Tag Archives: stay foreclosure

Eastern District of California Dismisses Plaintiff’s Wrongful Foreclosure Claims Due to Plaintiffs’ Lack of Tender

Posted on by

The United States District Court, Eastern District of California in deciding the case of Small v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., No. 2:09-CV-0458 (E. D. Cal., 2010), concluded that dismissing the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims due to lack of tender by the plaintiffs was appropriate.

Plaintiffs filed their foreclosure action, naming three entities and two individuals as defendants, and alleged causes of action for unlawful foreclosure and unlawful eviction.

Defendants sought dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to state any cognizable claim. After considering the plaintiff’s claims, the court dismissed them due to lack of tender by the plaintiff.

Court Finds That MERS, as the Beneficiary Under the Deed, Had the Authority to Assign its Beneficial Interest

Posted on by

The United States District Court, Northern District California in Benham v. Aurora Loan Services, No. C-09-2059, (N.D.Cal. 2009) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in the entirety.

The plaintiff brought a litany of claims. Among the plaintiff’s claims, was that MERS and violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA” or “Rosenthal Act”), Cal. Civ. Code 1788 et seq. FAC ¶¶ 62-65. Plaintiff also alleged negligence and fraud.

After considering the plaintiff’s contentions the court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. The court found, that MERS as the beneficiary under the deed of trust had the authority to assign its beneficial interest under the deed of trust to assignee.

California Eastern District Court Notes There is no Requirement for the Production of the Original Note to Initiate a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Sale Under California Law

Posted on by

The California Eastern District Court in Castaneda et al v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. et al., No. 2:2009cv01124 (E.D. Cal. 2010) dismissed the plaintiff’s claim alleging wrongful foreclosure due to foreclosing party’s lack of note.

Plaintiffs Cesar and Suzzanne Castaneda filed this action against defendants Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., plaintiffs’ action purported to state a claim for “wrongful foreclosure” against Saxon. Plaintiffs attempted to base this claim on California Commercial Code section 3301, alleging that Saxon was not in possession of the note, was not a beneficiary, assignee or employee of the entity in possession of the note, and was therefore not a “person entitled to enforce” the security interest on the property in accordance with section 3301. (SAC ¶¶ 187-89.)

The court however found that section 3301 did not govern non-judicial foreclosures, which is governed by California Civil Code section 2924.Further, the court noted there is no requirement for the production of the original note to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure sale under California law.

Southern District of California Holds that Production of Original Note is Not Required to Proceed with a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California in Putkkuri v. Recontrust Co., Case No. 08cv1919 WQH (AJB) (S.D.Cal. 2009) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff in this case demanded written proof of the defendants’ right to proceed in foreclosure, and the plaintiff claimed that no such proof had been offered. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants “engaged in a pattern and practice of utilizing the non-judicial foreclosure procedures of this State to foreclose on properties when they do not, in fact, have the right to do so.”

The plaintiff also alleged that in pursuing non-judicial foreclosure, defendants falsely represented that they had a right to payment under plaintiff’s residential loan, which was secured by the deed of trust. However, after considering the plaintiff’s claims the court dismissed them, holding that production of the original note is not required to proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Remands Lower Court’s Decision by Ordering a Hearing With Reasonable Notice on the Whether the Injunction Should be Continued

Posted on by

After the decision handed down from Fryzel v. MERS, No. CA 10-352 (D.Ri., 2011) On appeal, the plaintiff-appellees in United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, [(Fryzel, et. al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., No. 12–1526 (D.Ri., 2013)] brought suit to prevent foreclosure or eviction, on the shared ground that ostensible assignments of their mortgagees’ legal titles are invalid, leaving the assignees without the right to foreclose.

By appeal and mandamus petition, the group of plaintiffs claimed error in the district court’s failure to provide notice and hearing before issuing successive orders imposing a stay in the nature of a preliminary injunction against foreclosure and possessory proceedings, and in its failure to set limits of time and cost when referring the mortgagors’ cases challenging foreclosure to a Special Master for mandatory mediation.

After considering the plaintiffs’ collective arguments, the First Circuit remanded with instructions to hold a prompt hearing with reasonable notice on the question whether the injunction should be continued, in belated compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), and to establish specific limits of time and expense if the reference for mediation is to remain in effect.

Rhode Island Court Rules That under State law, Only Parties to a Contract May Seek to Have Rights Declared Under a Contract

Posted on by

The Rhode Island court in deciding Fryzel v. MERS, No. CA 10-352 (D.Ri., 2011) decided that under Rhode Island law, only parties to a contract may seek to have rights declared under a contract. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the transfer of the promissory note or assignment of mortgage granted by Plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s complaint disputed AHMSI’s ability to foreclose by challenging the validity of the assignments of their mortgage. The plaintiff further claimed that AHMSI was not entitled to foreclose under the terms of the ‘Pooling and Servicing Agreement’. However, the court found that it was undisputed that plaintiffs were not parties to the assignment agreements or to the PSA. Thus, plaintiffs did not have standing to assert legal rights based on the specified documents.

Court Holds That Mortgagor Lacks Standing to Challenge the Propriety of Mortgage Assignments Under Rhode Island Law

Posted on by

The Rhode Island magistrate judge in Cosajay v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 10-442-M (D.R.I. June 23, 2011) issued “Reports and Recommendations,” holding that according to Rhode Island law a mortgagor “lacks standing to challenge the propriety of mortgage assignments and the effect those assignments, if any, could have on the underlying obligation.”

The Plaintiff challenged the validity of the assignments on multiple grounds, including MERS’ authority to execute the assignment. The magistrate however determined that under Rhode Island law, only parties to a contract may seek to have rights declared under a contract.