Tag Archives: Mortgage Electronic Recording System

California Court Upholds Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff, Dismissing California Uniform Commercial Code section 9313 Violations

Posted on by

The court in deciding Wolford v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7307 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2013) ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. AHMSI and Wells Fargo met their threshold burden to show they satisfied the requirements necessary for non-judicial foreclosure, and appellant failed to raise a triable issue of material fact.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleged causes of action for declaratory relief; injunctive relief; determination of lien pursuant to California Uniform Commercial Code section 9313; breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.); violation of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.); rescission; unconscionability; and quiet title.

The lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s initial claims as summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants. Appellant contended the denial of summary judgment in the related unlawful detainer action and evidence of irregularities in the foreclosure process demonstrated triable issues of material fact warranting the denial of summary judgment. However, this court in upholding the lower court’s decision, found that there was no merit to the plaintiff’s contentions.

 

Missouri Court Dismisses Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Home Ownership Equity Protection Act Violation Claims Brought Against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and MERS

Posted on by

The court in deciding White v. CTX Mortg., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146589 (W.D. Mo. 2013) ultimately granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiff’s complaint asserted that the chain of title had been broken. Consequently, “title was not clear enough” for CTX to foreclose on the property.

Plaintiffs raised eight claims: (1) “Predatory Lending”; (2) “Servicer Fraud”; (3) violations of the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1639, et seq.; (4) violations  [5] of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.; (5) “Breach of Fiduciary Duty”; (6) “Identity Theft”; (7) Civil Rico; and (8) quiet title to real property.

For relief, plaintiffs requested economic damages; a declaratory judgment identifying the “owner” of the note and clarifying whether the deed was actually security for the loan; and injunctive relief conveying the property to plaintiffs or a judgment quieting title to plaintiffs’ property.

At the outset, the court made several general observations about the complaint. In each count, plaintiffs had substituted legal conclusions for facts. Subsequently, Nationstar and MERS argued that the court should dismiss all eight counts because they (1) failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (2) were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Ultimately, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.

 

Nevada Court Dismisses TILA and Fraud Claims Brought Against Chase and MERS

Posted on by

The court in deciding Leong v. JPMorgan Chase, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144678 (D. Nev. 2013) ultimately granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

This action arose out of the foreclosure proceedings initiated against the property of the plaintiff Teresa Leong. Defendants Chase and MERS filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff alleged two causes of action, one of which was fraud: “wrongful use of a non existent co-borrower” and the other was “fraudulent documentation.” Plaintiff also requested, “to see her original documents, note and deed.”

After considering the plaintiff’s contentions, the court found that the plaintiff failed to allege that she was current on her mortgage payments or had otherwise satisfied the conditions and terms under the deed of trust. Accordingly, the court found that plaintiff failed to state a legally cognizable claim for wrongful foreclosure, and the action must be dismissed.

Plaintiff also insisted that defendant failed to provide the original note, plaintiff cited Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.086(4). However, the court found that the defendants correctly point out that the plaintiff failed to cite to any authority that required defendants to produce the original note. As such, this cause of action was dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff lastly alleged that defendant failed to comply with the Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. TILA contained many provisions concerning accurate and meaningful credit disclosures. However, the court found that the plaintiff’s complaint did not specify any particular provision with which defendant failed to comply. Accordingly, plaintiff provided only a conclusory statement as support for a vague TILA claim, and to the extent that this cause of action is alleged, it must be dismissed.

 

Nevada Court Dismisses Show-me-the-Note Action Brought Against Chase and MERS

Posted on by

The court in Leong v. JPMorgan Chase, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144678 (D. Nev. Oct. 7, 2013) granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.

This action arose out of the foreclosure proceedings initiated against the property of pro se Plaintiff Teresa Leong. Pending before the court was a motion to dismiss filed by defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff continued to request “to see my original documents Note and Deed.”

Plaintiff insisted that defendant failed to provide the original note. The court found that the only possibly relevant Nevada statute requiring the presentation of the original note or a certified copy is at a Foreclosure Mediation. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.086(4). Moreover, the court noted that it treats copies in the same way as it treats originals: “a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 52.245.

The court noted that the defendants correctly point out that plaintiff failed to cite to any authority that requires defendants to produce the original note, and defendants additionally provided non-binding legal authority to the contrary. As such, the court dismissed this cause of action with prejudice.

California Court Dismisses Action Brought Against MERS and Aurora Loan Services for Wrongfully Initiated Foreclosure Proceedings

Posted on by

The court in Morgan v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145623 (C.D. Cal. 2013) granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims. The court concluded that the “allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiencies” of either the first or third through tenth claims, thus the court dismissed these claims with prejudice.

Plaintiff Cherie J. Morgan filed this action against Aurora Loan Services, LLC (“Aurora”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), and Does 1-100, inclusive (collectively, “defendants”).

Plaintiff principally complained that defendants wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings against her property and that a subsequent trustee’s sale was invalid because defendants lacked any interest in the property. Plaintiff’s claim asserted the following claims for relief: (1) lack of standing; (2) breach of written contract; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) cancellation of instruments; (6) quiet title; (7) promissory estoppel; (8) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (9) premature and unlawful filing of notice of default; and (10) unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (“UCL”).

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s SAC. Plaintiff opposed the motion, but after considering the parties’ arguments, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

 

 

Washington Court Rejects Split-the-Note Theory

Posted on by

The court in Zhong v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145916 (W.D. Wash. 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

In her complaint, plaintiff alleged ten causes of action in connection with the initiation of the non-judicial foreclosure of her property.

Specifically, she brought claims for (1) wrongful foreclosure under the Washington Deed of Trust Act (“DTA”), RCW 61.24, (2) violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), (3) negligence and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, (4) a request for injunctive relief, (5) a request for declaratory judgment, (6) cloud of title, (7) quiet title, (8) predatory lending, (9) emotional distress, and (10) unjust enrichment. Defendants removed the case to federal court, and now move to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, this motion was granted. The court found that the plaintiff’s arguments failed as the court found that the plaintiff simply rehashed well-worn arguments that courts have repeatedly rejected.

 

California Court Dismisses Claim Due to lack of Standing and Failure to State a Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding Britto v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146978 (N.D. Cal. 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

In this foreclosure action, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs alleged a host of violations during the securitization process. Realty Mortgage allegedly did not endorse or record a sale or assignment of the deed of trust to any entity and Countrywide Home Loans allegedly did not endorse or record a sale or assignment to BNY Mellon.

Plaintiffs also argued that BOA did not retain servicing rights to the deed of trust, BNY Mellon did not have any interest as legal trustee of the trust, and “no entity . . . had any valid lien or legal, recorded, documentable, standing on the plaintiff’s mortgage loan”

Moreover, defendant (MERS) was named beneficiary and nominee in the deed of trust prior to the securitization. In 2011, MERS transferred all of its beneficial interest under the deed of trust to BNY Mellon. Plaintiffs thus alleged that after the deed of trust and promissory note were securitized in 2006 and improper transfers of ownership to the deed of trust occurred, MERS’ nominal rights were extinguished. Thus, MERS could not have properly transferred its interests to BNY Mellon in 2011, and BNY Mellon cannot foreclose on the property.

The court rejected these arguments finding that the plaintiff’s argument failed.