigan District Court Dismisses Borrower’s Complaint After Failure to Redeem Property within Statutory Period

Posted on by

In Vollmar v. Federal National Mortgage Association, (12-cv-1119, E.D. Mich. 2012), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss each of the plaintiff’s complaints that sought to invalidate the foreclosure sale of his property and to quiet title. The judge ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing after failing to redeem the property within the allotted period.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff took out a $128,000 mortgage on his property with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the mortgagee. MERS assigned its interests to BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. (“BACHLS”) in a recorded deed on July 23, 2010. The plaintiff defaulted on his payments and BACHLS instituted foreclosure proceedings in March 2011. The property was purchased in a sheriff sale by Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), the successor by merger to BACHLS.

The Court addressed the plaintiff’s claims in conjunction with the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

1. The Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the sheriff’s sale due to his failure to redeem the property within Michigan’s 6-month statutory redemption period. At the close of the statutory period, title is vested with the purchaser and the mortgagor loses standing to challenge the sale. Rather than preserving his right to challenge the foreclosure sale by remaining in the home, as the plaintiff argued, the Court held that the ownership interest “terminated at the conclusion of the sheriff’s sale,” and the plaintiff was merely an “illegal holdover.”

2. Defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain allegations of “fraud or irregularity” that are sufficient to annul the foreclosure sale under a breach of contract claim. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were required to demonstrate by whom the foreclosure proceedings were initiated and failed to produce evidence that BANA acquired BACHLS interest in the mortgage. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s allegations, noting that the Defendant’s motion papers, foreclosure advertisements, and the initial collection letter to the plaintiff each established that BACHLS both received the mortgage interest from MERS and initiated the foreclosure proceedings. In regards to BANA’s role, the Court referenced Texas Business Organization Codes (Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code §10.008(a)(2)(C)), under which BACHLS and BANA merged on July 1, 2011), which established that after the merger of the two companies, BANA acquired all of BACHLS rights, titles, and interests without the need for “any transfer or assignment.”

3. The Court addressed the plaintiff’s slander of title and quiet title claims even though they were abandoned for failure to address them in the response brief. Because slander of title and quiet title “presuppose that plaintiff possesses the ability to establish title” and the Court has already established that the plaintiff’s rights to the property were extinguished at the end of the statutory period, both claims were dismissed.

4. Since the plaintiff failed to allege that the contract left the manner of performance open to the defendant’s discretion, and that the “manner of performance” of the mortgage rested in the defendants hands, an element required to raise a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, the Court refused to accept the cause of action, citing Meyer v. CitiMortgage, Inc. 11-13432, 2012 WL 511995 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2012) which stated that Michigan law does not recognize an independent action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when the contract cannot be construed to imply such a covenant by having left the manner of performance open to the defendant’s discretion.

5. Finally, the Court addressed the plaintiffs “seemingly abandoned” claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to reassert that “emotional damages are not available for breach of contract” claims. Citing Kevelighan v. Orlans  Assocs., P.C., 498 F. App’x 469, 472 (6th Cir. 2012) which upheld the dismissal of an emotional distress claim in a breach of mortgage contract suit.

Ohio Bankruptcy Court Rules in Favor of Wells Fargo: Failure to Properly Record Mortgage Assignment Does Not Invalidate Mortgage

Posted on by

In In re Williams, 395 B.R. 33 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008), the Ohio Bankruptcy Court granted the defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint, holding that mortgage assignments must be recorded under Ohio law, but that failure to do so does not terminate the underlying mortgage. Additionally, the Trustee could not be a bona fide purchaser and avoid the mortgage since he possessed constructive knowledge of this mortgage.

On May 2, 2005, Earl and Belinda Williams (the Debtors) executed a promissory note in the amount of $137,730 to United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM), secured by Debtors real property, and named MERS as a “nominee for UWM, its successors and assigns.” In November 2007, the Debtors filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of Title 11, under the US Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiff Thomas Nolan was appointed Chapter 7 Trustee. In February 2008, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay on the Property, and subsequently the Trustee initiated an adversarial proceeding to avoid the mortgage lien filed in the name of  MERS and alleged that under Ohio law, the assignment of the mortgage must be recorded on behalf of the holder of the note.

The plaintiff brought suit on two accounts. First, under the Trustee’s strong arm powers granted by the Bankruptcy Code § 544,  he alleged that “as a bona fide purchaser for value, he may avoid the mortgage held by Wells Fargo on account of the failure to record an assignment of the Mortgage.” The court elucidates that the Bankruptcy Code gives the Trustee power of a bona fide purchase for value if a hypothetical purchaser could have obtained that bona fide status. Under Ohio law, the assignment of a mortgage must be “recorded to protect those lien interests from avoidance by a bona fide purchaser of real property.” The parties disagree whether mortgages must be recorded under the terms of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Court ultimately determined that the Bankruptcy Code did include mortgages under the requirement to record “instruments of writing properly executed for the conveyance or unencumbrance of lands. . . . ” but that the failure to record the assignment of the mortgage did not terminate “the underlying mortgage and the lien of the underlying mortgage.” Since the Trustee had constructive knowledge of the mortgage, he could not then avoid and acquire bona fide purchaser status due to Wells Fargo’s failure to record its assignment. The Court then dismissed the first cause of action.

Second, the Trustee argued for the Disallowance of Wells Fargo’s claim on based his ability to avoid the mortgage (as argued above). The Trustee’s claim falls under § 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which establishes “grounds upon which a claim that has been objected to by a party in interest may be disallowed.” The Court relied upon subsection 1 which permits disallowance of a claim that is “unenforceable against the debtor or property of the debtor.” The claim was then dismissed “without prejudice to the Trustee’s ability to object under Code § 502 and the Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure to any proof of claim filed by Wells Fargo or any other party claiming to be a creditor of the Debtors in connection with the Note on grounds not determined through this adversary proceeding.”

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.

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.”