MERSCORP Holdings Launches Monthly Corporate Developments Release

May 2012 News Summary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Jason Lobo
Phone: 703-652-1660
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Reston, Virginia, June 8, 2012—As part of an ongoing effort to inform stakeholders and members of the media about the judicial landscape relating to cases involving either the use of the MERS® System database or Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), we will be compiling a monthly summary of major legal decisions relevant to the companies’ role in the mortgage process. Please feel free to contact MERSCORP Holdings This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with any questions and visit the Newsroom for a full list of news releases.

Florida

• U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Federal RICO Lawsuit against MERS and Mortgage Lenders, May 15, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“‘Figueroa was a state-court loser in his state court foreclosure proceeding,’ the Court of Appeals wrote in its May 11, 2012, Order. ‘Figueroa raised many of the same fraud claims that now underlie his federal RICO claims and asserted that he intended to file a counterclaim for damages under the federal RICO statute. Although Figueroa failed to litigate his RICO claims in state court, he had a reasonable opportunity to do so.’”

Idaho

• Idaho Court Affirms MERS’ Role in Deed of Trust, May 7, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“‘The Court finds no ambiguity in the deed of trust as to MERS’ status as a beneficiary, and not a trustee,’ wrote Judge Tingey. ‘The language relied upon by Plaintiff, that ‘. . .MERS holds legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument ...’ does not transfer legal title, but simply confirms that MERS’ interest in the deed is derivative of the interests of the lender, as given by the borrower.’”

Kansas

• U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Affirms MERS’ Role As Mortgagee in Kansas, May 3, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“Judge Berger’s rulings in In re Van Nostrand,In re Huerter and In re Wilkinson found that there was no splitting of the mortgage and note because MERS held the mortgage on behalf of the note owner. ‘The MERS system has been scrutinized and analyzed by other courts, and, provided MERS can produce a complete evidentiary record, its system has been upheld as a valid way to hold and enforce promissory notes secured by mortgages and deeds of trust.’”

Michigan

• Federal Appellate Court Affirms Validity of MERS Assignment, May 31, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“The Sixth Circuit Court judges held that the borrower’s argument regarding the separation of the note and mortgage failed because ‘Michigan courts have upheld the validity of MERS mortgages, most recently in Residential Funding Co. v. Saurman.’”

Nevada

• Judge Rejects False Claims Act Allegations Against MERS, May 14, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“Judge Josey-Herring noted that Mr. Bates sought – and the Court denied – permission for what would have been his 'fourth bite at the apple' by seeking to file yet another amended complaint to “remedy whatever flaws the Court finds in the Second Amended Complaint…’”

New York

• New York Courts Clear-up Law Regarding MERS Assignments, May 21, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“According to the Court’s May 15, 2012, Decision and Order in Rivas under New York law ‘[a] plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note…prior to the commencement of the action.’”

• New York Appellate Court Affirms Validity of MERS Assignment, May 25, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“Justice Suarez found that the mortgage was validly assigned to Bank of New York because ‘Plaintiff has shown that the mortgage contract conferred broad powers upon MERS as nominee to act on the original lender’s behalf.’”

Oregon

• Favorable Federal Rulings in Oregon Increasing for MERS, May 1, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“Judge Hogan wrote, ‘In fact, the majority of Oregon trial courts have concluded that because MERS is named in the trust deed as a beneficiary, it is a beneficiary as defined by Oregon statutes.’”

• Oregon Judges Rule that MERS is a Proper Beneficiary under the State's Deed of Trust Act, May 21, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“In Whitmore, Judge Mosman ruled ‘[b]ecause plaintiff’s first claim, second claim, and part of his third claim are based on the premise that MERS is not a valid ‘beneficiary’ under the OTDA and/or that defendants must record assignments of the promissory note, I dismiss these claims for failure to state a claim.’”

Texas

• Federal Court in Texas Finds for MERS, May 18, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“In Kramer v. Fannie Mae, et al, Judge Sparks noted – citing established Texas law – that a borrower cannot challenge a mortgage assignment to which he is not a party. A survey of ‘Texas federal district court opinions reveals substantial consensus that Kramer lacks standing to challenge an assignment to which he is not a party. Here, the deed of trust granted broad authority to MERS, including, but not limited to, the authority to conduct a foreclosure sale on behalf of the lender,’ Judge Sparks wrote.”

• Texas Court of Appeals Says MERS is Recognized Beneficiary under Texas Law, May 22, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“‘Under Texas law, where, as here, a deed of trust expressly grants MERS the power of sale, then MERS has that power,’ he wrote. ‘MERS had the authority to transfer the rights and interests in the deed of trust to Wells Fargo. When MERS transferred the deed of trust to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo obtained all MERS’s rights and interests in the deed of trust, including the power to foreclose on the property.’”

Washington

• Federal Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Finds for MERS, May 2, 2012 (Read the full release here.)

“In Thomas v. Saxon Mortgage Services, the panel noted that Thomas’ ‘argument that MERS could not serve as the beneficiary of a deed of trust under Washington law has been rejected by both federal district courts in Washington.’”

For descriptions of cases and other materials pertaining to MERS’ role and business model in U.S. housing, please visit www.mersinc.org.

###

MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. is a privately held corporation that owns and manages the MERS® System and all other MERS® products. It is a member-based organization made up of about 3,000 lenders, servicers, sub-servicers, investors and government institutions. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) serves as the mortgagee in the land records for loans registered on the MERS® System, and is a nominee (or agent) for the owner of the promissory note. The MERS® System is a national electronic database that tracks changes in mortgage servicing and beneficial ownership interests in residential mortgage loans on behalf of its members.