.jpg)
Can't Imagine How Many Copyright Laws I am Breaking -
The issue seems to be who has the power to issue the NOD under the
nonjudicial foreclosure statute in order to accelerate the debt, conditions
precedent to the foreclosure itself....yes?
It would be that only the lender can appoint a substitute trustee and MERS
is, of course, not the lender. This issue is not raised or addressed in
this case, according to Max Gardner.
We have a state court case in which a Judge has already indicated a
"Nominee" has no standing to do anything. Also, in Perlas v. MERS, Judge
Breyer ordered MERS to register with the CA secretary of state. In my view
this opinion can do MERS a lot of harm as it effectively equates a nominee
with an agent and that may have some very bad tidings for MERS.
This is why I always tell my clients that it's better to stop the
foreclosure before it happens than after. I hope this information proves
helpful.
2010/7/8 David A. Tilem
>
>
> *Foreclosure Is Valid Because MERS Has Power to Designate New Trustee
> under Deed of Trust, *
>
> *Even Though It Holds No Interest in Underlying Note. *
>
> A district court in California has held that MERS had the power to
> designate a new trustee under a deed of trust (thus validating the
> designee's foreclosure), even though neither MERS nor the designee held any
> interest in the underlying promissory note. [*Lane vs. Vitek Real Estate
> Industries Group*, 2010 Westlaw 1956707 (E.D. Cal.).]
>
> * **Facts*: Two borrowers filed suit against their mortgage
> lenders and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"),
> claiming that the defendants had wrongfully conducted a nonjudicial
> foreclosure sale of the borrowers' home. MERS had been initially designated
> as the "nominal beneficiary" under the deed of trust and had then executed a
> substitution of trustee in favor of another entity, following the borrowers'
> default.
>
> As part of the borrowers' wrongful foreclosure claim, they
> asserted that the foreclosure was improper because none of the parties to
> the foreclosure were beneficiaries of the underlying note and instead held
> interests in the deed of trust. MERS moved to dismiss that aspect of the
> borrowers' claim.
>
> * **Reasoning*: The court ruled in favor of MERS, holding that MERS
> and its assignees could foreclose on the deed of trust, even though MERS
> held no interest in the underlying note:
>
> Under California Civil Code section 2924(a)(1), a trustee, mortgagee or
> beneficiary or any of their authorized agents may conduct the foreclosure
> process. Under California Civil Code section 2924b(4), a person authorized
> to record the notice of default or the notice of sale includes > for the mortgagee or beneficiary, an agent of the named trustee, any person
> designated in an executed substitution of trustee, or an agent of that
> substituted trustee. . . . . There is no stated requirement in
> California's nonjudicial foreclosure scheme that requires a beneficial
> interest in the Note to foreclose. Rather, the statute broadly allows a
> trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or any of their agents to initiate
> nonjudicial foreclosure. Accordingly, the statute does not require a
> beneficial interest in both the Note and the Deed of Trust to commence a
> nonjudicial foreclosure sale.
>
> This interpretation is consistent with the rulings of this court, along
> with many others, that MERS has standing to foreclose as the nominee for the
> lender and beneficiary of the Deed of Trust and may assign its beneficial
> interest to another party.
>
> AUTHOR'S COMMENT: Although there is some disagreement across the country
> on this issue (see below), the emerging trend in California is to validate
> the role of MERS as a nominee. The court in* **Lane* relied primarily
> upon the wording of the statute to reach that result. However, Stephen Dyer
> (one of my four co-authors of* **California Real Estate Finance*) has
> alerted me to a possible contractual glitch resulting from Paragraph 24 of
> the standardize Freddie Mac form, used throughout California, which
> provides: "Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor
> trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and
> acknowledged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the
> county in which the Property is located . . . . This procedure for
> substitution of trustee shall govern to the exclusion of all other
> provisions for substitution." [Source:
> http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/doc/3 ... fTrust.doc.]
>
> The problem, of course, is that MERS is not identified as the
> "lender" in that form, and the "lender" is defined as the originating lender
> itself. Therefore, although the statute would appear to empower an agent
> (such as MERS) to execute a substitution of trustee, the current wording of
> the contract itself seems more restrictive, empowering no one other than the
> originating lender to execute a substitution of trustee.
>
> Ideally, the Freddie Mac form should be amended to make it clear that MERS
> is authorized to appoint a successor. Admittedly, an amendment would not
> retroactively solve the problem under the existing documentation. My guess
> is that if a California court were presented with this contractual argument,
> the court would probably use the wording of the statute to empower MERS, as
> the agent of the lender, to act on its behalf, even if the document itself
> did not say so. The only caveat is that there are a few bankruptcy courts,
> primarily in Southern California, that have subjected MERS transactions to
> very strict scrutiny; those courts might not rescue the lender from the
> effect of the Freddie Mac language.
>
> For discussions of other cases involving MERS and its standing as an agent
> or nominee, see:
>
> -- 2009* **Comm. Fin. News.* 103, Assignee of Mortgage Lacks Standing to
> Foreclose Because Assignee Failed to Show That MERS Assigned Underlying
> Promissory Note, Along with Mortgage.
>
> -- 2009* **Comm. Fin. News.* 72, Senior Lienholder's Failure to Give
> Notice of Foreclosure to MERS Did Not Affect Validity of Senior's
> Foreclosure Because MERS Was Merely a Nominee.
>
> -- 2009* **Comm. Fin. News.* 59, Assignees of Mortgages Cannot Enforce
> Unendorsed Notes in Their Possession Because MERS Documentation Does Not
> Expressly Authorize Assignment of Notes.
>
> *These materials were written by Professor Dan Schechter of Loyola Law
> School for his Commercial Finance Newsletter, published weekly on Westlaw.
> Westlaw holds the copyright on these materials and has permitted the
> Insolvency Law Committee to reprint them.*
>
> *David A. Tilem*
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist** *
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
>
> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
> Specialization.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
>
>
>
>
>
>
Best Regards,
Christine A. Wilton
Principal Attorney
Greifendorff Law Offices
333 City Boulevard West, 17th Floor
Orange, CA 92686
Office: 800-861-0786
Cell: 562-824-7563
Fax: 714-938-3255
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Web: www.greifenlaw.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************
Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
The issue seems to be who has the power to issue the NOD under the nonjudicial foreclosure statute in order to accelerate the debt, conditions precedent to the foreclosure itself....yes?
It would be that only the lender can appoint a substitute trustee and MERS is, of course, not the lender. This issue is not raised or addressed in this case, according toMax Gardner.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.