Tag Archives: mortgage

Michigan District Court Dismisses Homeowner’s Action to Declare Foreclosure Null and Void

Posted on by

In Olesuk v Fed. Natl. Mort. Assoc., 2:12-cv-11001 (Dist. Ct. Mich. 2012), the court dismissed an action by homeowners against the parties involved in the multiple assignments of their mortgage, including MERS (Defendants). Homeowners brought the action after defaulting on their mortgage, seeking a declaration that the foreclosure action brought by the mortgagee be declared null and void. The homeowners brought the following claims: “(1) Quiet Title; (2) Fraud in the Assignment against JPMorgan and Chase Home (related to the 2009 assignment); (3) Fraud in the Assignment against Chase Home and MERS (related to the 2010 assignment); (4) Fraud in the Signatures (Robosigning); (5) that Defendants are not the real parties in interest and lack standing to foreclose, and; (6) Slander of Title.”

Homeowners’ claims rested on two facts. First, they claimed that the notarized certifications of the 2009 and 2010 assignments were false and therefore the assignments were invalid. Second, homeowners claimed that Fannie Mae executed an unrecorded assignment of the note to a REMIC, that the REMIC was not a party to the subsequent transfers of the mortgage, and thus the assignments were invalid.

The court rejected all of homeowners’ claims. The first and fifth claims were based on an argument “that Defendants may not foreclose on the property because the allegedly fraudulent or forged signatures and the transfer to the REMIC trust rendered the assignments invalid.” The court rejected this argument because “as non-parties to the assignments, [homeowners] lack standing to challenge their validity.”

The court rejected the second, third, and fourth claims because homeowners could not “establish that they relied to their detriment upon the allegedly forged signatures or fraudulent assignments.” The court then rejected the sixth claim because “the assignments, fraudulent or not, do not disparage Plaintiffs’ claim of title.”

 

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.”

Northern District of Ohio Holds that Mortgage Conveys Beneficial Interest to MERS as Nominee, Mortgagee

Posted on by

In Meehan v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 1:11CV363, 2011 WL 3360193 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2011), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that MERS had a beneficial interest in the property based on the language of the mortgage agreement. In this case, the homeowners filed an action to quiet title, claiming, “MERS has no beneficial interest in the mortgage. . . [further,] MERS’s interest is adverse and constitutes a cloud on the title to [the] property.” MERS claimed it had a beneficial interest in the property because the mortgage named MERS as nominee for the lender as well as the mortgagee. The court found that the contract language was clear and an action to quiet title, which is an equitable remedy, was not available to the homeowners in this case. Thus, the court held that the homeowners claim was without merit and granted MERS’s motion to dismiss.

Southern District of Ohio Unable to Determine Lenders’ Standing, Orders Lenders to Submit More Evidence or Have Case Dismissed

Posted on by

In In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F. Supp. 2d 650 (S.D. Ohio 2007), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio reviewed 27 private foreclosure actions based on federal diversity jurisdiction. In this case, the court was concerned with the issues of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, and was dissatisfied with the evidence submitted by the lenders. The court concluded by ordering the lenders to “submit evidence [within 30 days] showing that they had standing in the above-captioned cases when the complaint was filed and that this Court had diversity jurisdiction when the complaint was filed. Failure to do so will result in dismissal without prejudice to refiling if and when the plaintiff acquires standing and the diversity jurisdiction requirements are met.”

Ohio Appellate Court Holds that Lender, as the Real Party in Interest, has Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by
delaware florida illinois kentucky

In Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Shifflet, 2010-Ohio-1266, the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District held that the lender had standing to bring a foreclosure action against the homeowners. The homeowners argued that “MERS, rather than [lender], was the holder of the mortgage, rendering [MERS] the real party in interest.” The court rejected this argument, and based their determination on the evidence submitted by the lender. The evidence submitted was (1) an affidavit from the lender’s assistant vice president stating that the lender is the holder of the mortgage deed and note, and (2) an assignment executed by MERS that assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the subject mortgage deed and note to the lender. The court found this evidence dispositive, stating, “[g]iven the affidavit of [the lender’s assistant vice president] and, more importantly, the documentary evidence of the assignment of the mortgage and note to [the lender], the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the lender.”

Ohio State Court of Appeals Holds that Bank has Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by

In Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Traxler, 2010-Ohio-3940, the Court of Appeals, Ninth District of the State of Ohio held that the bank had standing to commence a foreclosure action against the homeowners. The homeowners argued that the bank lacked standing because the bank did not possess the mortgage and note at the time it commenced its action. The court rejected this argument, holding, “a bank need not possess a valid assignment at the time of filing suit so long as the bank procures the assignment in sufficient time to apprise the litigants and the court that the bank is the real party in interest.” The court looked at the assignments of the mortgage and note, and found that both were valid. Specifically, the court rejected the homeowner’s argument that MERS lacked authority to assign the mortgage. The court found that where MERS is designated as both the nominee and mortgagee of the mortgage, it has authority to assign the mortgage. However, the court went even further and stated, “assuming that MERS did not have the authority to assign the mortgage, however, we. . . conclude that the proper transfer of the promissory note, which the mortgage secured, amounted to an equitable assignment of the mortgage.” Thus, the court concluded that the homeowner’s arguments be rejected and the bank had standing to foreclose.