LUPU v LOAN CITY, LLC | PA Dist. Court - Court Agrees Homeowners may claim as cause for Quiet Title "Violation of Pennsylvania Law" and "MERS is not a Mortgagee"

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

LUPU v LOAN CITY, LLC | PA Dist. Court – Court Agrees Homeowners may claim as cause for Quiet Title “Violation of Pennsylvania Law” and “MERS is not a Mortgagee”

LUPU v LOAN CITY, LLC | PA Dist. Court – Court Agrees Homeowners may claim as cause for Quiet Title “Violation of Pennsylvania Law” and “MERS is not a Mortgagee”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ADRIAN LUPU
Plaintiff

v.

LOAN CITY, LLC, et al.
Defendants

ORDER

excerpt:
Claims Alleging Violation of Pennsylvania Statues Requiring Recording of Mortgages Plaintiff alleges that the title to the Plaintiff’s property has been clouded through the use of MERS instead of the Chester County office of the Recorder of Deeds, which means that there is no public record of the mortgage assignments. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title to the property.

Under Pennsylvania law, as is relevant here, an action to quiet title “may be brought…to determine any right, lien, title or interest in the land or determine the validity or discharge of any document, obligation or deed affecting any right, lien, title or interest in land; [or] to compel an adverse party to file, record, cancel, surrender or satisfy of record, or admit the validity, invalidity or discharge of, any document, obligation or deed affecting any right, lien, title or interest in land….” In Montgomery County v MERSCORP, Inc., the County alleged that use of MERS and the resulting failure to record mortgage assignments with the County and to pay the required fee violates Pennsylvania’s recording statue. In denying a motion to dismiss, Chief Judge Joyner held that “Pennsylvania law permits any person in any manner interested in a conveyance, such as a mortgage assignment, to bring a quiet title action…to compel the person with this analysis and holds that Plaintiff here stated a claim under Pennsylvania law to the extent he seeks an action to quiet title, through the Counts alleging “Violation of Local Statues” (Count Five); and “MERS Not Mortgagee” (Count Six).

[…]

[ipaper docId=140716403 access_key=key-1nl5vccew1828fdh4qhm height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8683 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

2 Responses to “LUPU v LOAN CITY, LLC | PA Dist. Court – Court Agrees Homeowners may claim as cause for Quiet Title “Violation of Pennsylvania Law” and “MERS is not a Mortgagee””

  1. A family I am in contact with has been offered quiet title on their case, only if they sign a note they still owe the debt to BOA. What a crock. They have been caught with their pants down, therefore offered to settle quiet title. But no debt forgiveness. What tha? BOA and RECONTRUST and MERS of which RECONTRUST has been banned from this state of Washington and has a consent order for unlawfully foreclosing illegally in the state of WA. They seem to still be doing business in he courts. Filed for quiet title for themselves on this family in a non judicial state due to the family had agreed to do a modification and allow the forecloser to recind the foreclosure and withdraw the sale. They did not tell this family they were attempting to recind an unlawful foreclosure and ask for quiet title due to they do not own the title. The family discovered what was going on and asked for quiet title for themselves. For the bank to agree to giving them quiet title is suspicious, then tell them they wont forgive the debt Come on now. Since they refused the bank is now asking to have MERS dismissed due to statutes of limitations. They filed the claim. This is the most bazaar case I have ever seen.

  2. Dave Krieger says:

    Again people! Do your homework BEFORE filing stuff like this! Someone didn’t read the jury instructions before alleging what they did in the pleadings! You can’t do the shotgun approach on stuff like this.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives