Tag Archives: summary judgment

Arizona’s Non-Judicial Foreclosure Statutes do not Require the Beneficiary to ‘Show the Note’ Before Commencing a Non-Judicial Foreclosure

Posted on by

The court in deciding Famili v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 2013 U.S. Dist. (D. Ariz., 2013) reaffirmed the holding that “Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to prove its authority or ‘show the note’ before the trustee may commence a non-judicial foreclosure.”

All counts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint centered on her assertion that whenever the promissory note was transferred or a change was made to the beneficiary of the deed of trust, the holder or beneficiary was required to demonstrate authority for the transfer or substitution. This court noted that each claim of breach of contract and lack of authority put forth by the plaintiff was an iteration of the “show-me-the-note” argument resolved by the Arizona Supreme Court in Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 230 Ariz. 584, 277 P.3d 781, 782 (Ariz. 2012).

Thus, as a matter of Arizona law, the court found the plaintiff’s argument without merit.

Court Rejects Arguments that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Lacked the Authority to Assign Mortgage

Posted on by

The court in deciding Jones v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Mich., 2013) granted defendant Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff alleged that the foreclosure of his property was unlawful for the following reasons: (1) Nationstar refused to accept his payment of $1,019.74; (2) Nationstar failed to produce the original note with the red blood signature; (3) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) lacked the authority to assign the mortgage; (4) Plaintiff was not afforded sufficient due process; and (5) Nationstar lacked standing to seek foreclosure. Defendants moved for summary judgment.

Plaintiff had responded to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. However, this court found that the plaintiff had failed to submit any evidence challenging, refuting, or otherwise calling into doubt the evidence submitted by the defendant.

Instead, the court found that the plaintiff had submitted several exhibits that supported the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff had also submitted an affidavit in which he asserted irrelevant matters such as the fact that the defendant Nationstar “was not a human being” and defendants “did not have the rights of a natural human being.”

This court found that to the extent that plaintiff had asserted relevant facts, such did not advance plaintiff’s position.

Court Finds that BAC Home Loans did not Have Standing to File Suit

Posted on by

The court in deciding BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Blythe, 2013-Ohio-5775 (Ohio Ct. App., Columbiana County, 2013) reversed the lower court’s decision and found that appellee had not established that it was the current holder of the note and mortgage, thus, appellee did not have standing to file suit.

Appellant Walter J. Blythe appealed the Columbiana County Common Pleas Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., in a foreclosure action.

Blythe challenged the trial court’s finding that BAC had standing to foreclose in the absence of evidence that BAC was the holder of the note that created the obligation. Blythe relied on the material submitted by BAC in support of this claim.

This court held that the note that had been specially indorsed to a bank under R.C. 1303.25(A) could not be enforced by the loan servicing company (LSC) that was not the transferee or successor in interest of the bank. The LSC was not the holder of the note under R.C. 1303.32(A)(1) by virtue of the merger of the bank and a national association (NA). The LSC was not a non-holder in possession entitled to enforce under R.C. 1303.31 as it had not acquired the bank’s right to the note under R.C. 1303.21.

The court noted that even if the NA had filed the foreclosure suit, there was no evidence of the transaction, merger, or mergers that gave rise to an its interest in the note. The note was not bearer paper and could only be enforced by the bank since the note was payable to the bank, here the bank was the real party in interest in the foreclosure action, thus the LSC lacked standing to foreclose.

Ohio Court of Appeals Finds that BAC had Failed to Demonstrate that it had Standing to Accelerate the Note and Foreclose the Mortgage

Posted on by

The court in deciding BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Blythe, 2013-Ohio-5775 (Ohio Ct. App., Columbiana County, 2013) reversed the lower court’s judgment.

Appellant Walter J. Blythe appealed the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., in this foreclosure action.

Blythe challenged the lower court’s finding that BAC Home Loans Servicing had standing to foreclose in the absence of evidence that BAC was the holder of the note creating the obligation. Blythe relied on the material submitted by BAC in support of this claim. Because the copy of the note filed by BAC was specifically indorsed to Countrywide Bank, FSB, not BAC, and there was nothing to indicate otherwise, BAC had failed to demonstrate that it had standing to accelerate the note and foreclose the mortgage. Thus this court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the suit for lack of standing.

This court held that a note that had been specially indorsed to a bank under R.C. 1303.25(A) could not be enforced by a loan servicing company (LSC) that was not the transferee or successor in interest of the bank. This court also held that the LSC was not the holder of the note under R.C. 1303.32(A)(1) by virtue of the merger of the bank and a national association (NA). Further, the LSC was not a non-holder in possession entitled to enforce under R.C. 1303.31 as it had not acquired the bank’s right to the note under R.C. 1303.21.

This court noted that even if the NA had filed the foreclosure suit, there was no evidence of the transaction, merger, or mergers that gave rise to an its interest in the note. Lastly, the court held that the note was not bearer paper and could only be enforced by the bank since the note was payable to the bank, as such the bank was the real party in interest in the foreclosure action. Thus the LSC lacked standing to foreclose.

Appellate Court of Illinois Awarded Summary Judgment to Plaintiff Where Defendant Failed to Show That Plaintiff was an Unlicensed Debt Collector Under the Collection Agency Act

Posted on by

The Illinois court in deciding Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Sreenan, 2013 Ill. App. (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2013) affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment for the plaintiff.

In the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff asserted that it was the legal holder and in possession of the note at issue pursuant to the assignment from PNC.

The court held that the circuit court did not err in awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff where the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was an unlicensed debt collector under the Collection Agency Act (225 ILCS 425/1 et seq.).

The court also held that there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to strike affidavits in support of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment where the affidavits were premised upon documents that qualified as “business records” under Supreme Court Rule 236 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 236).

Lastly, the court held that any error in allowing the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s affirmative defenses in the context of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was harmless.

Hawaiin Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Allegations of Fraud Against MERS and Grants Summary Judgement

Posted on by

The court in Sakugawa v. MERS et al, D. Hawaii, 1:10-cv-00028 (Feb. 25, 2011) granted summary judgment in favor of MERS. Thus rejecting the plaintiff’s accusations for fraud and claims of state law violations regarding loan origination.

The court also found that MERS was not involved in the loan origination process and was not in contact with the plaintiff regarding the transaction. Thus the court found that there was no basis to find that MERS committed any fraudulent, unfair or deceptive acts regarding the loan consummation.

The Court found that MERS was the correct mortgagee under the security instrument, thus the mortgage permitted MERS to foreclose and sell the property.

MERS Has Standing to Bring Foreclosure Action as Court Ruled There Was No Question That the Defendant-Homeowner Was the Correctly Named Party

Posted on by

In the case of Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Ventura, No. CV 054003168S, 2006 WL 1230265 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 20, 2006) the plaintiff-lender moved for summary judgment against defendants, a husband and wife, as to liability only. After review of the lender’s complaint and allegation that the husband was indebted to the lender, the court found that because the husband and quit claimed his interest in the property to the wife, she was the owner of the equity of redemption. Consequently, the wife was properly named as a party to the litigation as a defendant.

Moreover, there was no question that the named lender was the correct party to bring the action. Consequently, the lender was entitled to summary judgment as to the husband’s and the wife’s liability only.

The defendants first claimed there was a question of fact as to whether the defendant Tina Galka-Ventura was liable to MERS. However, the court determined this was not a question of fact as the plaintiff properly alleged that the defendant Joseph Ventura quitclaimed his interest to Gina. Thus, the court determined she was the owner of the equity of redemption.

Second, the defendants claimed that there was a genuine issue of material fact as whether a debt was owed to the plaintiff. The court determined that this was not a material fact. Thirdly, the defendants claimed there was material fact as to what entity is the holder of the note securing the property. The court also determined that this was not a material question.