Editor: David Reiss
Brooklyn Law School

March 3, 2014

United States District Court Rejects Show-me-the-Note Theory and SpIit-the-Note Theory Claims

By Ebube Okoli

In deciding McWright v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180500 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2013) the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas rejected the plaintiff’s claims.

In her complaint, plaintiff raised the following causes of action: (1) violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (2) Negligence, (3) Fraud, (4) Declaratory relief, and (5) Quiet Title. Because many of these claims were premised upon unfounded legal theories, the court first addressed the underlying theories before turning to the merits of each of plaintiff’s claims. In addressing the plaintiff’s claims the court uniformly rejected them.

Plaintiff unsuccessfully contended that defendants were required to show proof that they are the holder of the note prior to foreclosing on the property. However, the court noted that this “show-me-the-note” theory has been regularly rejected and would so be in this case as well.

To the extent plaintiff argued that MERS lacked the authority to transfer the loan, the court found that such an argument similarly fails. Moreover, the court denied the remaining plaintiff’s claims as lacking merit.

| Permalink