Tag Archives: standing

California Court Rules That State Law Did Not Require Possession of the Promissory Note in Order to Initiate a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted on by

The Eastern District of California in deciding Chilton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1:09; 2187 (E.D. Cal., 2010) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint claiming wrongful foreclosure and lack of standing. The court held that California law did not require possession of the promissory note in order to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure.

Although MERS was not explicitly named as a defendant in the action, the plaintiff argued that MERS lacked standing to foreclose since the note and deed of trust had been separated. The court rejected this argument.

California Court Held That State Law Did Not Require Possession of the Note as a Precondition for Initiating a Foreclosure Sale

Posted on by

The Los Angeles County Superior Court in deciding Linares, et al. v. JLM Corporation, et al., No. YC060372 (2009), after considering the plaintiff’s contentions, rejected them in favor of the defendant’s argument. In accepting the defense’s argument, the court held that California law did not require the possession of the original note as a precondition for initiating a foreclosure sale.

Additionally, the court found that under California law, an “allegation that the trustee did not have the original note or had not received it, is insufficient to render the foreclosure proceeding invalid.”

California Court Rules That MERS Did Not Breach the Implied Covenant of Good Faith By Initiating Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Winter v. Chevy Chase Bank, No. C 09-3187 SI (N.D. Cal. 2009) found that despite the plaintiff’s allegations, MERS had not committed negligence or breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings against the plaintiff.

Plaintiff Gwendolyn Winter initiated an action in state court against defendants Chevy Chase Bank, Gabrielle Benedetto; U.S. Bank N.A. as Trustee for CCB Libor Series 2005-C Trust; MERS; as well as several unnamed defendants. The plaintiff alleged federal and state law claims related to the mortgage, mortgage default, foreclosure, and sale of plaintiff’s primary residence.

Plaintiff also filed suit against defendants in alleging negligence; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; intentional infliction of emotional distress; fraud and misrepresentation; violations of state and federal lending laws; false advertising and unfair competition under federal and state law; and federal RICO violations. However, after considering the plaintiff’s contentions, the court eventually dismissed the claims.

United States District Court for the Central District of California Finds hat MERS Was the Beneficiary and Entitled to Foreclose

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the Central District of California in Derakhshan v. MERS, No. SACV08-1185 AG (2009) found that MERS was the beneficiary and therefore entitled to foreclose. This case, like many others before this court, involved the sale of an option adjustable rate mortgage loan.

The court held that MERS was the named beneficiary in the deed of trust. By signing the deed, the plaintiff thus agreed that MERS would be the beneficiary and act as nominee for the lender. Further, the deed explicitly stated that the borrower understood and agreed that MERS held only legal title and had the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the property.

Thus, the plaintiff explicitly authorized MERS to act as beneficiary with the right to foreclose on the property.

Court Rules That MERS, as the Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust, Had the Authority to Make a Substitution of Trustee

Posted on by

The United States District Court of the Northern District of California in deciding Lomboy v. SCME Mortgage Bankers, Inc. et al, No. C-09-1160 SC (N.D. Cal. 2009) held that under California law, MERS was not required to register to do business in California. The court also ruled that MERS is able to foreclose.

As her first cause of action, Plaintiff sought declaratory relief against SCME, MERS, Quality, and Aurora. Plaintiff asserted that she was the true equitable owner of the house, that the defendants were not holders of the promissory note, which should accompany the deed of trust, and that MERS has no right to foreclose on the house.

Plaintiff Imelda Lomboy also brought an action alleging various improprieties surrounding the then-imminent foreclosure of property that was used as security for a loan. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants “fraudulently obtained the deed of trust.”

The court in rejecting the plaintiff’s contentions note that MERS, as the beneficiary on the deed of trust, had the authority to make a substitution of trustee. The court further noted, that the substitute trustee appointed by MERS was able to carry out the foreclosure.

Northern District of California Rules That MERS Had the Authority to Appoint a Substitute Trustee

Posted on by

The United States District of the Northern District of California dismissed fraud claims brought by plaintiff against MERS in Labra v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., No. C 09-02537 PJH (C.D. Cal. 2010). The court also denied the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

The Northern District of California court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that MERS had the authority to appoint a substitute trustee after finding that the deeds of trust explicitly stated that MERS was the nominal beneficiary under the deeds of trust. Further, it also provided that MERS had the right to foreclose and sell the property as well as take any action that a lender could take.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Finds That MERS Was the Beneficiary and Did Not Breach Duty of Care

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in deciding Knowledge Hardy v. IndyMac Federal Bank, et al, No. CV F 09-935 (E.D. Cal. 2009) found that MERS was the beneficiary and did not breach a duty of care.

The court found that MERS did not breach duty of care owed to the borrower by acting as the beneficiary and assigning the deed of trust to IndyMac. The court found that MERS participation in the foreclosure failed to amount to a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.