MERSlogo

homepage photoHomepageTagline

U.S. District Judge in Georgia rules MERS can assign security deed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS:
Janis L. Smith
Phone: 703-738-0230
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Karmela Lejarde
Phone: 703-761-1274
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reston, Virginia, December 21, 2011—The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) ruled in favor of co-defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) and Ducat 2008, L.P. in pdf Philip v. Ducat (923 KB)  and MERS, finding that MERS can hold the security deed as nominee for the lender and can assign the security deed to a third party.

U.S. District Judge Orinda Evans adopted the Nov. 18 Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. In her Dec. 13 ruling, Judge Evans agreed with Judge Hagy that Georgia law does not prohibit MERS from acting as grantee in security deeds as nominee for the lender, and that the plaintiff’s allegation that MERS lacked the authority to assign the security deed was meritless.

“MERS’ role as the nominee for the lender has been upheld by numerous state and federal courts,” said Janis Smith, MERSCORP’s Vice President of Corporate Communications. “Judge Evans’ ruling also notes that borrowers are made aware of MERS’ role at closing, and they have no standing to object to an assignment from MERS to the lender.”

“Plaintiffs do not dispute that they are not a party to the assignment contract,” Judge Hagy wrote. “Georgia law provides that ‘an action in a contract…shall be brought in the name of the party in whom the legal interest in the contract is vested, and against the party who made it in person or by agent.’ Thus, Plaintiffs ‘are strangers to the assignment contract’ and accordingly ‘have no standing to challenge its validity.’”

Judge Hagy further noted that the plaintiff’s position conflicts with the language of the security deed that permits its assignment, as well as “longstanding policy favoring the free transferability of contracts.”

###

Judge rules securitization does not invalidate a deed of trust

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS:
Janis L. Smith
Phone: 703-738-0230
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Karmela Lejarde
Phone: 703-761-1274
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reston, Virginia, December 20, 2011—In pdf Peirce v. Assurity Financial Services (77 KB) , the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, finding that under Oregon law, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) can serve as the beneficiary under the deed of trust.

In his Dec. 15 ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman rejected the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims and cited to his decision in pdf Beyer v. Bank of America (144 KB) , holding that “[t]o the extent that plaintiff argues MERS cannot serve as beneficiary under Oregon law, that claim fails as well.” He also found that GMAC Mortgage, who is the servicer and successor beneficiary, had the authority to conduct the non-judicial foreclosure sale and did not need to present the promissory note to the court, or to document all transfers of the promissory note, to foreclose under the deed of trust. Judge Mosman found no merit to the plaintiff’s claim the foreclosure was invalid because the plaintiff’s loan was securitized or because the MERS deed of trust allegedly followed the promissory note into the “debt pool.”

“Judge Mosman’s ruling upholds MERS’ role as beneficiary under the deed of trust,” said Janis Smith, MERSCORP’s Vice President of Corporate Communications. “He also rejects the idea that the securitization separates the deed of trust from the note or voids the terms of the loan.”

###

U.S. District Judge in Nevada says securitization does not invalidate MERS deed of trust

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS:
Janis L. Smith
Phone: 703-738-0230
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Karmela Lejarde
Phone: 703-761-1274
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reston, Virginia, December 12, 2011—The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruled in favor of MERSCORP in pdf Miller v. MERSCORP, Inc. (142 KB)  and found that a deed of trust naming Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as mortgagee is valid in Nevada.

In her Dec. 5 ruling, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro found that the defendants followed proper non-judicial foreclosure procedures and securitization of a loan does not invalidate the deed of trust or require a judicial foreclosure. The Court also found no merit to the defendant’s allegations that use of the MERS® System by the lenders constituted fraudulent conduct, and rejected the plaintiff’s allegations of wrongful foreclosure and conspiracy to commit fraud.

“District of Nevada Courts have repeatedly upheld MERS’ authority to administer a validly executed Deed of Trust,” Judge Navarro wrote. “[T]he authority of the MERS System to carry out foreclosures has been upheld by the courts. Plaintiff does not allege any facts that create a plausible inference of fraud related to the MERS system.”

“Judge Navarro’s ruling is consistent with earlier state and federal court decisions in Nevada that uphold MERS’ authority as mortgagee and affirm the validity of the MERS® System,” said Janis Smith, MERSCORP’s Vice President of Corporate Communications.

###

Says MERS is a valid mortgagee and mortgage plainly discloses MERS’ role to borrowers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS:
Janis L. Smith
Phone: 703-738-0230
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Karmela Lejarde
Phone: 703-761-1274
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reston, VA, Dec. 7, 2011— In a ruling this week in pdf RMS Residential Properties, LLC v. Anna M. Miller et al. (81 KB) , the Connecticut Supreme Court decided that RMS Residential Properties, LLC, with an assignment from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), had standing to foreclose after the borrower defaulted, and that MERS was a valid mortgagee at the origination of the loan, as the nominee for the original lender.

The defendant claimed that MERS, as third party, could not be named as a mortgagee because MERS was not the original lender or the party secured by the mortgage. The defendant also asked the court to declare the MERS mortgage to be void because MERS was not the owner of the debt. In an opinion written by Justice Dennis Eveleigh, the Court disagreed and held that “[t]he mortgage… plainly discloses that MERS was named mortgagee as nominee for the original lender…Accordingly, the real nature of the transaction was properly and sufficiently disclosed.” The Court also noted, “[t]he mortgage makes clear that MERS is named mortgagee by the lender. MERS holds mortgages, given in good faith for the purpose of securing a debt, for the security of creditors. To hold such mortgages void would be to frustrate the intentions of both mortgagors and mortgagees.”

“The Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision affirms that under state law MERS may serve as a mortgagee, and as the mortgagee as the nominee or agent for the lender,” said Janis Smith, MERSCORP’s vice president for corporate communications. “The Supreme Court also makes clear that naming MERS as mortgagee is not a basis for voiding a mortgage, and acknowledges that MERS’ role is plainly disclosed to borrowers in the mortgage documents they sign at closing.”

###

  • About Us

    About Us

    Today’s financial services industry depends on technological innovations to provide its customers with access to information, increased efficiency and reduced processing costs. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. owns and operates the MERS® System, a national electronic registry system that tracks the changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests in mortgage loans that are registered on the System.

    Read More
  • MERS® eRegistry

    MERS® eRegistry

    The MERS® eRegistry is essential to the eMortgage world. It is the legal system of record for identifying the Controller (holder) and Location (custodian) for the authoritative copy of a registered eNote. Lenders today are closing eNotes and selling them into the secondary market. Both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae require that Lenders register their eNotes on the MERS® eRegistry.

    white paper site

    Read More
  • Information for Homeowners

    Information for Homeowners

    Homeowners today want information about their mortgage loans. Some are facing financial hardship and are struggling with mortgage payments. Information and helpful resources are available. 

    Read More
  • Neighborhood Benefits

    Neighborhood Benefits

    Title agents, government agencies and others looking for information about mortgage loans registered on the MERS® System can use Servicer ID or MERS® Link. This public access is often used by local municipalities to identify the servicer responsible for maintaining vacant or abandoned property.

    Read More
  • Media Room

    Media Room

    The MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. Media Room provides press contact information and facts about the company and its subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). These materials are provided to help national, regional and local media better understand the companies' business model and role in the U.S. housing finance system.

    Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Home          l          Contact Us          l          Privacy Policy          l          Site Map                                                 twitterlinkedinvimeo


Copyright© 2017 by MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (800)-646-6377
Other products or company names are or may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are the property of their respective holders.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.

You are now leaving MERSCORP Holdings' website and entering an external website. MERSCORP Holdings cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a website does not constitute an endorsement by MERSCORP Holdings or any of the products presented on the site.

Click here to proceed.