Further,it appears that there is a conflict of interest in that MERS is both a plaintiff and defendant, at least as far as the original caption shows.
On November 7, 2007, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., (MERS), as nominee for Lend America, assigned the mortgage to Central Mortgage Company (CMC). The assignment states that November 10, 2006 mortgage was made by Defendant Caughman to MERS as nominee for Lend America.
The caption of the action lists MERS, ,as nominee for Lend America, as the plaintiff. Defendants are Sherri Caughman, MERS, as nominee for Lend America, John Doe and Jane Doe.
In this motion, plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant Caughman’s answer; the appointment of a Referee to compute the amount due and owing and the amendment of the caption. The amended caption would substitute CMC as plaintiff, in place and instead of MERS, as nominee for Lend America. In the amended caption, Sherri Caughmann would remain as a defendant, MERS, as nominee for Lend America, would be added as a defendant and Mr. Caughman and Vicki Douglas were added as defendants.
In support of its motion, plaintiff argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because it has made out a prima facie case and that defendant’s answer does not show that there are any issues of fact which would warrant denial of its motion.
Defendants, in opposing the motion, contends that MERS has no standing, as a nominee, to bring action because its status as nominee is limited and does not give it the power to transfer or assign ownership rights in property on behalf of the party for which it is acting as nominee. They add that MERS has said that it is not in possession of the original promissory note and, as such it allegations are inconsistent with its exhibits. Thus, defendants conclude, this raises issues of fact.
Continuing, defendants conted that the mortgage and note involved here were issued in Violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act in that plaintiff did not provide them with the disclosures required under 15USC1639(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) and 12 CFR 226.32. These violations, say defendants, leaves them with a “continuing right” to rescind the deal, which they claim to do in their opposition.
Upon review, defendants’ motion is granted. Neither MERS nor CMC has shown that it had the mortgage and note at the time the action was commenced. Further,it appears that there is a conflict of interest in that MERS is both a plaintiff and defendant, at least as far as the original caption shows.
The parties are directed to appear before this court on May 4, 2010 at 9:30 am for a conference.
Dated: March 23, 2010
- NY SUPREME COURT: MERS “DEVOID OF PROOF” AS NOMINEE Judge Thomas A. Adams knows exactly what he is doing!...
- MERS ‘AGENT’ PREVIOUS MTG FRAUD SCHEME| Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Folkes, 2010 NY Slip Op 32007 – NY: Supreme Court 2010 NY Slip Op 32007(U) MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,...
- MERS FAILS AS NOMINEE, AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF NOTE! NEW YORK SUPREME COURT NASSAU In support of its standing...
- NY SUPREME COURT finds RECORDING DEFECTS |Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., v. Lisser This is an action pursuant to RP APL Article 15...
- RESTRAINED |’MERS’ and any of its attorneys, agents, successors and assignees by NY SUPREME COURT Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in...