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 /]

This is when those placeholders “A Bad Bene, Bogus Assignee” might come in handy… Maybe AG Harris will put a stop to this madness.

MSNBC–

Not according to Deutsche or other banks. They say they aren’t really the owners, despite the fact that their name appears on the property title. They also say they are not responsible for maintenance.

Representatives of Deutsche, as well as U.S. Bank, BNY Mellon and HSBC — three other major lenders that Los Angeles is investigating with an eye to suing, all said that loan servicers are responsible for property upkeep, as well as tasks such as sending default notices, modifying loans, selling homes, and collecting rent and mortgage payments.

“We’re there in name only,” said Teri Charest, spokeswoman for U.S. Bank. “We’re trustees. We have a very limited role.”

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 /]

NBC–

A fire that killed three people in the Bronx revealed the dangers of illegally subdivided apartments, but what is less widely known is the building’s cloudy ownership status.

At dispute is a question over who was actually responsible for maintaining the property.

Click image below to go to video and article…

Now we SAW this baby coming across miles away, and this will not be the last. Just yesterday, Fannie said MERS poses a significant risk…no DOUBT!

BLOOMBERG-

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. “illegally prosecuted” non-judicial foreclosures in Michigan and owes more than $100 million to people who lost their homes, lawyers for three homeowners said in a lawsuit.

The homeowners said Merscorp Inc.’s MERS, which runs an electronic registry of mortgages, used Michigan’s so-called foreclosure by advertisement process illegally and “misappropriated” their homes. Any foreclosures by MERS using this process in Michigan should be voided, they said in their complaint filed in federal court in Detroit.

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

DETROIT FREE PRESS-

Local Realtors say title companies are canceling closings on some bank-owned homes after a recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision made it more risky to insure them.

Late last month, the court ruled the Mortgage Electronic Registration System lacks authority to foreclose by advertisement in Michigan. The system is an electronic record-keeper of mortgages.

read the ruling below…

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

New York Times-

The promise made by a mortgage company in San Diego could not have been more blunt. “Accredited Home Lenders offers an unusually broad line of subprime mortgage products for wholesale mortgage brokers,” the company’s Web site boasted in its heyday.

“Send us your toughest loans, and let us earn your business.”

Those were the days: from 2005 to 2007, Accredited made $29 billion in subprime loans.

See link below for appeal ruling of 2 consolidated cases…

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

.

.

Excerpts:

Q. So through that corporate authority as
Exhibit 4 to this deposition, MERS assented to the terms
Of this assignment of mortgage?

A. Through me.

Q. So it was you that assented to the terms of
This assignment of mortgage.

A. The one in this case, yes.

Q. And no one else.

A. Correct

Q. And you signed as vice president of MERS
acting solely as a nominee for America’s Wholesale
Lender; is that correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. How did you know that MERS was nominee for
America’s Wholesale Lender?

A. By reviewing documentation.

Q. What documentation?

A. I don’t specifically recall what I reviewed
In this case to see that, to determine that, but I would
have reviewed either the mortgage or I would have
reviewed other documentation that would have established
that to me.

Q. So in this case you don’t remember a single
Document that you looked at that would establish the
Nominee status of MERS for America’s Wholesale Lenders;
Is that correct?

A. I don’t

Q. Did someone at America’s Wholesale Lender
Tell you that MERS was acting as the nominee?

A. No.

Q. Did someone at MERS tell you they were
Acting as Nominee for America’s Wholesale Lender?

A. NO.

Q. Was America’s Wholesale Lender in existence
On May 19, 2010?

A. don’t now.

Q. Did you check that before signing this
assignment of mortgage?

A. No.

<SNIP>

Q. Now, you’ve said you review the MERS
Website and you’ve seen documents like this, like
Composite Exhibit 6. Any reason why you wouldn’t review
the documents contained in Exhibit 6 before executing the
assignment of mortgage?

A. It’s not necessary.

Q. Why not?

A. Because it’s not. Because I decided it’s
not.

Q. You as vice president of MERS?

A. In every possible capacity as it relates to
This case.

Q. Did you sign this assignment of mortgage
after being retained as counsel for the plaintiff?

A. After my law firm was retained?

Q. (Nods head.)

A. Is that the question?

Q. Sure.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you executed an assignment to be
Used as evidence in your case, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. Is that a yes?

A. It’s a sure.

Q. Is that a yes o a no?

A. You said sure earlier. Was that a yes or a
No?

Q. Okay. So…

A. It’s a yes.

Q. It’s a yes.

And were you aware when you signed the
assignment of mortgage that MERS was a defendant in this
Case?

[ipaper docId=53916343 access_key=key-1rk8dl6pcjqgja1oy0ki height=600 width=600 /]

H/T to MFI-Miami

S T A T E  O F  M I C H I G A N

C O U R T  O F  A P P E A L S

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CO, LLC, f/k/a

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GERALD SAURMAN, LC

_______________________________

BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY,

v.

COREY MESSNER, LC

Before: WILDER, P.J., and SERVITTO and SHAPIRO, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J.

These consolidated cases each involve a foreclosure instituted by Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), the mortgagee in both cases. The sole question presented is whether MERS is an entity that qualifies under MCL 600.3204(1)(d) to foreclose by advertisement on the subject properties, or if it must instead seek to foreclose by judicial process. We hold that MERS does not meet the requirements of MCL 600.3204(1)(d) and, therefore, may
not foreclose by advertisement.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In these cases, each defendant purchased property and obtained financing for their respective properties from a financial institution. The financing transactions involved loan documentation (“the note”) and a mortgage security instrument (the “mortgage instrument”). The original lender in both cases was Homecoming Financial, LLC.

Each note provided for the amount of the loan, the interest rate, methods and requirements of repayment, the identity of the lender and borrower and the like. The mortgage instrument provided for rights of foreclosure of the property by the mortgagee in the event of default on the loan. The lender, though named as the lender in the mortgage security instrument, was not designated therein as the mortgagee. Instead, the mortgage stated that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (“MERS”) “is the mortgagee under this Security Instrument” and it contained several provisions addressing the relationship between MERS and the lender including:

“MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the mortgagee under this Security Instrument.

* * *

This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower’s covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. For this purpose, Borrower does hereby mortgage, warrant, grant and convey to MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and to the successors and assigns of MERS, with the power of sale, the following described property . . . . Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower 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: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.

Defendants defaulted on their respective notes. Thereafter, MERS began non-judicial foreclosures by advertisement as permitted under MCL 600.3201, et seq., purchased the property at the subsequent sheriff’s sales and then quit-claimed the property to plaintiffs as respective successor lenders. When plaintiffs subsequently began eviction actions, defendants challenged the respective foreclosures as invalid, asserting, inter alia, that MERS did not have authority under MCL 600.3204(1)(d) to foreclose by advertisement because it did not fall within any of the three categories of mortgagees permitted to do so under that statute. The district courts denied defendants’ assertions that MERS lacked authority to foreclose by statute and their conclusions were affirmed by the respective circuit courts on appeal. We granted leave to appeal in both cases.1

II. ANALYSIS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo decisions made on motions for summary disposition,2 Coblentz v Novi, 475 Mich 558, 567; 719 NW2d 73 (2006), as well as a circuit court’s affirmance of a district court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition. First of America Bank v Thompson, 217 Mich App 581, 583; 552 NW2d 516 (1996). We review all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions and other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, in this case, defendants. Coblentz, 475 Mich at 567-568.

We also review de novo questions of statutory interpretation and application. Id. at 567. The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature. This determination is accomplished by examining the plain language of the statute. Although a statute may contain separate provisions, it should be read as a consistent whole, if possible, with effect given to each provision. If the statutory language is unambiguous, appellate courts presume that the Legislature intended the meaning plainly expressed and further judicial construction is neither permitted nor required. Statutory language should be reasonably construed, keeping in mind the purpose of the statute. If reasonable minds could differ regarding the meaning of a statute, judicial construction is appropriate. When construing a statute, a court must look at the object of the statute in light of the harm it is designed to remedy and apply a reasonable construction that will best accomplish the purpose of the Legislature. [ISB Sales Co v Dave’s Cakes, 258 Mich App 520, 526-527; 672 NW2d 181 (2003) (citations omitted).]

B. MERS BACKGROUND

The parties, in their briefs and at oral argument, explained that MERS was developed as a mechanism to provide for the faster and lower cost buying and selling of mortgage debt. Apparently, over the last two decades, the buying and selling of loans backed by mortgages after their initial issuance had accelerated to the point that those operating in that market concluded that the statutory requirement that mortgage transfers be recorded was interfering with their ability to conduct sales as rapidly as the market demanded. By operating through MERS, these financial entities could buy and sell loans without having to record a mortgage transfer for each transaction because the named mortgagee would never change; it would always be MERS even though the loans were changing hands. MERS would purportedly track the mortgage sales internally so as to know for which entity it was holding the mortgage at any given time and, if foreclosure was necessary, after foreclosing on the property, would quit claim the property to whatever lender owned the loan at the time of foreclosure.

As described by the Court of Appeals of New York, in MERSCORP, Inc v Romaine, 8 NY3d 90, 96; 861 NE2d 81(2006):

In 1993, the MERS system was created by several large participants in the real estate mortgage industry to track ownership interests in residential mortgages. 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.

The initial MERS mortgage is recorded in the County Clerk’s office with “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” named as the lender’s nominee or mortgagee of record on the instrument. During the lifetime of the mortgage, the beneficial ownership interest or servicing rights may be transferred among MERS members (MERS assignments), but these assignments are not publicly recorded; instead they are tracked electronically in MERS’s private system. In the MERS system, the mortgagor is notified of transfers of servicing rights pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, but not necessarily of assignments of the beneficial interest in the mortgage. [Footnotes omitted.]

The sole issue in this case is whether MERS, as mortgagee, but not noteholder, could exercise its contractual right to foreclose by means of advertisement.

C. MCL 600.3204(1)(d)

Foreclosure by advertisement is governed by MCL 600.3204(1)(d), which provides, in pertinent part:

[A] party may foreclose a mortgage by advertisement if all of the following circumstances exist:

* * *

(d) The party foreclosing the mortgage is either the owner of the indebtedness or of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage or the servicing agent of the mortgage.

The parties agree that MERS is neither the owner of the indebtedness, nor the servicing agent of the mortgage. Therefore, MERS lacked the authority to foreclose by advertisement on defendants’ properties unless it was “the owner . . . of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage.” MCL 600.3204(1)(d).

The question, then, is what being the “owner . . . of an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage” requires. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, to “own” means “[t]o have good legal title; to hold as property; to have a legal or rightful title to.” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed). That text defines an “interest” as “the most general term that can be employed to denote a right, claim, title or legal share in something”. “Indebtedness” is defined as “[t]he state of being in debt . . . the owing of a sum of money upon a certain and express agreement.”

In these cases, a promissory note was exchanged for loans of $229,950 and $207,575, respectively. Thus, reasonably construing the statute according to its common legal meaning, ISB Sales Co, 258 Mich App at 526-527, the defendants’ indebtedness is solely based upon the notes because defendants owed monies pursuant to the terms of the notes. Consequently, in order for a party to own an interest in the indebtedness, it must have a legal share, title, or right in the note.

Plaintiffs’ suggestion that an “interest in the mortgage” is sufficient under MCL 600.3204(d)(1) is without merit. This is necessarily so, as the indebtedness, i.e., the note, and the mortgage are two different legal transactions providing two different sets of rights, even though they are typically employed together. A “mortgage” is “[a] conveyance of title to property that is given as security for the payment of a debt or the performance of a duty and that will become void upon payment or performance according to the stipulated terms.” The mortgagee has an interest in the property. See Citizens Mtg Corp v Mich Basic Prop Ins Assoc, 111 Mich App 393, 397; 314 NW2d 635 (1981) (referencing the “mortgagee’s interests in the property”). The mortgagor covenants, pursuant to the mortgage, that if the money borrowed under the note is not repaid, the mortgagee will retain an interest in the property. Thus, unlike a note, which evidences a debt and represents the obligation to repay, a mortgage represents an interest in real property contingent on the failure of the borrower to repay the lender. The indebtedness, i.e., the note, and the mortgage are two different things.

Applying these considerations to the present case, it becomes obvious that MERS did not have the authority to foreclose by advertisement on defendants’ properties. Pursuant to the mortgages, defendants were the mortgagors and MERS was the mortgagee. However, it was the plaintiff lenders that lent defendants money pursuant to the terms of the notes. MERS, as mortgagee, only held an interest in the property as security for the note, not an interest in the note itself. MERS could not attempt to enforce the notes nor could it obtain any payment on the loans on its own behalf or on behalf of the lender. Moreover, the mortgage specifically clarified that, although MERS was the mortgagee, MERS held “only legal title to the interest granted” by defendants in the mortgage.3 Consequently, the interest in the mortgage represented, at most, an interest in defendants’ properties. MERS was not referred to in any way in the notes and only Homecomings held the notes. The record evidence establishes that MERS owned neither the notes, nor an interest, legal share, or right in the notes. The only interest MERS possessed was in the properties through the mortgages. Given that the notes and mortgages are separate documents, evidencing separate obligations and interests, MERS’ interest in the mortgage did not give it an interest in the debt.

Moreover, plaintiffs’ analysis ignores the fact that the statute does not merely require an “interest” in the debt, but rather that the foreclosing party own that interest. As noted above, to own means “to have good legal title; to hold as property; to have a legal or rightful title to.” None of these terms describes MERS’ relationship to the note. Plaintiffs’ claim that MERS was a contractual owner of an interest in the notes based on the agreement between MERS and the lenders misstates the interests created by that agreement. Although MERS stood to benefit if the debt was not paid—it stood to become the owner of the property—it received no benefit if the debt was paid. MERS had no right to possess the debt, or the money paid on it. Likewise, it had no right to use or convey the note. Its only “right to possess” was to possess the property if and when foreclosure occurred. Had the lender decided to forgive the debt in the note, MERS would have had no recourse; it could not have sued the lender for some financial loss. Accordingly, it owned no financial interest in the notes. Indeed, it is uncontested that MERS is wholly without legal or rightful title to the debt and that there are no circumstances under which it is entitled to receive any payments on the notes.

The dissent relies on the language in the mortgage instrument to suggest a contractual basis to find that MERS has an ownership interest in the loan. However, the fact that Homecomings gave MERS authority to take “any action required of the Lender” did not transform MERS into an owner of an interest in the notes. Trustees have the authority to take action on behalf of a trust; they can even be authorized to take “any” action. Nevertheless, such authority does not give them an ownership interest in the trust. Moreover, the provision on which the dissent relies (but does not fully quote) contains language limiting MERS to taking action on behalf of the lender’s equitable interest in the mortgage instrument.4 The relevant language provides that the borrower “understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument” (emphasis added) and gives MERS “the right: to exercise any or all of those interests . . . and to take any action required of the Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument . . . .” (emphasis added). Thus, the contract language expressly limits the interests MERS owns to those granted in the mortgage instrument and limits MERS’ right to take action to those actions related to the mortgage instrument. Nothing in this language permits MERS to take any action with respect to the debt, or provides it any interest therein.

Finally, even assuming that the contract language did create such a right, Homecomings cannot grant MERS the authority to take action where the statute prohibits it. Regardless of whether Homecomings would like MERS to be able to take such action, it can only grant MERS the authority to take actions that our Legislature has statutorily permitted. Where the Legislature has limited the availability to take action to a specified group of individuals, parties cannot grant an entity that falls outside that group the authority to take such actions. Here, the Legislature specifically requires ownership of an interest in the note before permitting foreclosure by advertisement.

The contention that the contract between MERS and Homecomings provided MERS with an ownership interest in the note stretches the concept of legal ownership past the breaking point. While the term may be used very loosely in some popular contexts, such as the expression to “own a feeling,” such use refers to some subjective quality or experience. We are confident that such a loose and uncertain meaning is not what the Legislature intended. Rather, the Legislature used the word “owner” because it meant to invoke a legal or equitable right of ownership. Viewed in that context, although MERS owns the mortgage, it owns neither the debt nor an interest in any portion of the debt, and is not a secondary beneficiary of the payment of the debt.5

The dissent’s conclusion, that MERS owns an interest in the note because whether it ultimately receives the property depends on whether the note is paid, similarly distorts the term “interest” from a legal term of art to a generalized popular understanding of the word. It may be that MERS is concerned with (i.e., interested in) whether the loans are paid because that will define its actions vis-à-vis the properties, but being concerned about whether someone pays his loan is not the same as having a legal right, or even a contingent legal right, to those payments.

Plaintiffs are mistaken in their suggestion that our conclusion that MERS does not have “an interest in the indebtedness” renders that category in the statute nugatory. We need not determine the precise scope of that category, but, by way of example, any party to whom the note has been pledged as security by the lender has “an interest in the indebtedness” because, under appropriate circumstances, it owns the right to the repayment of that loan.

Plaintiffs also argue that MERS had the authority to foreclose by advertisement as the agent or nominee for Homecomings, who held the note and an equitable interest in the mortgage. However, this argument must also fail under the statute because the statute explicitly requires that, in order to foreclose by advertisement, the foreclosing party must possess an interest in the indebtedness. MCL 600.3204(1)(d). It simply does not permit foreclosure in the name of an agent or a nominee. If the Legislature intended to permit such actions, it could have easily included “agents or nominees of the noteholder” as parties that could foreclose by advertisement.Indeed, had the Legislature intended the result suggested by plaintiffs, it would have merely had to delete the word “servicing.” The law is clear that this Court must “avoid construction that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare Sys, 465 Mich 53, 60; 631 NW2d 686 (2001). Thus, the Legislature’s choice to permit only servicing agents and not all agents to foreclose by advertisement must be given effect.

Similarly, we reject plaintiffs’ reliance on Jackson v Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys, Inc, 770 NW2d 487 (Minn, 2009). Jackson, a Minnesota case, is inapplicable because it interprets a statute that is substantially different from MCL 600.3204. The statute at issue in Jackson specifically permits foreclosure by advertisement if “a mortgage is granted to a mortgagee as nominee or agent for a third party identified in the mortgage, and the third party’s successors and assigns.” Id. at 491. Thus, the Minnesota statute specifically provides for foreclosure by advertisement by entities that stand in the exact position that MERS does here. Indeed, the Minnesota statute is “frequently called ‘the MERS statute.’” Id. at 491. Our statute, MCL 600.3204(1)(d) makes no references to nominees or agents. Rather, it requires that the party foreclosing be either the mortgage servicer or have an ownership interest in the indebtedness. The Jackson statute also revolves around the mortgage, unlike MCL 600.3204(1)(d), which uses the term indebtedness, which, as discussed previously, is a reference to the note, not the mortgage. Thus, Jackson has no application to the case at bar. Moreover, the Minnesota statute demonstrates that if our Legislature had intended to allow MERS to foreclose by advertisement, they could readily have passed a statute including language like that included in Minnesota.

D. ANALYSIS BEYOND THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE

Plaintiffs suggest that, despite the plain language of the statute, the Legislature did not create three discrete categories of entities that could foreclose by advertisement. Instead, plaintiffs assert that the Legislature envisioned a continuum of entities: those that actually own the loan, those that service the loan, and some ill-defined category which might be called “everything in between.” However, courts may not “rewrite the plain statutory language and substitute our own policy decisions for those already made by the Legislature.” DiBenedetto v West Shore Hosp, 461 Mich 394, 405; 605 NW2d 300 (2000). Thus, without any language in the statute providing for a “continuum,” let alone an analysis of what it constitutes, we find no merit in this position.

Plaintiffs also raise a straw man argument by citing this Court’s decision in Davenport v HSBC Bank USA, 275 Mich App 344; 739 NW2d 383 (2007) where we observed that “[o]ur Supreme Court has explicitly held that ‘[o]nly the record holder of the mortgage has the power to foreclose’ under MCL 600.3204.” Davenport, 275 Mich App at 347, quoting Arnold v DMR Financial Services, Inc (After Remand), 448 Mich 671, 678; 532 NW2d 852 (1995). However, the facts in Davenport do not reflect that the party who held the note was a different party than the party who was the mortgagee. Davenport, 275 Mich App at 345. Indeed, the fact that the Court used the term “mortgage”  interchangeably with “indebtedness,” id. at 345-347, rather than distinguishing the two terms, indicates that the same party held both the note and the mortgage. Because the instant cases involve a situation where the noteholder and mortgage holder are separate entities, the general proposition set forth in Davenport does not apply. There is nothing in Davenport holding that a party that owns only the mortgage and not the note has an ownership interest in the debt. 6
We also note that Arnold, the Supreme Court case relied upon in Davenport, was interpreting a previous version of MCL 600.3204, which was substantially revised when the Legislature adopted the version we must apply in this case. The statute as it existed when Arnold was decided included a provision stating:

To entitle any party to give a notice as hereinafter prescribed, and to make such a foreclosure, it shall be requisite:

* * *

(3) That the mortgage containing such power of sale has been duly recorded; and if it shall have been assigned that all the assignments thereof shall have been recorded. [Arnold, 448 Mich at 676.]

This requirement, that a noteholder could only foreclose by advertisement if the mortgage they hold is duly recorded, is no longer part of the statute and does not apply in this case. The version of the statute interpreted in Arnold also lacked the language, later adopted, and operative in this case, specifically permitting foreclosure by advertisement of the owner of the note. Moreover, the language the Legislature chose to adopt in the amended language appears to reflect an intent to protect borrowers from having their mortgages foreclosed upon by advertisement by those who did not own the note because it would put them at risk of being foreclosed but still owing the noteholder the full amount of the loan.

Under MCL 440.3602, an instrument is only discharged when payment is made “to a person entitled to enforce the instrument.” Those parties listed in MCL 600.3204(1)(d)—the servicer, the owner of the debt, or someone owning an interest in the debt—would all be persons entitled to enforce the instrument that reflects the indebtedness. As previously noted, MERS is not entitled to enforce the note. Thus, if MERS were permitted to foreclose on the properties, the borrowers obligated under the note would potentially be subject to double-exposure for the debt.
That is, having lost their property to MERS, they could still be sued by the noteholder for the amount of the debt because MERS does not have the authority to discharge the note. MERS members may agree to relinquish the right of collection once foreclosure occurs, but even if they were to do so within MERS, that would not necessarily protect the borrower in the event a lender violated that policy or the note was subsequently transferred to someone other than the lender.7

These risks are, however, not present in a judicial foreclosure. MCL 600.3105(2) provides:

After a complaint has been filed to foreclose a mortgage on real estate or land contract, while it is pending and after a judgment has been rendered upon it, no separate proceeding shall be had for the recovery of the debt secured by the mortgage, or any part of it, unless authorized by the court.

Thus, once a judicial foreclosure proceeding on the mortgage has begun, a subsequent action on the note is prohibited, absent court authorization, thereby protecting the mortgagor from double recovery. See Church & Church Inc v A-1 Carpentry, 281 Mich App 330, 341-342; 766 NW2d 30 (2008), aff’d in part, vacated in part, and aff’d on other grounds in part, 483 Mich 885 (2009); United States v Leslie, 421 F2d 763, 766 (CA6, 1970) (“[I]t is the purpose of the statute to force an election of remedies which if not made would create the possibility that the mortgagee could foreclose the mortgage and at the same time hold the maker of the note personally liable for the debt.”).

Given that this risk of double-exposure only occurs where the mortgage holder and the noteholder are separate, the Legislature limited foreclosure by advertisement to those parties that were entitled to enforce the debt instrument, resulting in an automatic credit toward payment on the instrument in the event of foreclosure.8

While MERS seeks to blur the lines between itself and the lenders in this case in order to position itself as a party that may take advantage of the restricted tool of foreclosure by advertisement, it has, in other cases, sought to clearly define those lines in order to avoid the responsibilities that come with being a lender. For example, in MERS v Neb Dep’t of Banking and Fin, 270 Neb 529; 704 NW2d 784 (2005), the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance asserted that MERS was a mortgage banker and, therefore, subject to licensing and registration requirements. Id. at 530. MERS successfully maintained that it had nothing to do with the loans and did not even have an equitable interest in the property, holding only “legal title to the interests granted by Borrower.” Id. at 534. The court accepted MERS argument that it is not a lender, but merely a shell designed to make buying and selling of loans easier and faster by disconnecting the mortgage from the loan. Id. at 535. Having separated the mortgage from the loan, and disclaimed any interest in the loan in order to avoid the legal responsibilities of a lender, MERS nevertheless claims in the instant case that it can employ the rights of a lender by foreclosing in a manner that the statute affords only to those mortgagees who also own an interest in the loan. But as the Nebraska court stated in adopting MERS argument, “MERS has no independent right to collect on any debt because MERS itself has not extended any credit, and none of the mortgage debtors owe MERS any money.” Id. at 535

The separation of the note from the mortgage in order to speed the sale of mortgage debt without having to deal with all the “paper work” of mortgage transfers appears to be the sole reason for MERS’ existence. The flip side of separating the note from the mortgage is that it can slow the mechanism of foreclosure by requiring judicial action rather than allowing foreclosure by advertisement. To the degree there were expediencies and potential economic benefits in separating the mortgagee from the noteholder so as to speed the sale of mortgagebased debt, those lenders that participated were entitled to reap those benefits. However, it is no less true that, to the degree that this separation created risks and potential costs, those same lenders must be responsible for absorbing the costs.

III. CONCLUSION

Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because, pursuant to MCL 600.3204(1)(d), MERS did not own the indebtedness, own an interest in the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, or service the mortgage. MERS’ inability to comply with the statutory requirements rendered the foreclosure proceedings in both cases void ab initio. Thus, the circuit courts improperly affirmed the district courts’ decisions to proceed with eviction based upon the
foreclosures of defendants’ properties.

In both Docket No. 290248 and 291443, we reverse the circuit court’s affirmance of the district court’s orders, vacate the foreclosure proceedings, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. Defendants, as the prevailing parties, may tax costs. MCR 7.219(A).

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto

Footnotes

1 Residential Funding Co, LLC v Saurman, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 15, 2009 (Docket No. 290248); Bank of New York Trust Co v Messner, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 29, 2009 (Docket No. 291443).

2 In Docket No. 290248, the district court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). In Docket No. 291443, the district court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2) (“If it appears to the court that the opposing party, rather than the moving party, is entitled to judgment, the court may render judgment in favor of the opposing party.”).

3 We note that, in these cases, MERS disclaims any interest in the properties other than the legal right to foreclose and immediately quitclaim the properties to the true owner, i.e., the lender.

4 Though the lenders do not hold legal title to the mortgage instrument, they do have an equitable interest therein. See Alton v Slater, 298 Mich 469, 480; 299 NW 149 (1941); Atwood v Schlee, 269 Mich 322; 257 NW 712 (1934). The lender’s equitable interest in the mortgage does not, however, translate into an equitable interest for MERS in the loan.

5 The dissent’s analogy between MERS’ ability to “own an interest” in the note and an easementholder’s ownership of an interest in land without owning the land is unavailing. An easement holder owns rights to the land that even the landholder cannot infringe upon or divest him of, see Dobie v Morrison, 227 Mich App 536, 541; 575 NW2d 817 (1998) (noting that a fee owner cannot use the burdened land in any manner that would interfere with the easement holders’ rights), while the interest the dissent contends MERS “owns” would be equal to or less than that of the noteholder and the noteholder could completely divest MERS of the alleged interest by forgiving the note without MERS having any recourse. Accordingly, the analogy fails.

6 In addition, while we reject plaintiffs’ overly broad reading of Davenport for the reasons just stated, we note that even under that reading, plaintiffs would merely have to obtain assignment of the mortgage from MERS prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings.

7 The dissent’s observation that, had Homecomings remained the mortgagee, it would have had the right to foreclose by advertisement does not change the outcome because the statutory language provides that it is Homecomings’ additional status as the noteholder that would give it that right. The question before us is whether a mortgagee that is not a noteholder has the right to foreclose by advertisement.

8 The dissent’s assertion that MCL 600.3105(2) provides for an election of remedies that prevents this double recovery is erroneous, because that statute governs only judicial foreclosures, not foreclosures by advertisement. MCL 600.3105(2) requires the filing of a complaint, something that does not occur in foreclosure by advertisement. Absent the complaint, there is no time during which a complaint would be “pending” or any judgment that could be “rendered upon it” that would prohibit the filing of any “separate proceeding . . . for the recovery of the debt secured by the mortgage.” See also Cheff v Edwards, 203 Mich App 557, 560; 513 NW2d 439 (1994) (holding that “foreclosure by advertisement is not a judicial action”).  Consequently, the prohibitions expressed in MCL 600.3105(2) would not apply to foreclosure by advertisement and, therefore, would not protect borrowers from double recovery is MERS were permitted to foreclose by advertisement.

[ipaper docId=53661328 access_key=key-17eltfk9srl2ydxp86r6 height=600 width=600 /]

According to AP,  the court on Monday issued a high profile-case order in the matter of Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon. One of the issues in the case is whether there was a fraud on the trial court.

And we all now the original work behind this was none other than Law Offices of David J. Stern, who has recently shut down as of March 31, 2011.

On February 2, 2011 the Florida 4th DCA said

We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents. The defendant has requested a denial of the equitable right to foreclose the mortgage at all. If this is an available remedy as a sanction after a voluntary dismissal, it may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State. Accordingly we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as of great public importance

[ipaper docId=52792589 access_key=key-myy4q2y0u4vihs7pu7x height=600 width=600 /]

THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON-fka THE BANK OF
NEW YORK TRUSTEE UNDER
THE POOLING AND SERVICING
AGREEMENT SERIES 2004-24 CB,

v

GEORGE S. ELGHOSSAIN and
MONA C. ELGHOSSAIN,

Excerpt:

In today’s widespread foreclosure litigation, the specific fact pattern this court addresses appears not to have been squarely decided before: does a mortgage lender’s “servicer’s” Notice of Intent to Foreclose satisfy the statutory mandates that notice be provided by the lender and that the lender as well as the lender’s representative be identified in that notice. The lender and the lender’s representation must be identified in the notice. Having not done so here, the motion is deficient. The foreclosure complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=52568581 access_key=key-l2p6uc3asz7q113ql3z height=600 width=600 /]

EXCERPTS:

Q Have you reviewed the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement in this case?
A No, I haven’t.
Q It’s my understanding I believe it was
objected to being produced. So up till today, have
you reviewed any document that allows you to speak
on behalf of Bank of New York?
A I haven’t.
Q Have you spoken to anyone at Bank of New
York to confirm that you are allowed to speak on
behalf of a separate corporate entity here today?
A No.

Q So as you sit here, do you know whether
you have the authority from the Bank of New York to
testify to these matters and to bind the Bank of New
York as a corporation?
A No.

Q Okay. And let me go back before I get
into the question one. You are not an officer of
the Bank of New York, correct?
A That’s correct.
Q You’re not a director of the Bank of New
York?
A Correct.
Q You’re not a managing agent of the Bank of
New York?
A Correct.

<SNIP>

Q What I’m getting at is the ownership of
the actual note and mortgage, not the servicing, but
the ownership. Do you have any other document that
would either confirm or contest whether

NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida owned
this note and mortgage in order to assign it as set
forth in Exhibit 2?
A Not that I know of

<SNIP>

Q So again, do you have anything at all that
suggests that NationsCredit Home Equity Services
Corporation ever owned this note?
A I don’t.

<SNIP>

Q Do you agree that the Bank of New York
lacked standing to file the 2004 case?
A Can you be more specific on your question?
Q Do you agree that the Bank of New York did
not own the note and mortgage at the time it filed
the 2004 case?
A Well, I can say that there’s no recorded
document showing that date.

<SNIP>

Q Do you agree that the lack of standing was clear?
A No.
Q Why not?
A Because of the overlapping of dates and
the obvious issues with the assignment chain, it’s not clear that it was straightforward.

Continue below…
[ipaper docId=51043744 access_key=key-17hvwa3aj1m8rwatd7fb height=600 width=600 /]

Supreme Court, Kings County

NYCTL 2008-A Trust AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN, Plaintiffs,

against

Estate of Locksley Holas a/k/a Lockaley Holas, et. al., Defendants

10815/09

Plaintiff

Josef Abt

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP

NY, NY

Arthur M. Schack, J.

In this tax lien certificate foreclosure action, plaintiffs, NYCTL 1998-1 TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN (THE TRUST), moved on September 9, 2009 for an order of reference and related relief for the premises located at 856 Hancock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 1490, Lot 33, County of Kings). In my May 3, 2010 decision and order, with respect to the motion for an order of reference and related relief, I held:

The affidavit submitted in support of this application . . . was not

executed by an officer of . . . THE TRUST, or someone with a power

of attorney from plaintiffs. Leave is granted to plaintiffs to renew their

application, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, for an

order to appoint a referee to compute and amend the caption upon

plaintiffs’ presentation to the Court of its compliance with the statutory requirements of CPLR § 3215 (f), with “an affidavit of facts” executed

by someone who is an officer of THE TRUST or someone who has a

valid power of attorney from THE TRUST. [*2]

Further, I noted that the affidavit of merit was submitted by one Hillary Leonard, who stated that “I am the Authorized Signatory of PLYMOUTH PARK TAX SERVICES, LLC, servicing agent for plaintiffs in the within action.” Plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with any “power of attorney authorizing PLYMOUTH PARK TAX SERVICES, LLC to go forward with the instant foreclosure action. Therefore, the proposed order for the appointment of a referee to compute and amend the caption must be denied without prejudice.”

Moreover, I observed that:

The plaintiffs have failed to meet the clear requirements of

CPLR § 3215 (f) for a default judgment.

On any application for judgment by default, the applicant

shall file proof of service of the summons and the complaint, or

a summons and notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule

305 or subdivision (a) of rule 316 of this chapter, and proof of

the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due

by affidavit made by the party . . . Where a verified complaint has

been served, it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting

the claim and the amount due; in such case, an affidavit as to the

default shall be made by the party or the party’s attorney. [Emphasis

added].

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, never submitted a

renewed motion for an order of reference to the Court. Then, on February 14, 2011, the Court received a letter, dated February 9, 2011, from Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, in which plaintiffs’ counsel stated that the September 9, 2009 motion “for the appointment of a Referee to compute was submitted to the Court and is currently pending before your Honor for determination [Emphasis added]. I respectfully request that Plaintiffs’ ex-parte application be withdrawn at this time without prejudice to renew at a later date.”

Today is two hundred and ninety (290) days, more than three-quarters of a year, since I issued my May 3, 2010 order giving Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP sixty (60) days to renew their motion for an order of reference and related relief. I have not yet received a renewed motion for an order of reference with the requested affidavit of merit “by someone who is an officer of THE TRUST or someone who has a valid power of attorney from THE TRUST.”

Further, it is my policy to mail copies of my orders to litigants’ counsel. Even if Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, for whatever reason, did not receive by U.S. Mail a copy of the May 3, 2010 order, it must to be suffering from corporate amnesia. The May 3, 2010 order was properly filed with Kings County Clerk. Plaintiffs’ counsel should have ascertained that I issued my May 3, 2010 order giving them sixty (60) days to renew their motion for an order of reference and related relief with proper documentation. Therefore, I grant the request of Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP that their “application be withdrawn at this time.” However, for violation of my May 3, 2010 order, the instant tax lien foreclosure action is dismissed with prejudice and the notice of pendency is cancelled and discharged. The Court cannot countenance utter disregard of a court-ordered deadline.

The failure of plaintiffs’ counsel, Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, to comply [*3]with my May 3, 2010 order demonstrates delinquent conduct by Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP. This mandates the dismissal with prejudice of the instant action. Failure to comply with court-ordered time frames must be taken seriously. It cannot be ignored. There are consequences for ignoring court orders. Recently, on December 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp. (16 NY3d 74; 2010 NY Slip Op 09198), instructed, at *5:

As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, our court system is

dependent on all parties engaged in litigation abiding by the rules of

proper practice (see e.g. Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 748 [2004];

Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). The failure to comply with

deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and

the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the

position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the

delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of

the litigants they represent. Chronic noncompliance with deadlines

breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules

and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution.

Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply

with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must

somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely

responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion

of their attorney-client relationships as well. For these reasons, it

is important to adhere to the position we declared a decade ago that

“[i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial

system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders

with impunity [Emphasis added].” (Kihl, 94 NY2d at 123).

“Litigation cannot be conducted efficiently if deadlines are not taken seriously, and we make clear again, as we have several times before, that disregard of deadlines should not and will not be tolerated (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 748 [2004]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]) [Emphasis added].” (Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy and Drake, Architects and Landscape Architects, P.C., 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005]). “As we made clear in Brill, and underscore here, statutory time frames —like court-order time frames (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]) — are not options, they are requirements, to be taken seriously by the parties. Too many pages of the Reports, and hours of the courts,

are taken up with deadlines that are simply ignored [Emphasis added].” (Miceli, 3 NY3d at 726-726). [*4]

Further, 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

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 plaintiffs’ notice of pendency against the subject property “in the exercise of the inherent power of the court.”

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 10815/09, is dismissed with

prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency in this action, filed with the Kings

County Clerk on May 1, 2009, by plaintiffs, NYCTL 1998-1 TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN, to foreclose on a tax lien certificate for real property located at 856 Hancock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 1490, Lot 33, County of Kings), is cancelled and discharged.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. [*5]

ENTER

________________________________

HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK

J. S. C.

[ipaper docId=49548530 access_key=key-ffjul07zknc2z09yub8 height=600 width=600 /]

Abigail- knocks this OUT THE BALL PARK! Outstanding!!

By ABIGAIL FIELD Posted 11:30 AM 02/08/11

Foreclosure proceedings in courts nationwide have exposed a swamp of fraudulent documents, and in some cases — though perhaps far too few — those bad docs have sunk attempts by banks to take people’s homes.

Some of Florida’s courts, however, — particularly courts in Lee County — have come under fire for compounding the documentation problems by ignoring the rule of law in order to rush through foreclosures. And a new rule put in place by the Florida Supreme Court to ensure that documents being used in foreclosures are properly certified hasn’t worked well, thanks to a new type of robo-signing that has sprung up to get around it.

In a reflection of how bad things have gotten, lenders are asking judges to “ratify” foreclosures done with robo-signed documents, the Palm Beach Post reported on Saturday. While such “ratification” would not, as a matter of law, mean much, the Post says, it might discourage people from challenging the foreclosures.

With luck, two recent developments may help really clean up the fraud in the Sunshine State. First, an appeals court has asked the Florida Supreme Court to clarify judges’ power to address the fraud, and second, the Florida Bar Association is finally taking a stand.

Asking for Power to Punish Foreclosure Fraud

By William E. Lewis Jr.| Highlands Today

Published: February 6, 2011

A Palm Beach county homeowner fighting alleged foreclosure fraud has ended up before the Florida Supreme Court.

An appeals court last week requested that the high court consider the case of Greenacres homeowner Roman Pino as a matter of “great public importance.” The decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach was unusual as neither the bank nor the homeowner requested such a review.

“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.

Should the case be accepted by the Florida Supreme Court and a decision rendered in favor of Pino, thousands of cases could be impacted as allegations of document fraud run rampant throughout the state.

courtesy of IceLegal

excerpts:

JUDGE POLEN: I’m afraid I’m not following
that. David Stern’s client at the time was BNY
Mellon Bank, right?

MR. NIEVES: Yes.

JUDGE POLEN: Okay. And that’s evidence of
what, an assignment to a bank?

MR. NIEVES: Basically, the law firm
manufactured evidence for the client’s case.

JUDGE POLEN: Okay.

MR. NIEVES: It was signed and executed by
Cheryl Samons, who works for David Stern, and
executed the assignment solely for the litigation,
and, in the assignment, posed as an officer of a
different entity.

<SNIP>

MS. GIDDINGS: Well, Your Honor, if you look at
the allegations that they have made, almost all of
those allegations pertain to a different case.
They’re not this particular case. I don’t know what
that document — what occurred in that document. But
I think this court is probably going to have a number
of cases that come up before it where that issue
is — it may be at issue in subsequent proceedings.
And when you reopen — if you’re going to reopen
those cases, you have to make sure that you’re
reopening it for something that is material.

JUDGE FARMER: Fraud on the Court is not
material?

MS. GIDDINGS: Your Honor, fraud on the
Court —

JUDGE FARMER: Publishing false documents is
not material?

<SNIP>

MS. GIDDINGS: Because there was no affirmative
relief obtained in this case, Your Honor. And, in
fact, the relief was that Mr. Pino has been living in
the house for a long time, apparently without making
any payments.
And I understand your concerns, Your Honor.
But I’m urging you to consider this case in the grand
scheme of things. If you allow courts to go back and
open up all of these cases, when it’s clear on the
face that there was no affirmative relief obtained,
or that the affirmative relief would not have been
material, then you’re going to create chaos in the
court system.

JUDGE FARMER: So, are you suggesting that this
fraud has been that widespread that it —

MS. GIDDINGS: Your Honor, I’m not
acknowledging that any fraud occurred. I think that
there is — we all know —

JUDGE FARMER: Why would we shrink — as a
court system, why would we shrink, no matter how many
cases it might involve, from looking out for attempts
to defraud courts to publish and utter and use false
instruments? Why wouldn’t we be most vigilant?

To View Video of The Oral Argument Go HERE

[ipaper docId=48141935 access_key=key-luov0ltst9x6k2vgxi4 height=600 width=600 /]

By Prashant Gopal and Thom Weidlich – Feb 1, 2011 3:16 PM ET

A JPMorgan Chase & Co. branch in El Paso, Texas, may have furniture and computers seized by the sheriff unless the bank complies with a judge’s order to pay the legal bills of a single mother whose eviction case he dismissed.

The manager of the Chase branch was served on Jan. 26 with court papers that instructed the New York-based company to pay attorney Richard A. Roman’s $5,000 in fees, according to Detective Hector Lara, an El Paso County sheriff’s officer. The manager, Jose Gomez, told Lara that the branch’s gear is protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and that he would contact the bank’s security staff and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Lara said today in a telephone interview.

Lara said he’s waiting for an opinion from the county attorney on whether the bank’s property can be seized.

“They don’t have a problem putting my client out in the street,” Roman said. “But when somebody prevails against a bank, they pull every string in the book to avoid paying.”

[ipaper docId=47639881 access_key=key-d2ak3tkz5ccj8d89ayl height=600 width=600 /]

via: A. Campbell

Excerpt:

The Court has considered the pleadings, evidence and the arguments of the parties’ counsel and/or representative in this cause and is of the opinion that judgment should be rendered for defendants.

The Court makes the following findings:

A Temporary Restraining Order was signed by the Presiding Judge of the 448th Judicial District Court and was in effect at the time of the foreclosure sale; and

The Foreclosure sale was conducted irrespective of the Order of the 448th Judicial District Court and title is presently at issue.

It is accordingly ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=47639881 access_key=key-d2ak3tkz5ccj8d89ayl height=600 width=600 /]

BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE-HOLDERS CWABS, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-14, C/O BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
DIANE G. CANO AND UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF DIANE G. CANO [MARIO CANO], DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR S&L INVESTMENT LENDING, INC., DEFENDANT.

No. 2010AP477.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV.

Opinion Filed: January 20, 2011.

Before Vergeront, P.J., Lundsten and Blanchard, JJ.

¶ 1 PER CURIAM.

Diane and Mario Cano appeal a foreclosure judgment. The Canos contend that (1) the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in granting the Bank of New York’s motion to reopen its foreclosure action against the Canos; and (2) the court erred in granting summary judgment to the Bank. We conclude that the court properly reopened the foreclosure action, but that the Bank did not establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=47539740 access_key=key-2hdlcib85km4810c3itw height=600 width=600 /]