Posted on 21 February 2011.
SFF took a challenge and wanted to see if there were any cases in past years identical to what is plaguing the court systems today. Sure enough the following cases below are ONLY a fraction of what was in store. Just imagine if someone was paying any attention to these cases, perhaps something could have changed the way the lending industry used an electronic device that without a doubt bifurcated the mortgage (deed of trust) from the note!
Same players, same tricks, years later…
Excerpt from MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. v. DUVAL 2004
The moving papers reflect that the plaintiff is not the owner of the subject mortgage nor the note for which said mortgage was given as security. Nor is the plaintiff the lender named in the note and mortgage attached the moving papers. In addition, there is no evidence that the plaintiff was the owner of the note and mortgage at the time this action was commenced by reason of assignment or otherwise. The failure to establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note and mortgage at the time of the commencement of this action precludes the granting of the instant motion since the plaintiff is unable to establish “the facts constituting the claim(s)” against the known defendants as required by CPLR 3215(f) (Kluge u Fugaqy, 145 AD2d 537,53 6 NYS2d 92; cJ, Federal National Mortgage Association v Yonkelsone, 303 AD2d 546,755 NYS2d 730).
AURORA v. FITZGERALD 2004
MERS v. BAXTER 2004
MERS v. DUVAL 2004
MERS v. EDWARDS 2004
MERS v. PALERMO 2004
MERS v. PARKER 2004
MERS v. POBLETE 2004
MERS v. SCHOENSTER 2004
Excerpt from MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. v. DELZATTO 2005
The moving papers reflect that the above named plaintiff, a/k/a MERS, is not the owner of the subject mortgage nor the note for which said mortgage was given as security. The plaintiff was not the named as the lender in either the note or mortgagee sought to be foreclosed herein. Instead, the plaintiff is identified in the mortgage indenture as a “separate corporation acting solely as nominee for the Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns” and “FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING THIS MORTGAGE, MERS IS THE MORTGAGEE OF RECORD”
Nor is there any proof that the plaintiff was the owner of the note and mortgage at the time this action was commenced by reason of assignment or otherwise. The failure to establish the plaintiffs ownership of the note and mortgage at the time of the commencement of this action precludes the granting of the instant motion since the plaintiff is unable to establish “the facts constituting the claim(s)” against the defaulting defendants as required by CPLR 3215(f) (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 5 37,536 NYS2d 92; a:, Federal National MortgageAssociation v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546,755 NYS2d 730).
Aurora v. Fitzgerald 2005
MERS v. DELZATTO 2005
MERS v. GARCIA 2005
MERS v. ROMERO 2005
MERS v. Trapani 2005
Excerpt from MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. v. RAMDOOLAR 2006
As indicated in a prior order dated December 6, 2005 (Burke, J.), the plaintiff, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., was not the owner of the note and mortgage at the titme this action was commenced. The court thus found that the plaintiffs complaint failed to state cognizable claims against the defendants (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92; see, also, Katz v East-Ville Realty Company, 249 AD2d 243, 672 NYS2d 308) and that the plaintiff was thus not entitled to the default judgment it demanded on is prior application (CPLR 3215[f1).
On the instant application, the plaintiff purportedly assigned its interest in this subject note and mortgage to an entity known as HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for MLMI Series 2005-WMC. Since, however, the plaintiff, Mortgage Electronic Services, Inc. was not the owner of the note and mortgage at the time of the purported assignment, the named assignee, HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for MLMI Series 2005-WMC, acquired no title thereto. The plaintiffs demand for substitution of said entity as the plaintiff in this action is thus denied.
In addition, a substitution of a party plaintiff, such as that demanded here, may not be accomplished by a mere caption amendment. Rather, the substitution of a new party plaintiff would require its participation by its consent andor its formal joinder in this action as contemplated by CPLR 1003 and the filing of an amended complaint by the proposed new plaintiff wherein it alleges facts which constitute cognizable claims against the defendants. Since there was no joinder of the proposed new plaintiff, by consent or service, nor was that any demand by it for leave to serve an amended complaint, the substitution of HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for MLMI‘ Series 2005-WMC as a party plaintiff would have been precluded even if a valid and recorded assignment by the owner of the note and mortgage had been attached to the moving papers.
MERS v. BIAS 2006
MERS v. Hatwood 2006
MERS v. LONG 2006
MERS v. MORRIS 2006
MERS v. RAMDOOLAR 2006
MERS v. SANFILIPPO 2006
MERS v. WELLS 2006
Excerpt from MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. v. WILLIAMS 2007
The claimant, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank as Trustee for the Home Equity Trust Series 2004- 3, purports to be the assignee, pursuant to a corporate assignment of mortgage/deed of trust executld by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), as nominee for Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC, of a certain mortgage executed by defendant-mortgagor JULIA WILLIAMS and delivered to MERS as nominee for Intervale Mortgage Corp., which mortgage is alleged to be a subordinate lien to the mortgage previously foreclosed in this action. The claimant’s submissions do not establish the chain of assignments from the original mortgagee, Intervale Mortgage Corp., and the proofs submitted by the claimant are insufficient to establish that it .s the current owner and holder of the note and mortgage that purportedly entitle it to the surplus monics deposited with the Suffolk County Treasurer. The Court notes that even if MERS has authority to assign the subject mortgage (which is not apparent from the submissions), there is no prod2fof its authority to assign the underlying note, which it apparently does not own. Since a mortgage may not be separated from the underlying debt (Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 N.Y. 44,45, 34 HOW. Pr. 129 (1 867), the issue of the claimant’s standing to claim the surplus monies is not established by the record before the Court.
EMC v. WINK-THILMAN 2007
MERS v. WILLIAMS 2007
U.S. BANK v. MOSS 2007
WELLS FARGO v. GISONDA 2007
WELLS FARGO v. GOLDEN 2007
WHOA! Don’t stop here the image below will take you to 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 cases…
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.