Tag Archives: motion to dismiss

Hawaiin Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Allegations of Fraud Against MERS and Grants Summary Judgement

Posted on by

The court in Sakugawa v. MERS et al, D. Hawaii, 1:10-cv-00028 (Feb. 25, 2011) granted summary judgment in favor of MERS. Thus rejecting the plaintiff’s accusations for fraud and claims of state law violations regarding loan origination.

The court also found that MERS was not involved in the loan origination process and was not in contact with the plaintiff regarding the transaction. Thus the court found that there was no basis to find that MERS committed any fraudulent, unfair or deceptive acts regarding the loan consummation.

The Court found that MERS was the correct mortgagee under the security instrument, thus the mortgage permitted MERS to foreclose and sell the property.

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Affirms MERS’ Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by

The Pennsylvania appellate court in MERS v. Estate of Harriet L. Watson, et al., Superior Court of Pennsylvania # 637 WDA (2006), affirmed the standing of MERS to foreclose.

The case involved counter-claims as well as affirmative defenses filed by the estate of a deceased borrower in response to a foreclosure suit brought by MERS in 2003. The estate’s defenses and counter-claims included the theory that MERS, in someway, lacked standing because it was not the “real party-in-interest.” Moreover, MERS could not bring a foreclosure suit in Pennsylvania since it did not register as a foreign corporation doing business in Pennsylvania.

After consideration of the estate’s claims, the appellate court disregarded the estate’s challenges to MERS standing to foreclose due to the clear language of the mortgage itself. The court then held that MERS was not required to register as a foreign corporation because the act of acquiring, recording, or enforcing a mortgage lien constituted a specific exception under 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 4122 to the general requirement that companies “doing business” in Pennsylvania must obtain a certificate of authority in order to file suit in Pennsylvania. Such actions, by statutory definition, do not constitute “doing business.”

Illinois Federal Appellate Court Rules That MERS Had Sufficient Authority to Commence Foreclosure Proceeding in its Capacity as an Agent

Posted on by

The federal appellate court in MERS v. Estrella, 390 F.3d 522 [7th Cir. 2004] ruled that MERS had a sufficient authority to commence a foreclosure proceeding, in its capacity as an agent on behalf of its principal.

https://absoluterentals.com/absolutegov/

At issue in this case was an application to confirm a sale. On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal based upon well-established law that Court orders denying confirmation to judicial sales are not final decisions, and thus are not appealable.

Additionally, implicit in the court’s holding was recognition that MERS has standing to commence a foreclosure proceeding as agent on behalf of its principal. Indeed, the Estrella Court did not dismiss the proceeding in its entirety for lack of standing by the agent, rather cited to Indiana Gas Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 141 F.3d 314, 319 [7th Cir. 1998] which recognized the capacity of an agent to commence a proceeding “[w]hen the principal’s interests are affected by the litigation, the principal’s citizenship counts even if the agent is the sole litigant.”

The federal appellate court did not issue a blanket ban to suits commenced by MERS as an agent on behalf of its principals. Instead, in suits brought by agents, it directs federal district courts to ascertain the citizenship of the principal of the plaintiff to determine whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists.

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.

Court Holds That MERS Assignment, in Isolation, Could Not Prove Ownership

Posted on by

The court deciding In Re Wilhelm (Case No. 06-51747) was faced with the issue of when actual notes prove that the note’s chain of ownership is unclear. In reaching their decision the court found that in such a situation, the MERS assignment could not, on its own, prove ownership of the note.

The court in this case stated that the MERS assignment was legitimate when taken as a whole, along with proper transfer of the note. The court further went on to note “in hundreds of stay relief motions, including many post-Sheridan, creditors are providing adequate documentation and explanation to meet the requisite standing requirements.”

Michigan District Court Holds That MERS Cannot Foreclose by Advertisement But Can Assign its Security Interest

Posted on by

In Knox v. Trott & Trott, No. 10-13175, Dist. Court, (Michigan 2011) the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3) and (4). Knox maintained that the court erred in rejecting his argument that the defendants lacked standing under Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3204(1)(d) to foreclose on his property.

Plaintiff based his request on a previous Michigan court of appeals case, Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merchandising, Inc. 538 F.3d 448, 455 (6th Circ. 2008). However, the court distinguished that case from the present case, as the former dealt with the narrow issue of whether MERS could foreclose by advertisement or whether it must use judicial foreclosure. In the present case, the court stressed that absent a showing by MERS that it owned “an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage,” it lacked authority under the Michigan statute to foreclose.

In the present case, however the court found that MERS was not the foreclosing entity. As such, its status as defendant in the litigation fell outside the parameters of the issue resolved in Residential Funding.

Washington Court Holds That the Language of the Security Instrument Gave MERS Both the Authority to Foreclose and Assign the Deed of Trust

Posted on by

The court Salmon v. Bank of America, MERS et al., No. 10-446 (D. Wash. May 25, 2011) dismissed claims against Bank of America and MERS. The plaintiffs argued that MERS was a “ghost-beneficiary” and as such could not be the beneficiary of a deed of trust under Washington law, as it did not have an interest in the note. The court rejected this argument, and noted that the beneficiary of a deed of trust is not required to be the note holder

The court, in their holding, noted that MERS had both the authority to foreclose and the authority to assign the deed of trust, based on the language of the security instrument.