Tag Archives: stay foreclosure

Michigan Court Dismisses Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding Mullins v. Fannie Mae, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150718 (E.D. Mich. 2013) granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff brought six causes of action: Count I—Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Count II—Estoppel; Count III—Negligence; Count IV—Violation of the Regulation of Collection Practices Act; Count V—Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and Count VI—violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s fraud claims because the plaintiff had not provided a signed writing by an authorized representative of Fannie Mae regarding a promise to modify her loan. The court noted that even if she had stated a claim of fraud, her claim must be dismissed.

With regards to the plaintiff’s negligence claims, the court found that Fannie Mae had no duty to review, thus there could be no breach.

Under Michigan law, the Regulation of Collection Practices Act (“RCPA”) governs the collection practices of certain persons. However, after considering the plaintiff’s argument, the court found that the statute did not authorize a claim based upon a plaintiff’s reluctance to dispute the validity of a debt because of the timing of the validation. Citing similar grounds, the court ultimately dismissed the remaining claims.

District Court Rejects Claims That MERS Lacked Standing

Posted on by

The court in deciding Pratt v. Bank of Am. NA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151671 (D. Me. 2013) granted Bank of America’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff alleged that the existence of forged documents related to a mortgage loan and that MERS lacked standing to transfer the plaintiff’s deed to Bank of America. The plaintiff wanted his promissory note returned to him along with the deed of trust.

The plaintiff’s assertion revolved around the claim that the separation of the deed of trust from the promissory note by the intervention of MERS as a nominee for Quicken Loans somehow breached the contracts between Pratt and Quicken or Bank of America. Plaintiff claimed that MERS, as nominee, had no “standing” to transfer the note and/or mortgage to Bank of America and that Bank of America has no “standing” to enforce these instruments.

Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand and his motion for entry of default. The court also granted Bank of America’s motion to dismiss.

Lower Court’s Grant of Summary Judgement Affirmed by Nevada Court

Posted on by

The court in deciding Castro v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2013 Nev. LEXIS 1602 (Nev. 2013) affirmed the lower courts judgment against the plaintiff.

Plaintiff obtained a home loan from Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC and executed a promissory note in favor of Decision One. The note was secured by a deed of trust naming Decision One as the lender and MERS, as the beneficiary and nominee of the lender. The deed of trust authorized MERS, as nominee of the lender, to transfer the deed of trust and appoint a successor trustee.

MERS assigned the deed of trust to defendant, who instituted this action for quiet title seeking to expunge the documents that appellants recorded. Defendant moved for summary judgment, which was not opposed by plaintiff. Plaintiffs provided no evidence of any kind to the district court, and the district court entered summary judgment in respondent’s favor.

The court considered the plaintiff’s assertions, and concluded that the district court properly entered summary judgment in defendant’s favor.

Ohio Court Finds That Plaintiffs Were Not Bona Fide Purchasers

Posted on by

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, in deciding Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Casey, 2013-Ohio-4686 (Ohio Ct. App., Fairfield County Oct. 21, 2013) affirmed the lower court’s judgment and held that the plaintiffs were not bona fide purchasers and the defendants had standing.

The court found that under the doctrine of lis pendens plaintiffs were not bona fide purchasers of a property encumbered by the mortgage because they took title during the pendency of a declaratory judgment action to which they were a party. Consequently, they did not take the property free from unrecorded liens. The claim that the mortgage was invalid was barred by res judicata as the validity of the mortgage was fully litigated in the declaratory judgment action.

Lastly, the court found that the defendant had standing to seek the foreclosure, as it was the current holder of the note and mortgage, and that it had physical possession of the note and mortgage documents.

North Carolina Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Claims of Fraud Against MERS, Bank of America, & Trustee Services of Carolina

Posted on by

The court in deciding Porterfield v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152318 (E.D.N.C. 2013) dismissed plaintiff’s claims and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff asserted the following claims: (1) wrongful foreclosure; (2) fraud; (3) fraudulent misrepresentation; (4) fraud by use of MERS; (5) fraud through securitization; (6) promissory fraud; (7) unfair and deceptive trade practices; (8) violations of the Fair Debt Collections and Practices Act; (9) violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; (10) slander of title; and (11) a quiet title action.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and MERS motioned to dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) and defendant Trustee Services of Carolina motioned to dismiss to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The court ultimately granted the defendants’ motions. Plaintiff’s claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, MERS, and Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC were dismissed with prejudice.

Tennessee Court Grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as Wells Fargo Had Ownership Interest in the Note & Deed

Posted on by

The court in deciding McKee v. Am. Brokers Conduit, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152657 (W.D. Tenn. 2013) granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs claimed that (1) Wells Fargo didn’t have lawful ownership or a security interest in the property because the note and deed of trust were unlawfully sold; (2) Leak was not authorized to execute the assignment from MERS to Wells Fargo; (3) Wells Fargo could not show possession or ownership of the original note or deed and therefore had an imperfect security interest; and (4) ABC had no authority to execute the assignment because it was in bankruptcy proceedings at the time of the assignment.

The court found the plaintiff’s line of reasoning factually incorrect. The court noted that the note was made payable to Wells Fargo and the deed was assigned to Wells Fargo. Both the endorsed note and the assignment agreement were recorded. Furthermore, counsel for Wells Fargo had the original note in his possession. Finally, both the note and the deed allowed for such an assignment. Plaintiffs had presented the court with no evidence to rebut these facts. As such, the plaintiffs had not offered enough to challenge Wells Fargo’s enforcement of the note and the court granted summary judgment.

Michigan Court Finds Plaintiff’s Claim that Foreclosure Proceedings Violated Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.3204(1) and (3) Unpersuasive

Posted on by

The court in deciding Anderson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152765 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2013) dismissed plaintiff’s claims that foreclosure violated Michigan state law.

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that foreclosure proceedings violated Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.3204(1) and (3). The basis of plaintiff’s claim was a challenge to the assignment of the mortgage from MERS to defendant. Plaintiff alleged that this assignment was invalid. Ultimately, the court found this argument has no merit.

Plaintiff contended that defendant did not have standing to foreclose on the property because the assignment of the mortgage from MERS to defendant was invalid. Plaintiff argued that TBW was no longer in business at the time MERS assigned the mortgage to the defendant. Therefore, as the plaintiff reasoned, the assignment was invalid. Additionally, plaintiff complained that the assignment was “robo-signed” and that it was insufficient to create a record chain of title.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was wrong. The court noted that the Michigan Supreme Court had made clear that, under Michigan law, a mortgage granted to MERS as nominee for lender and lender’s successors and assigns was a valid and assignable mortgage.