Tag Archives: non-judicial foreclosure

NJF and UCC and Contract Law, Oh My!

Posted on by

Parsing how a court should approach a particular deed of trust foreclosure case can put you to sleep faster than crossing the poppy fields next to the yellow brick road.  Does the Non-Judicial Foreclosure (NJF) statute govern? Does the state’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) govern? Does the contract terms of the deed of trust itself govern? Or, more likely, do all three govern? And, if so, how do they interact with each other?

Brad Borden and I have recently noted that while

“show me the note” does come up in federal cases, federal courts defer to the applicable state law in reaching their results.  [T]he courts’ holdings tend to flow from a careful reading of the relevant state foreclosure statute, so a particular state’s law can have a big effect on the outcome.  We would note that many scholars and leaders of the bar are befuddled by courts’ failure to do a comprehensive analysis under the UCC as part of their reasoning in mortgage enforcement cases, but judges make the law, not scholars and members of the bar.  See Report of The Permanent Editorial Board for The Uniform Commercial Code Application of The Uniform Commercial Code to Selected Issues Relating to Mortgage Notes at 1 (Nov. 14, 2011).

Zadrozny v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 11-16597 (June 28, 2013), a recent 9th Circuit case demonstrates the problem of an incomplete analysis in an Arizona non-judicial foreclosure case.  The Court notes that

The PEB [Permanent Editorial Board] Report [] clarifies:

the UCC does not resolve all issues in this field. Most particularly, the enforcement of real estate mortgages by foreclosure is primarily the province of a state’s real property law (although determinations made pursuant to the UCC are typically relevant under that law).

Given the PEB Report’s recognition that state law is typically controlling on foreclosure issues, the Zadroznys are unable to allege a cause of action premised on the PEB Report . . ..(14-15, citation omitted)

This is confusing in a few ways.  First, the UCC is state law, adopted with variants by all of the states’ legislatures.  What the PEB is calling for is for courts to apply state UCC law as appropriate.

Second, state foreclosure law does not “control” foreclosure issues in some inchoate and expansive way. It governs it to the extent that it governs it and not one bit more. So if state UCC law governs one facet of a foreclosure case, it is not trumped by the states’ foreclosure law. Or if the terms of the deed of trust were to govern, it would not be trumped by the foreclosure law either (so long as it did not violate it).

Finally, it is just plain weird to say that the Zadroznys would have a “cause of action premised on the PEB report.” How would that work?!?  The PEB report is merely an interpretation of general UCC principles. The Court should be asking how the Arizona UCC applies to this case.

I am not saying that the Court reached the wrong result under Arizona law in this regard, but the Court’s incomplete analysis offers no clarity to litigants, no more than the Wizard of Oz offered real solutions to his supplicants’ pleas. But judges decide the cases, not me and not you . . ..

Nevada Court Finds MERS Lacked Standing to Bring Foreclosure Action as it Failed to Establish Itself as a Real Party in Interest and Failed to Provide Sufficient Evidence of it Authority

Posted on by

In MERS v. Chong, No. 09-661 (D. Nev. 2011) the court affirmed the order from the bankruptcy court holding that MERS lacked standing to bring an action. In the underlying bankruptcy action, MERS filed its motion for relief from stay, seeking to have the automatic stay lifted so that MERS could conduct a non-judicial foreclosure sale.

The court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s determination that MERS was not a beneficiary as MERS failed to present sufficient evidence showing it was a real party in interest. The court found that MERS might have had standing to prosecute the motion in the name of its members as a nominee.

However, in this case there was no evidence that the named nominee was entitled to enforce the note or that MERS was the agent of the note’s holder. As such the court found that MERS lacked standing.

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.

U.S. District Court for Hawaii Rules in Favor of MERS in Non-Judicial Foreclosure Proceeding, Validating its Right to Transfer, Foreclose, and Sell Property as the Lender’s Nominee

Posted on by

In Pascual v. Aurora Loan Services, No. 10–00759 JMS–KSC, 2012 WL 2355531, at 1-18 (D. Haw. June 18, 2012), the court explained the role of MERS in mortgage transfers and granted Defendant Aurora Loan Services’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff Pascual’s claim that the non-judicial foreclosure executed by Defendant was void as a result of MERS’s invalid assignment of the mortgage.

Under the language of the mortgage, MERS held the power of sale of the subject property and “the right to foreclose and sell the property and to take action required of the Lender.” The mortgage also notified the Plaintiffs that the “Note [could] be sold without prior notice.” MERS, acting as a nominee for the lender, Lehman Brothers, assigned the mortgage to the Defendant after Lehman Brothers filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Shortly after the assignment, the Plaintiffs defaulted on their loan. Defendants subsequently filed a Notice of Mortgagee’s Intention to Foreclosure Under Power of Sale. It held a public auction, and as the highest bidder, recorded a Mortgagee’s Affidavit of Foreclosure Sale under Power of Sale.

Under HRS §677-5, the “mortgagee, mortgagee’s successor in interest, or any person authorized by the power to act,” can foreclose under power of sale upon breach of a condition in the mortgage. Plaintiffs argued that because MERS did not match the description of one these parties, it did not have authority to assign the mortgage to the Defendant, thereby making the transfer invalid. In response, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s assertions and explained the role of MERS, citing Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, 656 F. 3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011). It described MERS as a “private electronic database that tracks the transfer of the beneficial interest in home loans as well as any changes in loan servicers.” It further stated that “at the origination of the loan, MERS is designated in the deed of trust as a nominee for the lender and the lender’s ‘successor’s and assigns,’ and as the deed’s ‘beneficiary’ which holds legal title to the security interest conveyed.” The court elaborated that under Cervantes, “claims attacking the MERS recording system as fraud fail, given that mortgages generally disclose MERS’[s] role as acting ‘solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns,’” and that “MERS has the right to foreclose and sell the property.”

Applying the holding to the present case, the court concluded that the mortgage expressly notified the Plaintiffs of MERS’s role as the “nominee for the ‘Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns,’” which had the power of sale of the subject property without giving notice to the Borrower. For these reasons, the court concluded that the transfer from MERS to the Defendant was valid. As a result, it dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of HRS § 667-5.

The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s motion to amend their claim. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, it concluded that there was not a statutory requirement for the Defendants to provide affirmative evidence that its assignment of the subject property was valid. It also denied Plaintiff’s claim that Lehman Brothers’ entrance into Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings precluded it from validly transferring the mortgage to the Defendant.

Utah Court Holds That Under Utah Law, MERS Was Not Required to Identify the Note-Holder in Order to Permit the Trustee to Proceed With Foreclosure

Posted on by

The plaintiff in Nielsen v. Aegis Wholesale Corporation, MERS et al., No. 10-606 (D. Utah May 4, 2011) argued that MERS divided the deed of trust as well as the promissory note. The court, in reaching their decision and rejecting the plaintiff’s argument, noted that “the court adopted the defendant’s argument that plaintiff had latched onto a failed theory—that a note and trust deed can be ‘split’ and rendered null and void.” The court subsequently dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against MERS with prejudice.

The court further went on to state that, “by law, each successor to the note also received the benefit of the security, and by contract, MERS was appointed as the nominee beneficiary under the First Deed of Trust. Contrary to the plaintiff’s argument, MERS had established its rights with respect to foreclosure on the security and MERS had, at all relevant times been, entitled to act as beneficiary under the First Deed of Trust.”

The court further noted that under Utah law, MERS was not required to identify the note holder in order to permit the trustee to proceed with foreclosure.

Oregon Court Rules That MERS’ Role as Beneficiary is Not Inconsistent With the Purpose of Oregon’s Non-Judicial Foreclosure Statute

Posted on by

The Oregon court in Nigro v. Northwest Trustee Services and Wells Fargo Bank, No. 11 CV 0135 (May 15, 2011) denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop a non-judicial foreclosure sale.

payday cash loans with no credit check

The court in reaching their holding found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements to sustain a request for a preliminary injunction. Most notably, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success based on the merits.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the Oregon Deed of Trust Act by failing to record all transfers of the assignment as well as the note. The court, in their ruling, cited Bertrand v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., which held that MERS was specifically designated by all parties as the beneficiary and had the authority to assign the deed of trust. Although MERS was not a party to this case, the court in Nigro ruled that MERS’ role as beneficiary is not inconsistent with the purpose of Oregon’s non-judicial foreclosure statute, and that the Act did not require the recording of note transfers.

Oregon Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Argument That the Trust Deed Can Only be Foreclosed if a Single Entity Holds Both the Note and Deed

Posted on by

After receiving a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, the plaintiff in Spencer v. Guaranty Bank et al., No. 10CV0515ST, Deschutes Co. Circuit (May 5, 2011) sought an injunction barring MERS, as well as the other defendants, from bringing a foreclosure action. The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.

In addition to the court granting the motion to dismiss, the court also noted that the plaintiff “made no claim that she was not in default nor that any requirement of ORS 86.735 were not satisfied,” the court held that MERS satisfied the statutory definition of “beneficiary” under ORS 86.705. Specifically, the court identified that it was “not persuaded that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems couldn’t act in that capacity, even if it is not the holder of the note.”

Moreover, the court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the trust deed can only be foreclosed if a single person or entity holds both the note and deed, noting that ORS 86.770(2) protects the plaintiff from a lawsuit seeking enforcement of the note after the non-judicial sale. “The bottom line is that plaintiff sought to retain ownership, apparently forever, of a property for which she has not paid nor even alleges that she intends to pay for. She has not stated a claim.”