Tag Archives: stay foreclosure

Arkansas Court Finds That Based on Security Agreement, MERS Was the Mortgagee

Posted on by

The Arkansas court considering Coley v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al, 4 10 CV01870 (E.D. Ark. 2011) ultimately granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal. The court granted the dismissal with prejudice as to the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims. The court however, did not apply dismissal with prejudice to the plaintiff’s fraud claim.

The court held MERS acted within its role as agent when it transferred the mortgage to the foreclosing lender. Likewise, the court held, and ruled that the assignment to MERS was valid as such the court dismissed the wrongful foreclosure claim.

The plaintiffs based their argument on the allegation that the foreclosing lender lacked standing to foreclose. The plaintiff based this assertion on the claim that MERS was not authorized to transfer or assign the mortgage to the foreclosing lender and that the lender named in the security agreement was the only entity that could pursue foreclosure. The court, however found that MERS was the mortgagee under the security agreement as an agent of the originating lender.

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Dismisses Borrower’s Claim of Invalid Assignment

Posted on by

The United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas in Kimberly Peace v. MERS, 4:09-cv-00966 (2010) granted MERS’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the assignment to MERS was valid.

This also led the court to decide that BAC had standing to appoint Recon Trust as BAC’s agent to exercise its right to start a non-judicial foreclosure. The borrower unsuccessfully alleged that the assignment from MERS to BAC had no legal effect as MERS was not on the note and was not an agent for the note holder. The court rejected this contention.

Arkansas Court Denies MERS’ Motion to Set a Decree of Foreclosure

Posted on by

The Arkansas court in MERS v. Southwest Homes of Arkansas, 301 S.W.3d 1 (2009) denied MERS’ motion to set a decree of foreclosure, therein affirming the decision from the lower court. As the record beneficiary of the deed of trust, MERS received no foreclosure notice. The court in their finding, applied Arkansas law, and found that the lender was the deed of trust beneficiary not MERS, since MERS did not receive payment of the debt.

MERS alleged that the lower court erred in ordering foreclosure because as the holder of legal title it was a necessary party that was never served. However, In affirming the lower court decision, the court disregarded the written terms of the mortgage contract that selected MERS as the deed of trust beneficiary entitled to notice.

The court went on further to hold that under the recorded deed of trust in this case, James C. East, as trustee under the deed of trust, held legal title. Moreover, as the court reasoned, MERS was at most the mere agent of the lender Pulaski Mortgage Company, Inc., and it held no property interest and was not a necessary party.

Arizona Court Affirms a Lower Court Decision That Possession of Note Was Not Needed for a Party to Initiate a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted on by

The Arizona court in Maxa v. Countrywide Loans, Inc., 2010 WL 2836958 (D. Ariz. 2010) affirmed a lower court decision that possession of the note was not needed for a party to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure. The court also affirmed that MERS had the authority under the deed of trust to commence foreclosure.

The court in reaching their decision rejected the plaintiff‘s claim that the defendants lacked the right to enforce the note; therein making the foreclosure was invalid. The court noted that a trustee’s sale was not an action to enforce the note, but rather it was an exercise of the power of sale upon default.

The court explicitly held that Arizona law bestowed power of sale on the trustee upon default or breach of the contract secured by the trust deed without reference to enforcing or producing a note or other negotiable instrument.

The court in reaching their decision also found that the plaintiff not only gave the power of sale to the trustee, but also agreed to empower MERS, as the lender’s nominee, to exercise the right to foreclose. Lastly, the court directly rejected the plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation based upon the notion that MERS was not a valid beneficiary.

Arizona Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Argument That MERS Lacked Authority to Foreclose

Posted on by

The Arizona court in Kane v. Bosco, No. 10-CV-01787-PHX-JAT, 2010 WL 4879177 (D.Ariz. 2010), after considering the plaintiffs contentions that MERS lacked the power to assign mortgages, proceeded to reject those arguments.

In making such a rejection, the court held that MERS could assign mortgages. Contrary to plaintiffs‘ allegations, the court failed to see how the MERS System lacked authority as a nominee of lenders to assign deeds of trust. Further, the court failed to see how MERS, in assigning deeds of trust, committed any form of fraud as the plaintiff alleged.

Arizona Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Show-Me-The-Note Claim in Its Entirety

Posted on by

The Arizona Court that decided AOM Group LLC et al v. Mortgage IT, Inc. et al., No. CV 09-2639-PHX-SRB (D.Ariz.)(2010) held that the plaintiff’s ‘show me the note’ argument was lacking in merit.

The plaintiff brought an action that challenged the validity of completed trustee sale. The plaintiff made several allegations, one of which was unlawful fraudulent foreclosure by MERS and the servicer. The court after considering the arguments dismissed the plaintiff’s action its entirety.

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona Finds That the Borrower Gave MERS the Ability to Take Any Action, Which the Lender Would be Able to Take

Posted on by

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, in Blau v. America’s Servicing Company, et al, No. CV-08-773 (D. Ariz., 2009), acknowledged that MERS, acting as a beneficiary, was the proper party to execute an assignment of the deed of trust.

The borrower gave MERS the ability to take any action, which the lender would be able to take. Thus, this included the ability to assign, foreclose, and even substitute the trustee. The court also found that MERS had no liability under The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) since it had not been involved in making the loan to the plaintiff.