UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
* * * * * * * *

MARLYA DEPAUW and SHARON & TERRANCE LAFRANCE, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Individuals Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,

v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
c/o The Corporation Trust Company,
as Statutory Agent
Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange Street
New Castle, DE 19801,
Defendant.

Case Number: 2:11-cv-12032

JUDGE:
Magistrate Judge:

______________________________________________________________________________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL ENDORSED HEREON

EXCERPT:

16. In many of the actions filed by MERS, mortgagor homeowners responded by filing pleadings arguing that MERS did not have the capacity to foreclose by advertisement as they did not own or have any interest in the underlying indebtedness.

17. In response to these challenges, MERS would normally answer by providing confusing loan documents and claiming an interest in the underlying debt, even though they knew this was not true and that they were not complying with the requirements of MCL 600.3201, et seq.

18. Even in the face of these challenges, MERS did, and continued for a period of years, to knowingly, fraudulently and illegally foreclose using a State law upon which they had no authority or right to utilize.

19. In these cases, MERS lacked the authority to foreclose by advertisement pursuant to MCL 600.3201, et seq., as MERS was never either the owner of the underlying indebtedness or loan and was not the servicing agent of the mortgage.

20. On April 21, 2011, the State of Michigan, Court of Appeals in the consolidated case of Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Gerald Saurman, (Residential Funding Co, LLC v. Saurman, 290248, 291443 (MICA)), issued a ruling stating in pertinent part that in cases where MERS did not own the underlying indebtedness, did not own an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, or did not service the mortgage, MERS was therefore unable to comply with the statutory requirements of MCL 600.3201(1)(d), and subsequently had no right to foreclose by advertisement.

21. The Court of Appeals continued, and ruled that in those such cases where MERS did foreclose by advertisement upon the foregoing conditions rendered those foreclosure proceedings void ab initio.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=55154803 access_key=key-bpb1wcaawkzt44d8izs height=600 width=600 /]