Tag Archives: mortgage

NY Court Rejects Lack-of-Standing Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding HSBC Bank USA v Sage, 112 A.D.3d 1126 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 2013) affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the defendant’s lack of standing claim.

HSBC Bank USA commenced this foreclosure action alleging that defendant Gregory Sage defaulted on a note secured by a mortgage on his real property. After joinder of issue and an extended period of time during which settlement conferences took place, plaintiff moved for summary judgment striking the answer and appointment of a referee. Defendant cross-moved for, among other things, leave to amend his answer to allege that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action. Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied the cross motion. After considering the arguments, this court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

This court found that the plaintiff had established that the custodian of the trust had physical possession of the note and mortgage prior to the commencement of the action and that, as trustee, the plaintiff was responsible for carrying out the terms of the trust. Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the affidavit from an assistant vice-president of the mortgage servicing company was adequately based on a review of the books and records of the company maintained in the ordinary course of business, and the lack of personal knowledge as to the creation of the documents was not fatal.

Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff met its initial burden on the motion for summary judgment and the burden then shifted to defendant to come forward with competent and admissible evidence demonstrating the existence of a defense that properly could raise an issue of fact as to his default. Defendant, as this court noted, did not do this, thus the case was properly dismissed.

Georgia Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s RESPA, TILA and HOEPA Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Mitchell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ga., 2013) found no plain error in the lower court’s conclusion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.

Plaintiffs Reginald and Jamela Mitchell filed a complaint against Deutsche Bank and MERS, the complaint alleged federal violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (“RESPA”), and the Homeownership Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”).

The Complaint also asserted the following state law claims: (1) fraud; (2) wrongful foreclosure; (3) quiet title; (4) slander of title; (5) infliction of emotional distress and (6) unfair business practices.

The crux of the plaintiffs’ claims under the federal statutes was that the defendants failed to provide them with the required disclosures, thereby allowing plaintiffs to rescind their mortgage transaction and seek damages. The lower court concluded that the Plaintiffs’ claims arising under TILA, HOEPA and RESPA were barred by the statute of limitations. The lower court recommended that the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to state any federal or state law claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiff then appealed.

Upon review of the lower court’s decision, this court found no plain error in the lower court’s findings and recommendation that the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims be granted.

Georgia Court Dismisses TILA and RESPA Claims Brought by Plaintiff

Posted on by

The court in deciding Mitchell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ga. Sept. 25, 2013) granted the motion to dismiss proffered by the defendant.

The first enumerated cause of action in Plaintiffs’ complaint was a claim for fraud. Plaintiffs argued that their original mortgage lender, Accredited, engaged in a practice of filing false prospectus supplements with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Plaintiffs’ complaint also included a claim for wrongful foreclosure.

Next, the plaintiffs asserted that Deutsche Bank and MERS had “unclean hands” as they failed to make certain disclosures required by TILA. Plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants or their predecessors in interest violated RESPA in a number of ways. Plaintiffs’ complaint also included a claim for fraud in the inducement. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ complaint raised a claim for quiet title under O.C.G.A. § 23-3-40 and O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60 et seq. Lastly, the plaintiffs’ complaint raised a claim for fraudulent assignment.

Ultimately the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a viable claim for relief. Accordingly, this court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Ohio Appeals Court Denies Assignment Error Claim Brought by Appellee

Posted on by

The court in deciding United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. McHugh, 2013-Ohio-5473 (Ohio Ct. App., Lucas County, 2013) concluded that the trial court properly denied mortgagors’ motion under Civ.R. 60(B)(2).

Appellants argued that appellee lacked standing and was not the real party in interest. They also alleged that they were entitled to relief pursuant to their discovery of new evidence in the form of a pooling service agreement that confirmed appellee’s lack of standing.

Appellee opposed appellants’ motion on the basis that it was barred by res judicata, untimely, and failed to establish grounds for relief pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B)(2).

After considering the parties’ arguments, the court denied appellants’ motion. In its judgment entry, the court determined that the evidence relied upon by appellants in supporting their Civ.R. 60(B) motion was available to them prior to summary judgment and, therefore, was not newly discovered evidence. Further, the court found that appellants failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense as required under the Ohio Supreme Court. Finally, the court concluded that appellants’ motion was not filed within a reasonable time pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B).

Connecticut Court Rejects Invalid Assignment and Standing Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bank of Am., N.A. v. Samaha, 2013 Conn. Super.  (Conn. Super. Ct., 2013) granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage executed by Joseph Samaha and Denise Samaha in favor of the Webster Bank in the principal amount of $162,000.00.

The defendant raised several special defenses to this foreclosure action. First, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring this litigation. Second, the defendant claimed that as a result of the death of one of the makers of the note, Joseph Samaha, that his estate had an indivisible interest in the subject property and was subject to probate court jurisdiction. Third, the defendant challenged the authority of MERS to assign this mortgage to the plaintiff. Four, that the defendant had tendered payment with regard to the note and she alleged accord and satisfaction. Fifth, the defendant challenged whether or not the note in question was a negotiable instrument.

Regarding the first special defense, the court decided that the plaintiff had standing.
The court found there was simply no authority for the defendant’s second assertion. Further, the court found there were no facts alleged in the special defense and there is no affidavit from the defendant providing any factual foundation for the third assertion. Regarding the fourth special defense the court found that the mere assertion of this defense, without any evidence to support it, and thereby contest or create a material issue of fact for a motion of summary judgment is insufficient. Lastly, the fifth special defense was deemed to be an assertion of a legal conclusion.

The court in deciding this case granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

California Court Rejects Improper Pooling and Servicing Agreement Argument Brought by Plaintiffs

Posted on by

The court in deciding Sollenne v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2013 U.S. Dist., (S.D. Cal., 2013) dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.

Plaintiffs alleged three causes of action: 1) quiet title; 2) declaratory relief to determine the validity of the deed of trust on the date the note was assigned and to determine if any defendant has authority to foreclose; and 3) injunctive relief to stop further collection activity, including the sale of the property.

Plaintiffs’ desired remedies also include a request for an order compelling the defendants to transfer or release legal title and any alleged encumbrances, and possession of the property to plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs listed the following deficiencies which they contended rendered invalid any security interest in the deed of trust: 1) the separation of title, ownership and interest in the note and deed of trust; 2) the lack of assignments to or from the intervening entities when the loan was sold; 3) the failure to assign and transfer the beneficial interest in the DOT to Defendants in accordance with the PSA; 4) the failure to endorse, assign, and transfer the note to USBNA in accordance with the PSA and California law; 5) that there were no assignments of beneficiary or endorsements of the note to each intervening entity; and 6) Defendants violated terms of the PSA.

After considering the plaintiffs’ arguments, this court dismissed the claims premised upon the securitization of the loan and violations of the PSA as well as the plaintiffs’ remaining claims.