REUTERS-

The key paragraph in Manhattan federal judge William Pauley III‘s 21-page ruling Wednesday in Bank of America’s proposed $8.5 billion settlement with Countrywide mortgage-backed-securities investors is the last one.

“The settlement agreement at issue here implicates core federal interests in the integrity of nationally chartered banks and the vitality of the national securities markets,” Pauley wrote. “A controversy touching on these paramount federal interests should proceed in federal court.”

[REUTERS]

[ipaper docId=69693820 access_key=key-1bjhx7e5mnwtbtofqs0d height=600 width=600 /]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

WEKESA O. MADZIMOYO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., f.k.a. The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC,
MCCURDY & CANDLER, LLC,
ANTHONY DEMARLO, Attorney,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 7, 2011)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Wekesa Madzimoyo, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants. Because we conclude that
the district court lacked removal jurisdiction, we vacate and remand.

In July 2009, Madzimoyo filed an emergency petition in state court seeking
a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop foreclosure proceedings on his home
by defendants Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, JP Morgan Chase Bank,
McCurdy & Candler, and attorney Anthony DeMarlo. According to the petition,
none of the defendants was the original lender and there was no evidence that the
original lender had transferred its rights to any defendant. In support of his
petition, Madzimoyo submitted correspondence sent to the defendants in which he
sought to verify their rights over the mortgage. Some of the correspondence
referenced the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA) and Regulation Z, the
Truth-in-Lending regulations. The state court issued the TRO and scheduled a
hearing on the petition to stop the foreclosure.

The day before the scheduled hearing in state court, the defendants removed
the petition to federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia, asserting
federal-question jurisdiction because Madzimoyo had alleged violations of the
FDCPA and Regulation Z. Madzimoyo moved to remand to state court, disputing
that he raised any basis for federal jurisdiction.

The magistrate judge denied the motion to remand, finding that
Madzimoyo’s petition raised federal questions under the FDCPA and Regulation
Z. The defendants then moved for judgment on the pleadings. In a brief in
support of the motion, the defendants argued that the FDCPA and Regulation Z
claims failed because Madzimoyo had not alleged any violation of these statutes.
The magistrate judge recommended that the motion for judgment on the
pleadings be granted. The district court adopted the recommendation, over
Madzimoyo’s objections, and granted judgment on the pleadings. This appeal
followed.

On appeal, both parties address the merits of the order granting judgment on
the pleadings, and there is no discussion of the district court’s jurisdiction over
Madzimoyo’s action. Nevertheless, we are “obliged to notice any lack of
jurisdiction regardless of whether the question is raised by the parties themselves.”
Edge v. Sumter Cnty. Sch. Dist., 775 F.2d 1509, 1513 (11th Cir. 1985).

We review questions of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Romero v.
Drummond Co., 552 F.3d 1303, 1313 (11th Cir. 2008). We consider sua sponte
whether the district court had removal jurisdiction. Cotton v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins.
Co., 402 F.3d 1267, 1280 (11th Cir. 2005).

Under the removal statute:
Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction
founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or
laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the
citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be
removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and
served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is
brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). In other words, to be removable on federal-question
jurisdiction grounds, the case must arise under federal law. See Merrell Dow
Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 807-08 (1986). The “well-pleaded
complaint” rule instructs that a case does not arise under federal law unless a
federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. Id. at 808;
Kemp v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 109 F.3d 708, 712 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 11 (1983)).

A federal question is presented by the complaint when the suit relies on a
federal cause of action or where “the vindication of a right under state law
necessarily turned on some construction of federal law.” See Merrell Dow, 478
U.S. at 808. Under this latter analysis, federal question jurisdiction should be
narrowly construed. See id. at 810-14. “[T]he mere presence of a federal issue in
a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction,”
even where the interpretation of federal law may constitute an element of the state
cause of action. Id. at 813. More recently, the Supreme Court fashioned another
test for deciding whether federal courts should exercise federal question
jurisdiction over removed state court proceedings: “does a state-law claim
necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a
federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved
balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal
Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). “If the plaintiff
elects to bring only state law causes of action in state court, no federal question
will appear in the complaint that could satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule, and
the case may not be removed to federal court.” Kemp, 109 F.3d at 712.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court should not
have exercised federal-question jurisdiction upon the removal of this case.
Although Madzimoyo’s petition referenced federal laws in passing, none of his
causes of action relied on even the interpretation of federal law. Rather,
Madzimoyo merely asserted that he requested his loan information from the
mortgage companies in accordance with federal law to show that he had acted
diligently and merited state relief. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the
district court and remand with instructions that the district court remand the
proceeding to the state court.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

[ipaper docId=66347058 access_key=key-v4vyt62h3kei1952mcn height=600 width=600 /]

If your trust is listed in the initial Notice of Petition to Intervene complaint, I highly recommend you go to the court house and make sure your last page to the “Note”, which was filed is still there :)’

REUTERS-

On Wednesday night, Grais & Ellsworth filed a 29-page brief laying out its arguments for why Bank of America’s proposed $8.5 billion settlement with Countrywide mortgage-backed securities investors belongs in federal court, not in New York state court, where Bank of New York Mellon, as Countrywide MBS trustee, filed it. I’ll talk about Grais’s assertions in a moment, but first, I want to explain why the jurisdictional question is so crucial to the ultimate fate of BofA’s proposed deal. Two transcripts tell that tale.

BNY Mellon, you’ll recall, used a highly unusual device when it asked for court approval of the proposed $8.5 billion settlement in late June. The bank filed the case as an Article 77 proceeding in New York state supreme court, taking advantage of a state law that permits trustees to seek a judge’s endorsement of their decisions. Using Article 77 was a deliberate tactic by BNY Mellon, BofA, and the 22 institutional investors who support the settlement. The lawyers who put together the deal considered and rejected other possible vehicles for court approval, but decided that Article 77 was the fastest, cleanest way to resolve claims involving 530 separate trusts. The provision, which is usually invoked in garden-variety trust cases, gives broad discretion to trustees, who are generally assumed to be acting in the best interests of trust beneficiaries.

[REUTERS]

[ipaper docId=65147199 access_key=key-xgf1cneraqs9rtqpie7 height=600 width=600 /]

To preview the case check out OHIO APPEALS COURT AFFIRMS “NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE” U.S. BANK v. DUVALL

Be sure to listen to audio for the latest SURPRISING TWIST!

WKSU–

The Ohio Supreme Court is getting ready to take on what some are calling the biggest issue in state foreclosure law in a century. The question before the justices is what paperwork does a lender need to force an owner out of his home? For Ohio Public Radio, WCPN’s Mhari Saito reports that what the state’s justices decide could have huge implications for the financial services industry.

[WKSU]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

[…]

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETRA MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING LP; BANK OF AMERICA,
RECONTRUST COMPANY N.A.; and
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2011
San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ST. EVE, District Judge.**

In this appeal, Petra Martinez contends that the district court erroneously
granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. As the facts and procedural
history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to
explain our disposition. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in part and reverse it in part.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See
Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir. 2011).
In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, and determine both whether any genuine dispute as to any material fact
exists and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law. See id.

In her Complaint, Martinez brought a number of causes of action against
Defendants based on their alleged role in foreclosing on a property over which she
held a mortgage interest. The relevant causes of action were to quiet title, for an
accounting, for tortious violation of statute (the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act), for unfair competition, for unfair debt-collection practices, for declaratory
relief, for slander of title, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for
negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Although the district court separately analyzed each of these causes of
action, as well as two implicit “overarching claims” of a “right to initiate
foreclosure proceeding[s]” and “deficient notice,” Martinez abandons all but two

of them on appeal. Specifically, in her opening brief, Martinez only addresses her
claim under California Civil Code Section 2923.5 (though her Complaint does not
identify it as a discrete cause of action) and her action to quiet title on the basis that
Defendants lacked authorization to carry out the foreclosure. She either ignores or
gives mere passing reference to her other causes of action, and so she has waived
them. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
United States v. Williamson, 439 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2006)); Rattlesnake
Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 509 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2007).

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Defendants on Martinez’s Section 2923.5 claim. Although a private right of action
exists under this section, the remedy “is a simple postponement of the foreclosure
sale, nothing more.” Mabry v. Superior Court, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201, 204 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2010). It follows that a claim under Section 2923.5 necessarily fails if a
foreclosure sale has occurred. See Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC,
126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 174, 185-86 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). Defendants observe that the
relevant property was sold in foreclosure on April 28, 2010, and Martinez concedes
this fact in her reply. Martinez’s Section 2923.5 claim therefore fails.

The final issue concerns Martinez’s quiet-title claim. The district court
granted summary judgment to Defendants on this claim because “[u]ndisputed
facts show that plaintiff has an outstanding loan on the property, and that
defendant BNYM [Bank of New York Mellon] holds the promissory note. Plaintiff cannot
quiet the title until she repays the mortgage.” It is generally true that, in California,
“‘an action to set aside a trustee’s sale for irregularities in sale notice or procedure
should be accompanied by an offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the
property was security.’” Ferguson v. Avelo Mortg., L.L.C., 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 586,
591 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Arnolds Mgmt. Corp. v. Eischen, 205 Cal. Rptr.
15, 17 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)). In the present case, however, Martinez has alleged
that the purported trustee, ReconTrust Company, N.A. (“ReconTrust”), had no
interest in the subject property and thus lacked authorization to attempt, or effect, a
nonjudicial foreclosure. If Martinez were to prove this allegation, the foreclosure
sale would be void under California law. See Dimock v. Emerald Props., L.L.C.,
97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255, 261-63 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). The tender rule does not apply
to a void, as opposed to a voidable, foreclosure sale. See Ferguson, 126 Cal. Rptr.
3d at 592; Dimock, 97 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 262-63; 4 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate §
10:212 (3d ed.).

There would have been no error if Defendants had introduced admissible
evidence establishing that there is no genuine dispute that ReconTrust was
authorized to carry out the foreclosure sale, such that the sale was not void. Cf.,e.g.,
Ferguson, 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 595 (distinguishing Dimock and holding that
trustee’s sale conducted by authorized party is “merely voidable,” not void). In
moving for summary judgment, however, Defendants relied on documents attached
to declarations including those of Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, George Merziotis, and
Eva Tapia. Martinez, in opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
filed evidentiary objections to these declarations, which the district court overruled
without explanation. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
doing so.

A declarant must lay a proper foundation for evidence considered on
summary judgment. Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1224 (9th Cir. 2007). For
documentary evidence submitted on summary judgment, however, “a proper
foundation need not be established through personal knowledge but can rest on any
manner permitted by Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b) or 902.” Secs. & Exch.
Comm’n v. Phan, 500 F.3d 895, 913 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Orr v. Bk. of Am., NT
& SA, 285 F.3d 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2002)). Put differently, “[t]he documents must
be authenticated and attached to a declaration wherein the declarant is the ‘person
through whom the exhibits could be admitted into evidence.’” Bias, 508 F.3d at
1224 (quoting Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542,
1551 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Lui-Kwan sought to introduce title documents, a variety of deeds, notices,
and other evidence relevant to the present case. His declaration presents numerous
authentication problems. First, he declared that he had reviewed title documents
that “appear” to have been recorded with the Monterey County Recorder’s office.
Second, he obtained copies of the relevant documents from private websites, which
are not self-authenticating. Cf. United States v. Salcido, 506 F.3d 729, 733 (9th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam); United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000).

Defendants nevertheless argue that “[a] majority of the exhibits are
documents recorded with the Monterey County Recorder bearing an official stamp
for the date and time of the recording as well as a document number . . . and, as
such, are self-authenticating[.]” The attached documents, however, are not
originals, but are copies, and therefore are not self-authenticating. Compare
United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) with United States
v. Hampton, 464 F.3d 687, 689 (7th Cir. 2006). Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4),
which governs “certified copies of public records,” requires the custodian or other
authorized person to certify that the copies are correct. Fed. R. Evid. 902(4).
Defendants failed to satisfy this requirement.

Defendants similarly failed to authenticate the documents attached to
Tapia’s declaration, which claim to be true and correct copies of documents
concerning Martinez’s loan and the Defendants’ corporate relationships. Tapia
asserted her “understanding” and “familiar[ity]” with the stated facts in a
conclusory manner that fails to establish her personal knowledge about the relevant
events and documents. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 890 (9th Cir. 2008); Bank
Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, the
documents attached to her declaration are not admissible as “[c]ertified domestic
records of regularly conducted activity,” Fed. R. Evid. 902(11), because the
declaration contains no certification that ReconTrust made the records at or near
the time of the occurrence of the relevant matters, that it kept the records in the
course of a regularly conducted activity, or that it made the records by the regularly
conducted activity as a regular practice. Because Tapia failed to lay a foundation
for her personal knowledge about the documents, her testimony is not adequate
extrinsic evidence from “a witness who wrote it, signed it, used it, or saw others do
so” to establish admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1). Orr, 285
F.3d at 774 n.8 (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants therefore failed to
authenticate the documents attached to Tapia’s declaration, and Tapia’s nondocumentary
factual assertions fail to meet the personal knowledge requirement of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(1) (2009).

For the same reasons, we find that the documentary exhibits and factual assertions of
George Merziotis—to the extent that they are even relevant to the remaining
cause of action—fail to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)
and the associated rules of evidence.

In light of these evidentiary problems, Defendants failed to introduce
sufficient admissible evidence to establish that the foreclosure sale was valid. We
therefore reverse as to Martinez’s quiet-title claim and remand to the district court
for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. Because the sole
remaining claim is founded on state law, we invite the district court to consider
whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

[ipaper docId=62465221 access_key=key-kh9cm2cs52hqf1t4sif height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4221-09T3

BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWALT
2004 26T1,
Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SARAH G. LAKS and EDWARD
EINHORN, her husband,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
___________________________________
Submitted May 23, 2011 – Decided August 8, 2011

EXCERPTS:

The defendants in an action to foreclose a residential mortgage appeal from the denial of their motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting that relief.

[…]

Laks missed her May 2008 payment on the note and every monthly payment thereafter. On August 13, Countrywide Home Loans,3 plaintiff’s loan servicer, sent a notice of intention to foreclose to Laks by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice of intention recited that Countrywide was acting on behalf of the owner of Laks’s promissory note, without identifying the owner. The notice of intention also warned that if Laks did not pay $21,279.64 to Countrywide within 30 days, then Laks’s noteholder, again not identified, would institute foreclosure proceedings against her. The notice concluded by advising Laks that if she did not agree that default had occurred or if she disputed the amount required to cure her default, she could contact Countrywide at an address and telephone number stated in the notice. Nowhere on the notice was Laks informed that plaintiff was the owner of her promissory note nor was she given plaintiff’s address. Three days before the foreclosure complaint was filed, MERS assigned Laks and Einhorn’s mortgage to plaintiff.

[…]

Thus, compliance with this notice provision is, in effect, a condition the lender must satisfy in order to either “accelerate the maturity of any residential mortgage obligation” or “commence any foreclosure or other legal action to take possession of the residential property which is the subject of the mortgage.” N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(a). In fact, with narrow exceptions inapplicable here, “[c]ompliance with [N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56] shall be set forth in the pleadings of any legal action” to foreclose a residential mortgage. N.J.S.A. 2A:50- 56(f). The notice of intention must include specific information “state[d] in a manner calculated to make the debtor aware of the situation[.]” N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c).5 The information the Legislature has deemed essential to the Act’s purpose includes:

“the particular obligation or real estate security interest”; “the nature of the default claimed”; the debtor’s right to cure the default; what the debtor must do to cure; and the date by which it must be done to avoid the filing of a foreclosure complaint. N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(1)-(5). The notice also must advise the debtor of the consequences of a failure to cure —specifically, that the lender may take steps to terminate the debtor’s ownership of the property by filing a foreclosure action and that the debtor will be required to pay the lender’s court costs and counsel fees if the debtor does not cure.
N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(6)-(7). In addition to the foregoing information about rights, responsibilities and consequences, the Legislature has determined that the notice of intention must include three items of information that are best characterized as helpful to a debtor interested in curing default. The first two are advice to seek counsel from an attorney — including references to the New Jersey Bar Association, Lawyer Referral Service and Legal Services — and a list of programs providing assistance for those seeking to cure default. N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(9)-(10). The third, and the one critical in this case, is “the name and address of the lender and the telephone number of a representative of the lender whom the debtor may contact if the 9 A-4221-09T3 debtor disagrees with the lender’s assertion that a default has occurred or the correctness of the mortgage lender’s calculation of the amount required to cure default.” N.J.S.A. 2A:50- 56(c)(11).

There is no question that the notice of intention mailed to Laks did not provide the name or address of the lender as required by subsection (c)(11). The notice of intention named no entity other than the mortgage servicer, Countrywide.

[…]

[ipaper docId=61908065 access_key=key-1zd2neascm8dxsn37rbr height=600 width=600 /]

NOTICE: The slip opinions and orders posted on this Web site are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. This preliminary material will be removed from the Web site once the advance sheets of the Official Reports are published. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

BANK OF NEW YORK, trustee, [FN1]

vs.

KC BAILEY.

SJC-10801.

April 4, 2011. – August 4, 2011.

Summary Process. Housing Court, Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, Housing Court, Summary process. Real Property, Record title. Mortgage, Foreclosure. Practice, Civil, Summary process, Summary judgment.

SUMMARY PROCESS. Complaint filed in the Boston Division of the Housing Court Department on January 13, 2009.

The case was heard by Mary Lou Muirhead, J., on a motion for summary judgment.

The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.

Jennifer Tarr (H. Esme Caramello with her) for the defendant.

Peter Guaetta (Victor Manougian with him) for the plaintiff.

Pamela S. Kogut, for Chelsea Collaborative & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

Ilana Gelfman, Richard M.W. Bauer, Nadine Cohen, & Ann Jochnick, for City Life/Vida Urbana, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, & Duffly, JJ.

DUFFLY, J.

The question we address in this case is whether the Housing Court has jurisdiction to decide the validity of a challenge to a title, raised by a former homeowner as a defense to a summary process eviction action by a party acquiring the property pursuant to a foreclosure sale. The plaintiff, Bank of New York (BNY), asserts that it acquired title to the home of the defendant, KC Bailey, pursuant to foreclosure proceedings. [FN2] Seeking to evict Bailey, BNY filed an action for summary process pursuant to G.L. c. 239, § 1. Bailey’s answer to the complaint alleged, among other claims and defenses, that BNY was not the owner because the sale was not in compliance with the foreclosure statute, due to defective notice, and the deed was thus void. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 646 (2011). In its motion for summary judgment, BNY argued that the Housing Court lacked jurisdiction to address the claim raised by Bailey’s defense, and that it had made out a prima facie claim for superior possession by virtue of the deed, a copy of which was attached to the complaint. The motion judge agreed; she allowed BNY’s motion, and entered summary judgment in favor of BNY. Bailey appealed from that judgment and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. Because we conclude that the Housing Court has jurisdiction to consider the validity of the plaintiff’s title as a defense to a summary process action after a foreclosure sale pursuant to G.L. c. 239, § 1, we vacate the allowance of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

1. Background and prior proceedings. In 2005, Bailey obtained a mortgage on a home on West Selden Street in the Mattapan section of Boston, a home he had owned and in which he had lived since 1979. The mortgage was obtained from an entity identified as “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (‘MERS’), solely as nominee for the Lender (America’s Wholesale Lender)” (MERS as “nominee” [FN3]). The record reflects that on March 6, 2007, proceedings for foreclosure by sale were instituted by MERS as “nominee,” and that MERS as “nominee” was the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale. [FN4] Bailey asserts that on March 26, 2007, he discovered that a notice to evict had been affixed by duct tape to the fence surrounding his West Selden Street property.

[FN5] He thereafter filed an action against MERS as “nominee” in the Superior Court seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale. That complaint eventually was dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect timely service. No further description of the Superior Court proceedings is necessary to an understanding of the issues before us, or the context in which they arose.

Returning to the circumstances that led to this Housing Court action, Bailey asserts that he received no notice of, and was unaware of, the sale by foreclosure that took place on March 6, 2007. [FN6] On December 30, 2008, BNY served Bailey with a notice of its intention to terminate his occupancy. When Bailey failed to vacate the property, BNY instituted the underlying action in the Housing Court and, on January 9, 2009, served Bailey with a summary process (eviction) summons. Bailey answered the summary process complaint, alleging in part that his home was “foreclosed without legally sufficient notice under [G.L. c. 244, § 17B.]” [FN7] Bailey asserted in his answer that he had received all personal, business, and legal correspondence for over thirty years at his United States post office box, the same post office box to which all previous correspondence regarding his mortgage had been sent; but he had received at that post office box no notice of an impending foreclosure.

[FN8] Thereafter, BNY filed its motion for summary judgment, claiming that MERS as “nominee” had assigned to BNY the note and the mortgage; that on Bailey’s default BNY had, on March 6, 2007, foreclosed; that BNY was the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale; and that BNY had served Bailey with a notice to quit and a summary process complaint and summons. [FN9] In a memorandum opposing the motion, Bailey contended that BNY’s “ownership” of Bailey’s home “remains in dispute, because notice of the foreclosure sale … was legally insufficient.” Concluding that Bailey’s challenge to the validity of the foreclosure was not within the Housing Court’s jurisdiction, the judge allowed BNY’s motion. The judge reasoned that “[t]he only issue before the [c]ourt is whether the [p]laintiff is entitled to possession,” and because BNY showed that “its deed was recorded prior to the service of the [n]otice to [q]uit,” BNY had established a prima face case for possession.

2. Discussion. We review a decision to grant summary judgment de novo. See Ritter v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., 439 Mass. 214, 215 (2003). “The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120 (1991).

a. Subject matter jurisdiction. [FN10] That the Housing Court has jurisdiction over summary process actions pursuant to G.L. c. 239 is not in dispute. The Housing Court may hear summary process actions brought by those who acquire ownership of property via foreclosure by sale. See G.L. c. 185C, § 3. See also Bech v. Cuevas, 404 Mass. 249 (1989); Duggan v. Gonsalves, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 250, 254 n. 6 (2005) (Housing Court has appropriate jurisdiction over summary process action pursuant to G.L. c. 185C, § 3); Metropolitan Credit Union v. Matthes, 46 Mass.App.Ct. 326, 330 (1999); Commentary to Rule 1 of the Uniform Summary Process Rules, Mass. Ann. Laws Court Rules 705 (LexisNexis 2010-2011) (“Four Departments of the Massachusetts Trial Court have jurisdiction over summary process actions [Superior Court, District Court, Boston Municipal Court and Housing Court]”).

The question, as stated above, is whether, in the course of a summary process action brought in the Housing Court by a party acquiring the property pursuant to a foreclosure by sale, the judge may consider the former homeowner’s defense that the plaintiff’s title is invalid because the foreclosure was not conducted strictly according to the statute. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 646 (2011). The answer to this question is informed by the historical context of the action for summary process.

Although the Housing Court has only been in existence since 1972, see G.L. c. 185A, inserted by St.1971, c. 843, §§ 1, 27, summary process is a long-standing cause of action. The current summary process statute, G.L. c. 239, § 1, derives from the “summary remedy” statute that has its roots in the beginning of the Eighteenth Century in the Province Laws 1700-1701. See Page v. Dwight, 170 Mass. 29, 31-37 (1897) (discussing evolution of “summary remedy,” St. 1825, c. 89, that provided remedies to “persons having the right of possession of houses and tenements”).

The summary remedy statute was in force when the General Statutes were revised in 1835 and was retained through later revisions, to provide a cause of action to those not in a traditional landlord-tenant relationship. See Page v. Dwight, supra at 34 (statute revised in part so that “in all such cases the like proceedings might be had as if the relation of landlord and tenant had theretofore existed between them. St. 1835, c. 114”). The summary remedy statute, codified in Rev. St. (1836) c. 104, “gave the process only to a ‘person entitled to the premises,’ which required him to prove that he was entitled to this possession, and which said that the defendant should have judgment if the plaintiff failed to prove his right to possession.” Id. at 37. In 1879, legislation was enacted specifically directed at those attempting to gain possession who had acquired property pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage by sale. See id., citing St. 1879, c. 237.

Challenging a plaintiff’s entitlement to possession has long been considered a valid defense to a summary process action for eviction where the property was purchased at a foreclosure sale. See New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wing, 191 Mass. 192, 195 (1906) (in summary process action “by the purchaser at a mortgagee’s sale, the legal title may be put in issue, and it therefore became incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish its right of possession to the land demanded”). See also Sheehan Constr. Co. v. Dudley, 299 Mass. 51, 53 (1937) (in summary process action available to purchaser at foreclosure sale “it is incumbent upon such purchaser to establish his right of possession. The legal title in those circumstances plainly may be put in issue”). We have upheld that principle as recently as 1966, when we said, “The purpose of summary process is to enable the holder of the legal title to gain possession of premises wrongfully withheld. Right to possession must be shown and legal title may be put in issue…. Legal title is established in summary process by proof that the title was acquired strictly according to the power of sale provided in the mortgage; and that alone is subject to challenge.” Wayne Inv. Corp. v. Abbott, 350 Mass. 775, 775 (1966), citing Sheehan Constr. Co. v. Dudley, supra, and New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wing, supra.

The Housing Court was established in order to provide “a specialized forum to handle criminal and civil matters regarding housing that arise in the city of Boston.” LeBlanc v. Sherwin Williams Co., 406 Mass. 888, 891-892 (1990). In 1979, the Legislature enacted St.1979, c. 72, § 3, which further defined and expanded the Housing Court’s jurisdiction. See Tedford v. Massachusetts Hous. Fin. Agency, 390 Mass. 688, 693 n. 7 (1984); Boston v. Kouns, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 506, 510-511 (1986). The Housing Court’s jurisdiction over summary process actions is concurrent with that of the District Court and Superior Court. There is nothing in this jurisdictional scheme that supports a conclusion that the Legislature intended to give the Housing Court concurrent jurisdiction over summary process actions, yet preclude its consideration of the long-recognized validity of title defense to summary process.

Our conclusion that the Housing Court may consider the defense promotes the legislative goal of “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of summary process cases. See Rule 1 of the Rules of Summary Process, supra. The pursuit of “speedy and inexpensive” summary process actions is compromised if the Housing Court must stay summary process proceedings while litigation on the validity of the foreclosure proceedings continues in another court. This creates precisely the type of unnecessary delay and inefficiency that the Legislature intended to eliminate when it reorganized the trial courts in the Commonwealth. See G.L. c. 211B; Konstantopoulos v. Whately, 384 Mass. 123, 129-130 (1981).

b. Proof of possession. Having determined that the Housing Court has jurisdiction to decide Bailey’s defense to the summary process action, we now address BNY’s contention that it nevertheless established possession and that the grant of summary judgment in its favor was appropriate.

To prevail on its motion for summary judgment, BNY “had the burden of showing that there are no material facts in dispute regarding its legal title to the property.” Metropolitan Credit Union v. Matthes, 46 Mass.App.Ct. 326, 330 (1999), citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), and Sheehan Constr. Co. v. Dudley, supra at 53-54. BNY contends, without citation to relevant authority, that to meet its burden it had only to prove that the foreclosure deed was recorded prior to service on Bailey of the notice to quit.
[FN11]
[FN11]

In a summary process action for possession after foreclosure by sale, the plaintiff is required to make a prima facie showing that it obtained a deed to the property at issue and that the deed and affidavit of sale, showing compliance with statutory foreclosure requirements, were recorded. See Lewis v. Jackson, 165 Mass. 481, 486-487 (1896); G.L. c. 244, § 15.
[FN12] BNY failed to submit an affidavit of sale “show[ing] that the requirements of the power of sale and of the statute have in all respects been complied with.” Id. [FN13]

Because BNY failed to make out a prima facie showing of possession, and the issues are disputed, the motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

Conclusion. The decision granting summary judgment for the plaintiff is vacated. The case is remanded to the Housing Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

FN1. For the certificateholders CWABS, Inc., Asset-Based Certificates Series 2005-13.

FN2. We acknowledge the amicus brief of City Life/Vida Urbana, and the amicus brief of the Chelsea Collaborative, Lynn United for Change, and the Merrimack Valley Project, both in support of the defendant.

FN3. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems acts as nominee and as mortgagee of record for its members and appoints itself nominee, as mortgagee, for its members’ successors and assigns. See Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Saunders, 2 A.3d 289, 294 (Me.2010), quoting MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 N.Y.3d 90, 100 (2006) (Kaye, C.J., dissenting in part). In this case, we are not faced with the issue whether MERS may properly be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee, and we do not decide in which capacity MERS acted here.

FN4. A copy of the notice placed in the newspaper is in the record, but the date is illegible. MERS as “nominee” noticed the foreclosure in the newspaper. In its appellate brief, the Bank of New York (BNY) included a copy of an affidavit from MERS as “nominee,” which states that MERS as “nominee” provided notice of the foreclosure to Bailey via certified mail. The affidavit was not included in the summary judgment record that was before the motion judge, and we do not consider it in our analysis on appeal. See Tetrault v. Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings, 425 Mass. 456, 458-459 (1997); note 13, infra.

FN5. The notice was not included in the record.

FN6. BNY had previously filed a summary process action against Bailey in the Housing Court. On May 10, 2007, however, that action was dismissed without prejudice by agreement of the parties. That action, and the notice preceding it, is dated several months before the June 29, 2007, date of an “assignment of bid for value” purporting to transfer to BNY, as trustee for the certificateholders CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-13, all of the interests of MERS as “nominee” in the West Selden Street property.

FN7. BNY makes much of the fact that Bailey, in his original answer and on appeal, cited G.L. c. 244, § 17B, in support of his claim that notice of the foreclosure was deficient. This statute governs the manner in which notice must be provided in an action for deficiency. It is apparent from his pleadings and arguments that Bailey’s intended reference was to G.L. c. 244, § 14, which sets forth the requirements of notice in connection with a foreclosure by sale. That statute provides, in relevant part:

“The mortgagee or person having his estate in the land mortgaged, or a person authorized by the power of sale, or the attorney duly authorized by a writing under seal, or the legal guardian or conservator of such mortgagee or person acting in the name of such mortgagee or person, may, upon breach of condition and without action, do all the acts authorized or required by the power; but no sale under such power shall be effectual to foreclose a mortgage, unless, previous to such sale, notice thereof has been published once in each of three successive weeks, the first publication to be not less than twenty-one days before the day of sale, in a newspaper, if any, published in the town where the land lies or in a newspaper with general circulation in the town where the land lies and notice thereof has been sent by registered mail to the owner or owners of record of the equity of redemption as of thirty days prior to the date of sale, said notice to be mailed at least fourteen days prior to the date of sale to said owner or owners to the address set forth in [G.L. c. 185, § 61], if the land is then registered or, in the case of unregistered land, to the last address of the owner or owners of the equity of redemption appearing on the records of the holder of the mortgage …” (emphasis added).

Because we look to the substance, rather than the form, of Bailey’s asserted defense, his incorrect citation is not fatal to his claim. See Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 696, 704 (2000) (label attached to pleadings should not govern their substance). Bailey argued repeatedly that the foreclosing agent failed to provide him proper notice before conducting the foreclosure sale and thus provided sufficient notice to the plaintiff of the defense being asserted. See Clark v. Greenhalge, 411 Mass. 410, 413 n. 6 (1991).

FN8. Bailey’s answer also set forth various counterclaims which were dismissed and are not a subject of this appeal.

FN9. As earlier stated, the record reflects that MERS as “nominee,” not BNY, was the holder of the mortgage on March 6, 2007, and that the foreclosure was conducted by MERS as “nominee,” which was the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale.

FN10. During oral argument, BNY contended that the case might be moot because BNY had foreclosed the mortgage by entry pursuant to G.L. c. 244, § 2, and Bailey therefore could no longer contest BNY’s title based on defective notice of the foreclosure sale. See Grabiel v. Michelson, 297 Mass. 227, 228-229 (1937) (any defect in foreclosure by sale irrelevant after proper foreclosure by entry completed).

In order to foreclose on a mortgage by entry, BNY must have been the mortgagee at the time of entry. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 646 n. 15 (2011); G.L. c. 244, §§ 1-2. Nothing in the record indicates when or by what means the entry was made, and whether at the time of entry BNY was the mortgagee of the West Selden Street property. It may well be that BNY can establish that it has acquired an assignment of the mortgage despite defects in the foreclosure by sale. On the record before us, we are unable to make this determination.

FN11. In support of its motion for summary judgment, BNY submitted only the foreclosure deed and the eviction notice.

FN12. General Laws c. 244, § 15, provides: “The person selling, or the attorney duly authorized by a writing or the legal guardian or conservator of such person, shall, after the sale, cause a copy of the notice and his affidavit, fully and particularly stating his acts, or the acts of his principal or ward, to be recorded in the registry of deeds for the county or district where the land lies, with a note or reference thereto on the margin of the record of the mortgage deed, if it is recorded in the same registry. If
the affidavit shows that the requirements of the power of sale and of the statute have in all respects been complied with, the affidavit or a certified copy of the record thereof, shall be admitted as evidence that the power of sale was duly executed.”

FN13. We do not consider the affidavit submitted by BNY on appeal, which it conceded was not part of the record before the judge. See Tetrault v. Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings, 425 Mass. 456, 458-459 (1997).

END OF DOCUMENT

FULL CASE DOCKET: http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-10801

Although disappointing not to see the final outcome behind the documents, this does not settle well with the FRAUD obviously involved.

“We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,” the appeals court wrote in certification to the Supreme Court.

according to Miami Herald-

Both sides have agreed to settle a high-profile foreclosure fraud case pending before the Florida Supreme Court.

Details of the settlement were not disclosed in a brief stipulation filed Thursday with the high court.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach had certified the case as a matter of “great public importance.”

The appeal court ruled Roman Pino couldn’t try to prove the Bank of New York Mellon defrauded him when it foreclosed on his Greenacres home.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PHILIP REDMON AND PATRICIA
REDMON,
Appellants,

vs.

HOMEQ SERVICING, INC.; BANK OF
NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY; PATRICK KING; AND
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS FORECLOSURE MEDIATION
PROGRAM,
Respondents.

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review arising in a foreclosure mediation action. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.

Following an unsuccessful mediation conducted under Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program, appellants Philip and Patricia Redmon (the Redmons) filed a petition for judicial review seeking sanctions against their loan servicer,  respondent HomEq Servicing, Inc. (HomEq). The district court concluded that HomEq’s conduct was not sanctionable and ordered that a foreclosure certificate be issued. As explained below, we vacate the district court’s order and  remand this matter to the district court.

The Redmons’ mediation was scheduled for December 28, 2009. On that day, the Redmons met with the mediator and an attorney representing HomEq. Due to an apparent miscommunication, HomEq’s attorney was unable to contact via telephone a HomEq employee who ostensibly had the authority to  negotiate the Redmons’ loan. Two days later, a follow-up conference call was held in which the mediator, HomEq’s attorney, and the HomEq employee articipated—but not the Redmons.

The Redmons’ petition for judicial review contended that, among other things, HomEq should be sanctioned for its failure to make someone available during the mediation who had the authority to negotiate their loan. See NRS 107.086(5) (indicating that the mediator shall recommend sanctions when the beneficiary or its representative “does not have the authority or access to a person with the authority” to negotiate a loan modification). In denying their petition, the district court failed to explain the basis for its conclusion that HomEq had made someone with authority available during the mediation. Specifically, the district court’s order does not explain who had authority on HomEq’s behalf, nor does it explain on what day or days the mediation took place.

On remand, we direct the district court to make the factual findings necessary to determine whether HomEq made someone available during the mediation who had the authority to negotiate the Redmons’ loan. If the district court concludes that HomEq failed in this regard, the district court shall determine how HomEq should be appropriately sanctioned. Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev.     , P• 3d (2011) (construing NRS 107.086(5) to mean that a violation of one of the four statutory requirements must be sanctioned and that the district court is to consider several factors in determining what sanctions are appropriate). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

[…]

[ipaper docId=59993939 access_key=key-hskm3cn2kccv2n7s0j6 height=600 width=600 /]

“Leaders do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, whether they want to or not, without being asked”

Bloomberg–

Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s proposed $8.5 billion settlement over mortgage-securitization trusts is being probed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is seeking client information from more than 20 companies.

Schneiderman’s office sent letters dated July 7 to the companies, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), BlackRock Inc. (BLK) and TCW Group Inc., regarding their participation in Bank of America’s proposed deal. He is asking for the information by tomorrow.

The information was requested in connection with an investigation by the office “into certain matters related to securitization of residential mortgages,” according to the letters.

[BLOOMBERG]

NYT

HOLDING banks accountable for all those disastrous mortgages has been remarkably difficult. But last week, a big bank agreed to pay a price: Bank of America announced that it would part with $8.5 billion to settle claims that its Countrywide Financial unit had packaged garbage loans into investments that were said to be safe.

That is good news for investors, as these things go. But another, lesser-known case now winding its way through the courts may help others recover losses from lenders who dealt in risky mortgages and claimed that they had no duty to their customers.

Continue reading [NEW YORK TIMES]

[ipaper docId=59212998 access_key=key-2iecrsh12607lpl0er9o height=600 width=600 /]

Michigan law states that whoever forecloses on a property must own the debt, and MERS did not.

MLive-

A family was expecting to close on a house on a Friday. On Thursday night, the sale had to be scuttled.

Fifteen to 20 pending home sales fell apart that one Jackson title company was preparing to handle. Banks started pulling homes for sale off the market.

First, Jackson County’s real estate market suffered from the foreclosure crisis. Lately, it has been going through another convulsion due to a little-known company that has its name all over mortgage documents in Jackson and around the state.

Continue reading [MLIVE]

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and among (i) The Bank of New York Mellon (f/k/a The Bank of New York) in its capacity as trustee or indenture trustee of certain mortgage-securitization trusts identified herein (“BNY Mellon” or the “Trustee”), and (ii) Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”), and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC HLS”) (collectively, “Bank of America”) and Countrywide Financial Corporation (“CFC”) and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“CHL”) (collectively, “Countrywide”).

WHEREAS, BNY Mellon is the trustee or indenture trustee for the trusts corresponding to the five hundred and thirty (530) residential mortgage-backed securitizations listed on Exhibit A hereto (the “Covered Trusts”);

WHEREAS, Countrywide sold Mortgage Loans, which served as collateral for the Covered Trusts;

WHEREAS, the Trustee, CHL, and/or BAC HLS are parties to the Pooling and Servicing Agreements and in some cases Sale and Servicing Agreements and Indentures governing the Covered Trusts (as amended, modified, and supplemented from time-to-time, the “Governing Agreements”), and CHL, Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, and/or BAC HLS has acted as Master Servicer for the Covered Trusts (“Master Servicer”);

WHEREAS, certain significant holders of certificates or notes representing interests in certain of the Covered Trusts and investment managers of accounts holding such certificates or notes (the “Institutional Investors,” as defined in more detail in the Institutional Investor Agreement) have entered into a separate Institutional Investor Agreement with the Trustee, Bank of America and Countrywide, the due execution of which is a condition to the effectiveness of this Settlement Agreement;

WHEREAS, allegations have been made of breaches of representations and warranties contained in the Governing Agreements with respect to the Covered Trusts (including alleged failure to comply with underwriting guidelines (including limitations on underwriting exceptions), to comply with required loan-to-value and debt-to-income ratios, to ensure appropriate appraisals of mortgaged properties, and to verify appropriate owner-occupancy

[…]

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70858/000119312511176452/dex992.htm

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Via: Prof. Adam Levitin

You have to read Do We Have a Fraud Problem? The Case of the Mysteriously Appearing Allonge, to understand where this is coming from but here is a sample of what the professor says about the case below:

Which brings us to BONY v. Faulk. In this case, the foreclosure filing included a 3 page note. The note lacked endorsements connecting the originator to BONY as trustee for the foreclosing securitziation trust. This set up a motion to dismiss on the grounds that BONY didn’t have any right to do anything–it had no connection with the note.

But wait!  Suddenly BONY’s attorney tells the court that she is in possession of the fourth page of the note, which includes a blank endorsement. Puhlease…  What a ridiculous deus ex machina ending. Are we do believe that this attorney filed 3 pages of the note, but not the 4th? If so, I sure hope she’s not billing for that screw up.

But here’s what perplexes me. Suppose that an allonge is produced. How are we going to know when that allonge was created or that it even relates to the note in question? (Just so everyone’s clear–if the endorsement were created later, then BONY as trustee for CWABS 2006-13 trust had no standing at the time the action was filed because the trust didn’t own the note at that time.) How do we know that this attorney isn’t engaged in fraud on the court (and a host of other violations of state and federal law)?

And this isn’t even getting into the question of whether the PSA at issue requires specific endorsements, not endorsements in blank. As it turns out that’s a problem in this particular case. Here’s the PSA for CWABS 2006-13 trust.  Section 2.01(g)(1) provides that the Depositor deliver to the trustee:

the original Mortgage Note, endorsed by manual of facsimile signature in blank in the following form: “Pay to the order of _______ without recourse”, with all intervening endorsements that show a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the Person endorsing the Mortgage Note…

[ipaper docId=58072124 access_key=key-5pqgrklvsxpy24zpled height=600 width=600 /]

Decided on June 7, 2011

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.
2010-00131
(Index No. 17464-08)

[*1]Bank of New York, etc., respondent,v

Stephen Silverberg, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

APPEAL by the defendants Stephen Silverberg and Fredrica Silverberg, in an action to foreclose a mortgage, from an order of the Supreme Court (Denise F. Molia, J.), dated September 24, 2008, and entered in Suffolk County, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing. Stephen C. Silverberg, PLLC, Uniondale N.Y., for appellants.

McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C., New Rochelle, N.Y. (Lisa
L. Wallace and Doron Zanani of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION & ORDER

LEVENTHAL, J.This matter involves the enforcement of the rules that govern real property and whether such rules should be bent to accommodate a system that has taken on a life of its own. The issue presented on this appeal is whether a party has standing to commence a foreclosure action when that party’s assignor—in this case, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS)—was listed in the underlying mortgage instruments as a nominee and mortgagee for the purpose of recording, but was never the actual holder or assignee of the underlying notes. We answer this question in the negative.

In October 2006 the defendants Stephen Silverberg and Fredrica Silverberg (hereinafter together the defendants) borrowed the sum of $450,000 from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter Countrywide), to purchase residential real property in Greenlawn, New York (hereinafter the property). The loan was secured by a mortgage on the property (hereinafter the initial mortgage). The initial mortgage refers to MERS as the mortgagee for the purpose of recording, and provides that the underlying promissory note is in favor of Countrywide ^[FN1]. Further, the initial mortgage provides that “MERS holds only legal title to the rights granted by the [defendants] . . . but, if necessary to comply with law or custom,” MERS purportedly has the right to foreclose and “to take any action required of [Countrywide].” On November 2, 2006, the initial mortgage was recorded in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk.

On April 23, 2007, the defendants executed a second mortgage on the subject property in favor of MERS, as named mortgagee and nominee of Countrywide. The defendants [*2]simultaneously executed a note in favor of Countrywide, secured by the second mortgage. The promissory note secured by the second mortgage provided that payment would be made to Countrywide, and that Countrywide “may transfer this Note.” The second mortgage was recorded in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk on June 12, 2007.

In sections entitled “Borrower’s Transfer to Lender of Rights in the Property” set forth in both the initial mortgage and the second mortgage, those documents provide:

“[The Borrowers] understand and agree that MERS holds only legal title to the rights granted by [the Borrowers] in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right:

“(A) to exercise any or all of those rights, [granted by the Borrowers to Countrywide] including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and

“(B) to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.”

Consolidation Agreement

Also in April 2007, the defendants executed a consolidation agreement in connection with the property in the sum of $479,000 in favor of MERS, as mortgagee and nominee of Countrywide . Countrywide was the named lender and note holder. The consolidation agreement purportedly merged the two prior notes and mortgages into one loan obligation. The consolidation agreement was recorded in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk on June 12, 2007. The consolidation agreement, as with the prior mortgages, recites that MERS was “acting solely as a nominee for [Countrywide] and [Countrywide’s] successors and assigns . . . For purposes of recording this agreement, MERS is the mortgagee of record.” Countrywide, however, was not a party to the consolidation agreement.

In December 2007 the defendants defaulted on the consolidation agreement. Meanwhile, on April 30, 2008, by way of a “corrected assignment of mortgage,” MERS, as Countrywide’s nominee, assigned the consolidation agreement to the Bank of New York, as Trustee For the Benefit of the Certificate Holders, CWALT, Inc., Alternate Loan Trust 2007-14-T2, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-14T2 (hereinafter the plaintiff). On May 6, 2008, the plaintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against the defendants, among others.

In June 2008 the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, the underlying mortgages, the summons and complaint, the second note, and an attorney’s affirmation. In the affirmation, the defendants argued, among other things, that the complaint failed to establish a chain of ownership of the notes and mortgages from Countrywide to the plaintiff. In opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff submitted, inter alia, the corrected assignment of mortgage dated April 30, 2008.
The Order Appealed From

In an order dated September 24, 2008, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion, concluding that, prior to the commencement of the action, MERS, as Countrywide’s nominee, and on Countrywide’s behalf, assigned the mortgages described in the consolidation agreement. Hence, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff was the owner of the “consolidated Note and Mortgage” and, thus, the proper party to commence the action.

On appeal, the defendants argue that the plaintiff lacks standing to sue because it did not own the notes and mortgages at the time it commenced the foreclosure action. Specifically, the defendants contend that neither MERS nor Countrywide ever transferred or endorsed the notes described in the consolidation agreement to the plaintiff, as required by the Uniform Commercial Code. Moreover, the defendants assert that the mortgages were never properly assigned to the plaintiff because MERS, as nominee for Countrywide, did not have the authority to effectuate an assignment of the mortgages. The defendants further assert that the mortgages and notes were bifurcated, rendering the mortgages unenforceable and foreclosure impossible, and that because of such bifurcation, MERS never had an assignable interest in the notes. The defendants also contend [*3]that the Supreme Court erred in considering the corrected assignment of mortgage because it was not authenticated by someone with personal knowledge of how and when it was created, and was improperly submitted in opposition to the motion.
MERS

“In 1993, the MERS system was created by several large participants in the real estate mortgage industry to track ownership interests in residential mortgages” (Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine, 8 NY3d 90, 96). MERS was intended to “streamline the mortgage process by using electronic commerce to eliminate paper.”^[FN2] MERS’s implementation followed the delays occasioned by local recording offices, which were at times slow in recording instruments because of complex local regulations and database systems that had become voluminous and increasingly difficult to search (see Peterson, Foreclosure, Subprime Mortgage Lending, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, 78 U Cin L Rev 1359, 1366 [2010]).

“Mortgage lenders and other entities, known as MERS members, subscribe to the MERS system and pay annual fees for the electronic processing and tracking of ownership and transfers of mortgages. Members contractually agree to appoint MERS to act as their common agent on all mortgages they register in the MERS system” (Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine, 8 NY3d at 96 [internal footnotes omitted]).

The MERS system facilitated the transfer of loans into pools of other loans which were then sold to investors as securities (see Peterson, at 1361-1362). MERS delivers savings to the participants in the real estate mortgage industry by allowing those entities to avoid the payment of fees which local governments require to record mortgage assignments (see Peterson at 1368-1369).

Lenders identify MERS as nominee and mortgagee for its members’ successors and assignees. MERS remains the mortgagee of record in local county recording offices regardless of how many times the mortgage is transferred, thus freeing MERS’s members from paying the recording fees that would otherwise be furnished to the relevant localities (id.; see Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine, 8 NY3d at 100). This leaves borrowers and the local county or municipal recording offices unaware of the identity of the true owner of the note, and extinguishes a source of revenue to the localities. According to MERS, any loan registered in its system is “inoculated against future assignments because MERS remains the mortgagee no matter how many times servicing is traded.”^[FN3] Moreover, MERS does not lend money, does not receive payments on promissory notes, and does not service loans by collecting loan payments.
Analysis

Relevant to our determination is the decision of the Court of Appeals in Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine (8 NY3d 90), which held that the Suffolk County Clerk was compelled to record and index mortgages, assignments of mortgages, and discharges of mortgages that named MERS as the lender’s nominee or mortgagee of record. In a concurring opinion, Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick specified that the issue of whether MERS has standing to prosecute a foreclosure action remained for another day (id. at 100). In a dissent, former Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye posited that the MERS system raised several concerns, including the elimination of the public records which document mortgage loan ownership (id. at 100-105).

The principal issue ripe for determination by this Court, and which was left unaddressed by the majority in Matter of MERSCORP (id.), is whether MERS, as nominee and mortgagee for purposes of recording, can assign the right to foreclose upon a mortgage to a plaintiff in a foreclosure action absent MERS’s right to, or possession of, the actual underlying promissory note.

Standing requires an inquiry into whether a litigant has “an interest . . . in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request” [*4](Caprer v Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176, 182; see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 242). Where, as here, the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 753; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d at 242). In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 753; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709, 709; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 207-208; Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d 674, 674; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 546-547; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414).

As a general matter, once a promissory note is tendered to and accepted by an assignee, the mortgage passes as an incident to the note (see Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d 674; Smith v Wagner, 106 Misc 170, 178 [“assignment of the debt carries with it the security therefor, even though such security be not formally transferred in writing”]; see also Weaver Hardware Co. v Solomovitz, 235 NY 321, 331-332 [“a mortgage given to secure notes is an incident to the latter and stands or falls with them”]; Matter of Falls, 31 Misc 658, 660, affd 66 App Div 616 [“The deed being given as collateral for the payment of the note [,] the transfer of the note carried the security”]).

By contrast, “a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it” (Merritt v Bantholick, 36 NY 44, 45; see Carpenter v Longan, 83 US 271, 274 [an assignment of the mortgage without the note is a nullity]; US Bank N.A. v Madero, 80 AD3d 751, 752; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [plaintiff, the assignee of a mortgage without the underlying note, could not bring a foreclosure action]; Flyer v Sullivan, 284 App Div 697, 698 [mortgagee’s assignment of the mortgage lien, without assignment of the debt, is a nullity]; Beak v Walts, 266 App Div 900). A “mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist independently of the debt or obligation” (FGB Realty Advisors v Parisi, 265 AD2d 297, 298). Consequently, the foreclosure of a mortgage cannot be pursued by one who has no demonstrated right to the debt (id.; see Bergman on New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 12.05[1][a][1991]).

The defendants contend, among other things, that because the plaintiff failed to provide proof of recording of the corrected assignment of the mortgage prior to the commencement of the action, it may be inferred that the plaintiff did not own the notes and mortgages prior to that date. However, this particular contention is without merit, as an assignment of a note and mortgage need not be in writing and can be effectuated by physical delivery (see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d 911, 912). Moreover, ” [n]o special form or language is necessary to effect an assignment as long as the language shows the intention of the owner of a right to transfer it'” (Suraleb, Inc. v International Trade Club, Inc., 13 AD3d 612, 612, quoting Tawil v Finkelstein Bruckman Wohl Most & Rothman, 223 AD2d 52, 55).

Here, the consolidation agreement purported to merge the two prior notes and mortgages into one loan obligation. Countrywide, as noted above, was not a party to the consolidation agreement. ” Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident'” (US Bank N.A. v Madero, 80 AD3d at 753, quoting U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d at 754; see LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn, 59 AD3d at 912). The plaintiff relies upon the language in the consolidation agreement, which provides that MERS was “acting solely as a nominee for [Countrywide] and [Countrywide’s] successors and assigns . . . For purposes of recording this agreement, MERS is the mortgagee of record.” However, as “nominee,” MERS’s authority was limited to only those powers which were specifically conferred to it and authorized by the lender (see Black’s Law Dictionary 1076 [8th ed 2004] [defining a nominee as “(a) person designated to act in place of another, (usually) in a very limited way”]). Hence, although the consolidation agreement gave MERS the right to assign the mortgages themselves, it did not specifically give MERS the right to assign the underlying notes, and the assignment of the notes was thus beyond MERS’s authority as nominee or agent of the lender (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum,AD3d, 2011 NY Slip Op 04184, *6-7 [2d Dept 2011]; HSBC Bank USA v Squitieri, 29 Misc 3d 1225[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52000[U]; LNV Corp. v Madison Real Estate, LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 33376[U]; LPP Mtge. Ltd. [*5]v Sabine Props., LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 32367[U]; Bank of NY v Mulligan, 28 Misc 3d 1226[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51509[U]; OneWest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton, 29 Misc 3d 1021; Bank of N.Y. v Alderazi, 28 Misc 3d 376, 379-380 [the “party who claims to be the agent of another bears the burden of proving the agency relationship by a preponderance of the evidence”]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Yeasmin, 27 Misc 3d 1227[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50927[U]; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Vasquez, 24 Misc 3d 1239[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51814[U]; Bank of N.Y. v Trezza, 14 Misc 3d 1201[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52367[U]; LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Lamy, 12 Misc 3d 1191[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51534[U]; Matter of Agard, 444 BR 231; but see US Bank N.A. v Flynn, 27 Misc 3d 802).

Therefore, assuming that the consolidation agreement transformed MERS into a mortgagee for the purpose of recording—even though it never loaned any money, never had a right to receive payment of the loan, and never had a right to foreclose on the property upon a default in payment—the consolidation agreement did not give MERS title to the note, nor does the record show that the note was physically delivered to MERS. Indeed, the consolidation agreement defines “Note Holder,” rather than the mortgagee, as the “Lender or anyone who succeeds to Lender’s right under the Agreement and who is entitled to receive the payments under the Agreement.” Hence, the plaintiff, which merely stepped into the shoes of MERS, its assignor, and gained only that to which its assignor was entitled (see Matter of International Ribbon Mills [Arjan Ribbons], 36 NY2d 121, 126; see also UCC 3-201 [“(t)ransfer of an instrument vests in the transferee such rights as the transferor has therein”]), did not acquire the power to foreclose by way of the corrected assignment.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the plaintiff contends that case law supports its position that MERS has the power to foreclose, where, as here, MERS is identified in a mortgage as nominee and mortgagee for the purpose of recording. In this regard, the plaintiff relies upon Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley (41 AD3d 674), wherein this Court held that MERS had standing to foreclose a mortgage. In that case, unlike in the current case, the lender had transferred and tendered the promissory note to MERS before the commencement of the foreclosure action (id. at 674). Therefore, we held that MERS had standing to bring the foreclosure action because it “was the lawful holder of the promissory note and of the mortgage, which passed as an incident to the promissory note” (id. at 674 [citations omitted]). Although that determination was a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that MERS had standing, we elaborated, stating,

“further support for MERS’s standing to commence the action may be found on the face of the mortgage instrument itself. Pursuant to the clear and unequivocal terms of the mortgage instrument, [the mortgagor] expressly agreed without qualification that MERS had the right to foreclose upon the premises in the event of a default” (id. at 675).

According to the plaintiff, Coakley indicates that this Court has determined that such broad provisions in mortgages, such as the initial mortgage and second mortgage here, standing alone, grant MERS, as nominee and mortgagee for the purpose of recording, the power to foreclose. On the contrary, the Coakley decision does not stand for that proposition. This Court’s holding in Coakley was dependent upon the fact that MERS held the note before commencing the foreclosure action. In the absence of that crucial fact, the language in the mortgage instrument would not have provided “further support” for the proposition that MERS had the power to foreclose in that case. Furthermore, the language in the initial mortgage and the second mortgage in this case, purportedly granting MERS the right to foreclose, was superseded by the consolidation agreement. Moreover, as discussed above, the broad language relied upon by the plaintiff cannot overcome the requirement that the foreclosing party be both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage, and the holder or assignee of the underlying note, at the time the action is commenced.

In sum, because MERS was never the lawful holder or assignee of the notes described and identified in the consolidation agreement, the corrected assignment of mortgage is a nullity, and MERS was without authority to assign the power to foreclose to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to show that it had standing to foreclose.

MERS purportedly holds approximately 60 million mortgage loans (see Michael Powell & Gretchen Morgenson, MERS? It May Have Swallowed Your Loan, New York Times, March 5, 2011), and is involved in the origination of approximately 60% of all mortgage loans in the United States (see Peterson at 1362; Kate Berry, Foreclosures Turn Up Heat on MERS, Am. [*6]Banker, July 10, 2007, at 1). This Court is mindful of the impact that this decision may have on the mortgage industry in New York, and perhaps the nation. Nonetheless, the law must not yield to expediency and the convenience of lending institutions. Proper procedures must be followed to ensure the reliability of the chain of ownership, to secure the dependable transfer of property, and to assure the enforcement of the rules that govern real property.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing. Thus, the order is reversed, on the law, and the motion of the defendants Stephen Silverberg and Fredrica Silverberg pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing is granted.
FLORIO, J.P., DICKERSON, and BELEN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Stephen Silverberg and Fredrica Silverberg pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of standing is granted.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Footnote 1: The promissory note executed in connection with the initial mortgage is not included in the record.

Footnote 2: About Us-Overview, MERS, http://www.mersinc.org/about/index.aspx (last visited Apr. 26, 2011).

Footnote 3: see About Us-Overview, MERS, http://www.mersinc.org/about/index.aspx (last visited Apr. 26, 2011).

[ipaper docId=57771839 access_key=key-26c1rxl6odyw0ycl4nyx height=600 width=600 /]

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

NYTimes Gretchen Morgenson–

Opening a new line of inquiry into the problems that have beset the mortgage loan process, two state attorneys general are investigating Wall Street’s bundling of these loans into securities to determine whether they were properly documented and valid.

The investigation is being led by Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, who has teamed with Joseph R. Biden III, his counterpart from Delaware. Their effort centers on the back end of the mortgage assembly lines — where big banks serve as trustees overseeing the securities for investors — according to two people briefed on the inquiry but who were not authorized to speak publicly about it.

continue reading [NYTimes]

What about those already sold?

Mortgage National News-

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will re-foreclose on all its REO properties in Michigan where the original foreclosure was conducted in the name of MERS using the state’s nonjudicial process.

read the ruling below…

Michigan Court Of Appeals Rules, Consolidates (2) Cases MERS “STRAWMAN” Has No Authority To Foreclose

Supreme Court, Kings County

NYCTL 2005-A Trust AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN, Plaintiff,

against

Dionisio Arias, et al., Defendants.

23043/06

Plaintiff

Philips Lytle, LLP

Rochester NY

Defendant

No Appearance

Arthur M. Schack, J.

In this tax lien certificate foreclosure action, plaintiff, NYCTL 2005-A TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN (THE TRUST), moved for a judgment of foreclosure and sale for the premises located at 199 Troutman Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3173, Lot 37, County of Kings). On March 4, 2011, the Court received from the Kings County Supreme Court Foreclosure Department a notice of withdrawal of the instant motion, dated February 16, 2011, from plaintiff’s counsel, Phillips Lytle LLP. The notice of withdrawal did not state any reason for the request.

Then, on May 23, 2011, plaintiff’s counsel faxed to me a “second request” to withdraw [*2]the instant motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Again, no reason for the request was articulated. Further, at the bottom of the May 23, 2011-letter to me, it states “THIS LAW FIRM IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.” Since this statement is in a cover letter addressed to me and does not appear to be preprinted on the letterhead of the Phillips Lytle firm, the Court would like to know what debt I personally owe to the Phillips Lytle firm or THE TRUST. This statement borders upon frivolous conduct, in violation of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1. Was it made to cause annoyance or alarm to the Court? Was it made to waste judicial resources? Rather than answer the above rhetorical questions, counsel for plaintiff is directed never to place such a foolish statement in a cover letter to this Court. If this occurs again, the firm of Phillips Lytle LLP is on notice that this Court will have the firm appear to explain why the firm should not be sanctioned for frivolous conduct.

With respect to the request of plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw the instant motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, the Court grants the request to withdraw the motion. However, since plaintiff, THE TRUST, is not discontinuing the instant foreclosure action, the Court, to prevent the waste of judicial resources, for procedural reasons and not upon the merits, dismisses the instant foreclosure action with prejudice.

Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1321 allows the Court in a foreclosure action, upon the default of the defendant or defendant’s admission of mortgage payment arrears, to appoint a referee “to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.” In the instant action, the referee computed the amount due. Then, plaintiff, THE TRUST, moved, as required, to obtain a default judgment of foreclosure and sale against defendant ARIAS. Subsequently, plaintiff requested that the Court allow it to withdraw its motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The Court grants plaintiff’s request to withdraw its motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. However, to allow the instant action to continue without seeking the ultimate purpose of a foreclosure action, to obtain a judgment of foreclosure and sale, without any valid reason, is a mockery and waste of judicial resources. Continuing the instant action without moving for a judgment of foreclosure and sale is the judicial equivalent of a “timeout,” and granting a “timeout” to plaintiff, THE TRUST, is a waste of judicial resources. Therefore, the instant action, for these procedural reasons, is dismissed with prejudice.

Moreover, the dismissal of the instant foreclosure action requires the cancellation of the notice of pendency. CPLR § 6501 provides that the filing of a notice of pendency against a property is to give constructive notice to any purchaser of real property or encumbrancer against real property of an action that “would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property, except in a summary proceeding brought to recover the possession of real property.” The Court of Appeals, in 5308 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. (64 NY2d 313, 319 [1984]), commented that “[t]he purpose of the doctrine was to assure that a court retained its ability to effect justice by preserving its power over the property, regardless of whether a purchaser had any notice of the pending suit,” and, at 320, that “the statutory scheme permits a party to effectively retard the alienability of real property without any prior judicial review.”

CPLR § 6514 (a) provides for the mandatory cancellation of a notice of pendency by:

The Court,upon motion of any person aggrieved and upon such [*3]

notice as it may require, shall direct any county clerk to cancel

a notice of pendency, if service of a summons has not been completed

within the time limited by section 6512; or if the action has been

settled, discontinued or abated; or if the time to appeal from a final

judgment against the plaintiff has expired; or if enforcement of a

final judgment against the plaintiff has not been stayed pursuant

to section 551. [emphasis added]

The plain meaning of the word “abated,” as used in CPLR § 6514 (a) is the ending of an action. “Abatement” is defined as “the act of eliminating or nullifying.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 3 [7th ed 1999]). “An action which has been abated is dead, and any further enforcement of the cause of action requires the bringing of a new action, provided that a cause of action remains (2A Carmody-Wait 2d § 11.1).” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 40 [2d Dept 2005]). Further, Nastasi at 36, held that the “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR § 6501 (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., supra at 320-321; Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451, 451-452 [1d Dept 1998]; Siegel, NY Prac § 336 [4th ed]).” Thus, the dismissal of the instant complaint must result in the mandatory cancellation of THE TRUST’s notices of pendency against the subject property “in the exercise of the inherent power of the court.”

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the request of plaintiff, NYCTL 2005-A TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN, to withdraw its motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, for the premises located at 199 Troutman Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3173, Lot 37, County of Kings), is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 23043/06, is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the notices of pendency in the instant action, filed with the Kings County Clerk on August 2, 2006 and July 16, 2009, by plaintiff, NYCTL 2005-A TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN, to foreclose on a tax lien certificate for real property located at 199 Troutman Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3173, Lot 37, County of Kings), is cancelled and discharged; and it is further

ORDERED, that Phillips Lytle, LLP is on notice that if any of attorneys or staff sends any communication to this Court stating “THIS LAW FIRM IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE,” it may be subject to civil contempt and/or sanctions for frivolous conduct, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER [*4]

________________________________HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK

J. S. C.

Dated: May 24, 2011

[ipaper docId=56436285 access_key=key-2exgwemy3l37ojka2id9 height=600 width=600 /]

Make this go VIRAL!!

Contact: https://hansenclarke.house.gov/contact-me

Uploaded by RepHansenClarke on May 16, 2011

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 /]