Alison Frankel via Reuters Legal/ On the Case is working on this story.

Please check back.

[ipaper docId=87228073 access_key=key-17ov3m0kj8ag4nlsvh0h height=600 width=600 /]

h/t NYE LAVALLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GARY STUBBS,
Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, LP, and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

EXCERPT:

Plaintiff has alleged facts making it plausible that Fannie Mae was in fact
the secured creditor at the time of the foreclosure and has alleged that no
assignment to Fannie Mae was filed prior to the time of sale as required by
O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(b). Therefore, based on the allegations in the amended
complaint, BAC evaded the most substantive requirements of Georgia’s
foreclosure statute in that (1) it was not the secured creditor entitled to foreclose
despite providing a notice letter affirmatively representing it was the creditor;
and (2) it failed to file the assignment of the security deed to the secured creditor
in the county deed records prior to the foreclosure. See O.C.G.A. § 162(b);
Weems v. Coker, 70 Ga. 746, 749 (Ga. 1883); Cummings v. Anderson, 173 B.R.
959, 963 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994).3 The Court accordingly DENIES the motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure based on failure to comply with
Georgia foreclosure law.

For whatever reason scribd download is not permitting this to be downloaded.

Please use this link to download Stubbs_v._Bank_of_America

[ipaper docId=85835317 access_key=key-p289vkcj1anvmg11uxn height=600 width=600 /]

H/T Abigail – If you had any doubts about whether ‘your’ federal gov’t works for you or BofA, read Yves Smith’s latest:

One in a while, you can discern a linchpin lie on which other important lies hinge. We can point to quite a few in America: the notion of a permanent war on terror, which somehow justifies vitiating not just the Constitution, but even the Magna Carta, or the idea of an imperial executive branch.

Now the apparently-to-be-filed-in-court-today Federal/state attorneys general mortgage settlement is less consequential than matters of life and limb. But it still show the lengths to which the officialdom is willing to go to vitiate the law in order to get its way.

HUD Secretary Donovan, the propagandist in chief for the Federal/state mortgage pact, has claimed he has investor approval to do the mortgage modifications that are a significant portion of the value of the settlement. We’ll eventually see what is actually in the settlement, but the early PR was that “no less than $10 billion” of the $25 billion headline total was to come from principal reductions. Modifications of mortgages not owned by banks, meaning in securitized trusts, are counted only 50% and before Donovan realized he was committing a faux pas, he said he expected 85% of the mods to be from securitizations, so that means $17 billion.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

Alison Frankel-

Way back in June, a day or so after Bank of America announced its proposed $8.5 billion settlement with Countrywide mortgage-backed securities investors, I wrote about the very peculiar vehicle through which the bank was seeking judicial approval of the arrangement. The settlement was filed by the Countrywide MBS trustee, Bank of New York Mellon, under Article 77 of the New York state code. Article 77, which allows a trustee to seek a judicial endorsement of trust-related decisions, is usually invoked in garden-variety trust disputes, not in an $8.5 billion deal affecting thousands of beneficiaries in 530 trusts. But the law offered distinct advantages for BofA, BNY Mellon, and the group of 22 institutional investors that negotiated the Countrywide MBS settlement. Under New York trust law, trustees have broad discretion to make decisions on behalf of the trusts they oversee. As long as the judge presiding over an Article 77 proceeding determines that the trustee has acted reasonably and hasn’t abused its discretion, the trustee’s decision gets a stamp of judicial approval. Anyone who disagrees with the trustee — and the banks and institutional investors that negotiated the BofA proposed settlement knew that there would be many investors who didn’t like it — bears the heavy burden of proving that the trustee acted outside the bounds of reason.

[REUTERS LEGAL]

[ipaper docId=83026692 access_key=key-81d5xxcxdiizski36nc height=600 width=600 /]

[Cite as BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Booth, 2012-Ohio-487.]

COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P.
FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING, L.P.
Plaintiff-Appellant

-vs-

CARL B. BOOTH, ET AL.
Defendant-Appellees

JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Case No. 2011CA00161

O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Common
Pleas Court, Case No. 2010CV03436

JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: February 6, 2012

APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellees
ELIZABETH S. FULLER DAVID L. DINGWELL
Designated as Primary Counsel Tzangas, Plakas, Mannos & Raies, LTD

Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss 220 Market Avenue South
120 East Fourth Street, 8th Floor Eighth floor
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Canton, Ohio 44702

Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00161 2

Hoffman, J.

(¶1) Plaintiff-appellant BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P., fka Countrywide
Home Loans Servicing L.P., appeals the June 22, 2011 Order entered by the Stark
County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Defendants-appellees Carl B. Booth and
Cynthia L. Booth.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE

(¶2) Appellees Carl and Cynthia Booth executed a promissory note in the
amount of $69,750.00 in favor of America’s Wholesale Lender to secure property at
9341 Oak Avenue S.E., East Sparta, Ohio. To secure the borrowed sum, Appellees
granted a first mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc, as nominee
for America’s Wholesale Lender. The loan was later acquired by Appellant Countrywide
Home Loans Servicing, L.P., nka BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.

(¶3) Appellees defaulted on the mortgage, and Appellant accelerated the
amount due on the note. Appellant then filed a foreclosure action on September 20,
2010, and Appellees filed an answer on October 8, 2010. The trial court scheduled the
matter for mediation. Appellant failed to send a representative at the appointed time,
and did not make a representative available by phone as agreed upon. The trial court
then mandated a dispositive motion deadline of April 28, 2011, and scheduled a nonjury
trial for June 13, 2011. The assignment notice was sent via facsimile to Appellant’s
counsel.

(¶4) On June 13, 2011, Appellant’s counsel moved the trial court for a
continuance of the scheduled trial date, which the trial court denied.

(¶5) On June 13, 2011, Appellees’ counsel moved the trial court to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.

(¶6) On June 22, 2011, the trial court ordered dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice. The same day, June 22, 2011, Appellant filed a notice of dismissal with the
trial court voluntarily dismissing the case without prejudice. The trial court’s order of
dismissal is filed prior to Appellant’s notice of dismissal in the trial court docket.

(¶7) On July 21, 2011, Appellant moved the trial court to vacate the dismissal
with prejudice pursuant to Civil Rule 60(B).

(¶8) Prior to the trial court’s ruling on Appellant’s 60(B) motion, Appellant filed a
notice of appeal with this Court, assigning as error:

(¶9) “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT’S
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE
SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TRIAL COURT’S INTENTION TO DISMISS THE CASE
WITH PREJUDICE.

(¶10) “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT’S
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE APPELLANT’S CONDUCT DID NOT
NECESSITATE SUCH A HARSH SANCTION.

(¶11) “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT’S
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS WITHIN ITS RIGHTS
TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS ITS COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE SINCE THE
JUNE 13, 2011 TRIAL NEVER COMMENCED.

(¶12) “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT’S
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE THE DISMISSAL UNJUSTLY ENRICHED

APPELLEES WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCHARGED OF THE UNDERLYING
DEBT IN A CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY.”
I, II, and III.

(¶13) Appellant’s first, second and third assignments of error raise common and
interrelated issues; therefore we will address the arguments together.

(¶14) The standard of review of an involuntary dismissal issued by the trial court
with prejudice is an abuse of discretion. Nelson v. Alpha Enterprises, Inc., 2003-Ohio-
5422. Civil Rule 41(B) states,

(¶15) “(B) Involuntary dismissal: effect thereof

(¶16) “(1) Failure to prosecute. Where the plaintiff fails to prosecute, or comply
with these rules or any court order, the court upon motion of a defendant or on its own
motion may, after notice to the plaintiff’s counsel, dismiss an action or claim.

(¶17) “(2) Dismissal; non-jury action. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the
court without a jury, has completed the presentation of the plaintiff’s evidence, the
defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not
granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the
plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of fact may then determine them
and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the
close of all the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff,
the court shall make findings as provided in Civ. R. 52 if requested to do so by any
party.

(¶18) “(3) Adjudication on the merits; exception. A dismissal under division (B) of
this rule and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, except as provided in division

(B)(4) of this rule, operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the court, in its
order for dismissal, otherwise specifies.”

(¶19) Appellant argues the trial court did not afford them notice of the trial
court’s intent to dismiss the case with prejudice, and Appellant was unable to appear at
the scheduled trial on June 13, 2011.

(¶20) Upon review of the record, the March 24, 2011 Report of Mediation
indicates the case should be returned to the docket due to the failure of Appellant to be
available at mediation either in person or by phone as previously agreed upon. Further,
Appellant moved the trial court for a continuance of the trial date asserting:

(¶21) “Bank of America and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (together “BAC”)
has established a process to insure that reasonable efforts to avoid foreclosure
sale/judgment have been exhausted before proceeding to sale/judgment. These efforts
have not yet been completed in connection with this loan and plaintiff therefore requests
that the trial be postponed for 120 days to allow these efforts to conclude. Plaintiff
notes that the case is under the 1 year guideline as same was filed September of 2010.”

(¶22) The June 13, 2011 transcript of the proceedings before the trial court
indicates the trial court called the matter for trial and Appellees were present in the
courtroom with counsel. The trial court reviewed the record and Appellees’ counsel
made a brief statement as to the proceedings to date and Appellant’s failure to
prosecute and act in good faith. The trial court overruled Appellant’s motion for a
continuance, and dismissed Appellant’s complaint because counsel for Appellant failed
to appear for the scheduled trial.

(¶23) Appellant received notice the case had been set for trial, effectively putting
them on notice if they failed to appear for trial, the case may be dismissed for lack of
prosecution. The record reflects Appellant had notice of the trial date, and throughout
the proceedings had failed to actively participate. We find the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing Appellant’s complaint with prejudice due to Appellant’s failure
to appear at the scheduled trial. We find failure to appear for a scheduled trial different
from case law addressing dismissals for want of prosecution for failing to abide by
interlocutory court orders or discovery related disputes.

(¶24) Our review of the trial court docket indicates the trial court’s order of
dismissal was filed prior to Appellant’s notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in
the record.

(¶25) The first, second and third assignments of error are overruled.

IV.

(¶26) Appellant’s fourth assignment of error asserts Appellees were unjustly
enriched by the trial court’s judgment as the underlying debt was previously discharged
in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

(¶27) Appellant’s complaint states at Count I:

(¶28) “Plaintiff further says that the defendants, Carl B. Booth and Cynthia L.
Booth, are immune from personal liability on said note by virtue of Bankruptcy Case No.
08-64367, United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.”

(¶29) We find Appellant’s complaint does not set forth a claim for unjust
enrichment.

(¶30) Upon review of the record, while the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s
complaint with prejudice may well appear to present a windfall for Appellees, Appellant’s
failure to appear at trial cannot be circumvented by now claiming unjust enrichment.
Appellant’s own actions lead to the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint with prejudice,
and Appellant was the architect of that outcome.

(¶31) Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.

(¶32) The June 22, 2011 Order of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur

s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

s/ W. Scott Gwin_____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P. :
FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS :
SERVICING, L.P. :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
CARL B. BOOTH, ET AL. :
:
Defendant-Appellees : Case No. 2011CA00161
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the June 22, 2011 Order of
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.

s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN

s/ John W. Wise______________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE

[ipaper docId=81252603 access_key=key-1anmsdh2t3s5yvfwz2mr height=600 width=600 /]

What a team!

HW-

Attorneys General for Delaware and New York secured permission from a U.S. District Judge to intervene in court proceedings discussing the Bank of New York Mellon (BK: 18.03 -0.33%) $8.5 billion settlement with Bank of America (BAC: 5.045 -3.90%) over toxic mortgage-backed securities.

The AGs are eager to get a presence in the proceedings, so they can represent the interests of the investing public in their respective states before a final deal is reached. Admission to the process gives the AGs a chance to hear where talks are going and an opportunity to object to provisions of the deal.

[HOUSING WIRE]

“This action concerns far more than the financial interests of a few sophisticated investors,” Pauley wrote. “And the intervention of the State AGs in this action will protect the interests of absent investors.”

 WSJ-

The federal judge presiding over the landmark $8.5 billion settlement between Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and major investors in mortgage-backed securities has allowed the state attorneys general of New York and Delaware to intervene in the case.

In a ruling dated Friday, Judge William H. Pauley agreed with the state lawmakers that the massive settlement carries implications for the nation’s financial markets, not just the investors who will be impacted by the pact.

“This action concerns far more than the financial interests of a few sophisticated investors,” Pauley wrote. “And the intervention of the State AGs in this action will protect the interests of absent investors.”

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

NEWARK, NJ, November 7, 2011 – Today Judge Katherine S. Hayden of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion by Bank of America, N.A. to dismiss the proposed class action Beals v. Bank of America, N.A. This action, was filed by Lawrence Friscia of the New Jersey law firm of Friscia & Associates, a boutique firm concentrating on foreclosure defense, and makes numerous allegations against Bank of America in connection with allegedly fraudulent and procedurally defective foreclosure actions brought by Bank of America against homeowners in New Jersey.

For inquiries related to this matter contact Lawrence Friscia. Mr. Friscia can be reached at (973) 500-8024. Please visit www.friscialaw.com for additional information.

OPINION Excerpt:

VI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court will not abstain from this case. Defendants‘ motion to dismiss is granted as to all claims for negligent processing of a loan modification, as to all claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and as to Grullon‘s claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The motion is denied as to the Beals plaintiffs‘ breach of contract claim, the Beals plaintiffs‘ claim for a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, all claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and all claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

[ipaper docId=71964060 access_key=key-19ivzwooz1a1lh8xztvu height=600 width=600 /]

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 /]

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 /]

Oregonian-

Bank of America said today it mistakenly sent nearly 5,000 Oregonians letters claiming they owe property taxes and might be risking foreclosure when they, in fact, don’t.

Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation director Rich Hobernicht estimates his office has received 1,000 calls since Monday from homeowners who received letters from BAC Tax Services Corp, an arm of the bank’s BAC Home Loan Servicing division.

Continue reading [OREGONLive]

Civ. No.6:10-cv-01306-AA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Dated: June 1, 2011

OPINION AND ORDER

Pamela K. Staton Pro se plaintiff

Russell L. Baldwin
Preparation attorney for plaintiff

Stephen P. McCarthy
Pilar C. French
Lane Powell PC
Attorneys for defendants

AIKEN, Chief Judge:

Defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (sued erroneously as Bank of America (BAC) Home Loans Servicing, L.P.), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and ReconTrust, N.A. move to dismiss all of plaintiff Pamela Staton’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.

In addition, plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, seeking an injunction. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

In 2005, plaintiff took out a loan from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”) in the amount of $735,500. Pursuant to this transaction, plaintiff executed a promissory note in favor of Countrywide. The note was secured by a Deed of Trust, which lists Countrywide as the lender, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as the beneficiary, “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns,” and Fidelity National Title Insurance as the trustee. The Deed of Trust was filed in Lane County, Oregon on November 29, 2005.

In September 2009, plaintiff stopped making payments required under the loan agreement. On October 19, 2009, Countrywide’s loan servicer, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (“BAC”), sent a Notice of Intent to Accelerate to plaintiff. The Notice of Intent to Accelerate advised plaintiff that she was required to make a payment of $8,915.61, plus other regular payments, by November 18, 2009, otherwise the default would not be considered cured and the mortgage payments would be accelerated with the full amount becoming due and payable. Plaintiff made a partial payment, but failed to fully cure the default.

On November 10, 2009, BAC sent plaintiff another Notice of Intent to Accelerate, relating to a home equity line of credit loan secured by the property. The second Notice of Intent to Accelerate advised plaintiff that she was required to make a payment of $719.61, plus other regular payments, by December 15, 2009, otherwise the default would not be considered cured and the mortgage payments would be accelerated with the full amount becoming due and payable. Plaintiff failed to cure the default.

Sometime prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings in 2010, Countrywide securitized, bundled and sold, or “tranched,” plaintiff’s promissory note. As a result of the “tranching,” one or more parties, including CWALT, Inc. (“CWALT”), gained a beneficial interest in the note.

On January 6, 2010, MERS, as nominee for Countrywide, assigned the Deed of Trust to The Bank of New York Mellon, fka

The Bank of New York (“BNY”), as trustee for certificate holder CWALT. On January 11, 2010, the Assignment of the Deed of Trust was recorded in the official records of Lane County.

On January 6, BNY by BAC appointed ReconTrust to serve as successor trustee for the Deed of Trust. This appointment was executed on January 6, 2010, and recorded in the official records of Lane County on January 11, 2010.

On January 6, 2010, ReconTrust executed a Notice of Default and Election to sell plaintiff’s property. On January 11, 2010, the Notice of Default and Election to Sell was recorded in the official records of Lane County. On June 1, 2010, ReconTrust recorded the following documents in the official records of Lane County: Affidavit of Mailing of Notice of Sale, Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Sale, Affidavit of Service, and a copy of the Notice of Sale.

On September 17, 2010, plaintiff filed a claim against defendants in Lane County Circuit Court. On September 25, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging the following: 1) declaratory judgment, pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 28.010, that the actions of defendants are void pursuant to Oregon’s Trust Deed Act and enjoining defendants from foreclosing plaintiff’s property; 2) fraud; 3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 4) breach of fiduciary duty; 5) declaratory judgment, pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 28.010, 28.020, defining the rights and duties between plaintiff, defendants, and mortgage pass-through certificate holders; 6) quiet title; 7) remove cloud on title; and 8 statutory claim for invalid encumbrance. Plaintiff also seeks economic damages of $1,135,000, non-economic damages of $150,000, and “actual” damages in the amount of $1,060,000. On October 20, 2010, defendants removed this action to this Court.

On November 1, 2010, ReconTrust executed a new Notice of Default and Election to Sell the Property. On November 4, 2010, the Notice of Default and Election to Sell was recorded in the official records of Lane County. The Notice stated that the foreclosure sale was set to occur on March 16, 2011, at the Lane County Courthouse. A foreclosure sale has not yet occurred.

STANDARDS

Where the plaintiff “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 For the purpose of the motion to dismiss, the complaint is liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and its allegations are taken as true. Rosen v. Walters, 719 F.2d 1422, 1424 (9th Cir. 1983. However, bare assertions that amount to nothing more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements” of a claim “are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.” Ashcroft v. Igbal. 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1951 (2009.

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitles to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) . Substantive law on an issue determines the materiality of a fact. T.W. Electrical Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Assoc., 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987. Whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party determines the authenticity of a dispute. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986.

DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that all of plaintiff’s claims fail to state a claim as a matter of law, and therefore should be dismissed. Defendants also assert that plaintiff’s declaratory relief claims should be dismissed because defendants had the authority to commence and prosecute a nonjudicial foreclosure action.

I. Preliminary Matters

To support their motion to dismiss, defendants request that this Court take judicial notice of MERS’ Terms and Conditions. The agreement outlines the relationship between MERS and its members, such as Countrywide or BNY, and permits MERS to initiate a foreclosure sale on behalf of a lender.

Plaintiff argues that this Court should not take judicial notice “for the purpose of determining whether defendants’ actions were permissible under Oregon law because plaintiff disputes the authenticity of the documents.” Plf.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. For S.J. at pg. 8. The Court assumes that, by referring to “documents,” plaintiff is objecting to more than just the Terms and Conditions. The Court surmises from plaintiff’s response that plaintiff does not want this Court to take judicial notice of the Assignments of the Deed of Trust and Appointment of Successor Trustee, because plaintiff believes they were fraudulently executed.

Additionally, plaintiff requests that this Court take judicial notice of ReconTrust’s “debt collection activity.” In her response, plaintiff reprints a portion of a Notice of Sale issued by ReconTrust, which states that “[t]his is an attempt to collect a debt.” Id. at 15. Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of this document to support her claim that ReconTrust must be licensed with Oregon as a debt collector.

Review of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is generally limited to the complaint. U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003. However, a court may consider extrinsic documents if they are integral to the plaintiff’s claims and their authenticity is undisputed. Parrino v. FHP, Inc. , 146 F.3d 699, 706 & n. 4 (9th Cir. 1998). Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a “judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also Ritchie, 342 F.3d at 909. Facts subject to judicial notice may be considered on a motion to dismiss. Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987.

Despite plaintiff s statement that she “disputes the authenticity” of MERS’ Terms and Conditions, plaintiff has alleged no facts suggesting that this agreement is counterfeit or false in any way. I find, however, that the Terms and Conditions are not integral to plaintiff’s claims, and therefore, defendants’ request for judicial notice is denied.

Further, regarding documents recorded with Lane County, the Court must take judicial notice if plaintiff intends on using these documents to establish that defendants fraudulently foreclosed on her property. Therefore, these documents are integral to plaintiff’s claims and should have been attached to her complaint. Plaintiff seems to implicitly recognize this fact, as she references these documents in great detail in her complaint, arguably incorporating them by reference. Since plaintiff now attaches these documents to her response, the Court presumes that plaintiff would like the Court to consider them, if only for the sake of establishing defendants’ fault. These documents are also part of the public record. Defendants make no objection to these documents. Thus, even though plaintiff disputes their validity, the Court takes judicial notice of documents recorded with Lane County, including the Assignments of the Deed of Trust and Appointment of Successor Trustee.

Finally, the Court declines to take judicial notice of plaintiff’s document relating to ReconTrust’s “debt collection activity.” The language that plaintiff incorporated into her response was an excerpt from a Notice of Sale for a property other than plaintiff’s. Here, plaintiff has provided no evidence that ReconTrust sent her a similar notice. Thus, the fact that ReconTrust sent a notice to another person in which it identified itself as a debt collector is not integral to plaintiff s claim. Further, the Court has no way to confirm the authenticity of this Notice, since the parties bound by it are not now before this Court. As such, plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied.

II. Plaintiff s First Claim for Declaratory Judgment

Plaintiff’s first claim for relief is unclear. It consists of a convoluted list of allegations and facts, supported by “information and belief.” Plaintiff seems to allege that any action of BAC, MERS and ReconTrust are void because they were not licensed under Oregon law. Further, plaintiff is seeking a declaration that defendants Recontrust and MERs are not qualified to act as trustees pursuant to Oregon’s Trust Deed Act, such that defendants’ foreclosure proceedings are invalid. Plaintiff, however, misconstrues the law and facts surrounding this case.

A. Oregon’s Licensing Requirements

BAC, MERS, or ReconTrust are not required to be licensed by the Oregon Secretary of State with respect to foreclosing the Deed of Trust. Moreover, ReconTrust is not required to be registered with the Oregon Department of Business and Consumer Services as a debt collector. As defendant correctly points out, Oregon law excludes corporations that engage in certain corporate business activities from state licensing requirements, and provides that the corporate acts of unlicensed foreign corporations are not invalid. See Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 60.701, 60.704.

Generally, a “foreign corporation may not transact business” in Oregon “until it has been authorized to do so by the Secretary of State.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 60.701(1). However, defendants argue that certain activities, even if conducted in Oregon, do not subject a foreign corporation to licensing requirements. Specifically, defendants cite to § 60.701(2), which states: “[t]he following activities among others, do not constitute transacting business . . . (g) Creating or acquiring indebtedness, mortgages and security interests in real or personal property; (h) Securities or collecting debts or enforcing mortgages and security interests in property securing the debts.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 60.701(2).

Here, defendants’ actions fall expressly within this exception, as they initiated foreclosure proceedings by enforcing plaintiff’s mortgage. Accordingly, I find that defendants were not required to receive a license from the Secretary of State in order to foreclose on plaintiff’s property.

Finally, contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, ReconTrust need not be qualified to act as a debt collector under Oregon law. Plaintiff cites to no authority that imposes such a requirement on an entity such as ReconTrust. Thus, plaintiff’s assertion that ReconTrust must be licensed as a debt collector is conclusory, and as such, this Court must not presume the statement to be true. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1951. In fact, upon the allegations contained in the complaint, ReconTrust’s conduct is merely that of a trustee seeking foreclosure and sale pursuant to a Deed of Trust, which is not a debt collecting activity. Hulse v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 195 F.Supp.2d 1188, 1203-4 (D.Or. 2002). As such, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part in regard to these aspects of plaintiff s first claim.

B. Oregon’s Trust Deed Act

ReconTrust, the only defendant who actually did act as a trustee in this case, does meet the definition of “trustee” under Oregon’s Trust Deed Act. The Act defines trustee as “a person, other than the beneficiary . . . [who] is qualified to be a trustee under ORS 86.790.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 86.705(6). Under § 86.790, a “financial institution or trust company, as defined by ORS 706.008, that is authorized to do business under the laws of Oregon or the United States” is qualified to be a trustee. Or. Rev. Stat. § 86.790 (1) (b) .

Here, all defendants conceivably could meet the definition of a “trustee,” because all are financial institutions authorized to do interstate business. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 706.008 (defining a “financial institution” as “insured institutions . . . and federal credit unions” including “the trust department of a bank”). Specifically, ReconTrust is a subsidiary of Bank of America, an FDIC insured, federally chartered bank. Therefore, as a matter of law, ReconTrust is qualified to act as a trustee.

In addition, plaintiff contends that Oregon’s Trust Deed Act does not permit MERS to be designated as beneficiary as nominee for the lender. Plaintiff relies on a number of cases outside of this district, the majority of which are factually distinct, in support of her claim. See MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 N.Y.3d 90, 861 N.E.2d 81 (2006; Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528, 216 P.3d 158 (2009), etc. Plaintiff contends that these cases hold that MERS can never acquire a beneficial interest in a promissory note or Deed of Trust, because MERS is merely an entity which tracks and records the sale of mortgage instruments. As such, plaintiff argues that MERS’ lacks authority to assign trust deeds, promissory notes, appoint successor trustees or institute foreclosure.

Further, plaintiff alleges that someone other than the holder of the note is proceeding against the security. Accordingly, plaintiff argues that, to the extent that MERS’ assignment had any effect, it is void, because the “assignment of a security interest without the assignment of the debt that it secures yields the assignee nothing.” Schleef v. Purdy, 107 Or. 71, 78, 214 P. 137 (1923) .

Oregon’s Trust Deed Act defines “beneficiary” as “the person named or otherwise designated in a trust as the person for whose benefit a trust deed is given.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 86.790(1)(d). Thus, nothing in the statute expressly prohibits MERS from being designated as a “beneficiary” under a trust deed.

Defendants argue that, under the broad language of Or. Rev. Stat. § 86.790(1)(d), MERS is an appropriate beneficiary as listed on the Deed of Trust. They contend that courts, both within and outside the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that MERS, acting as nominee for a lender, can serve as a beneficiary, and as such, has the authority to assign its interest under a Deed of Trust. See Vawter v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp. Of Wash., 707 F.Supp.2d 1115 (W.D.Wash., 2010); Stewart v. MERS, 2010 WL 10655131, *12 (D.Or. Feb. 9, 2010) ; In re Huacrins, 357 B.R. 180 (Bkrtcy. D.Mass. 2006); etc.

While neither party cites to it, this Court is aware of authority within this district that has questioned MERS’ authority to assign its beneficial interest under a Deed of Trust. See In Re Allman, 2010 WL 3366405, *9-10 (Bkrtcy.D.Or. Aug. 24, 2010). While not directly on point, Allman held that the relationship of MERS to the lender “is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer,” and accordingly the true “beneficiary” under the Deed of Trust remained the lender. Id.

Regardless, I find that it is inappropriate to resolve this issue at this stage in the proceedings. In the last several months, “a veritable tsunami of investigation into and litigation over mortgage foreclosure practices broke loose on a national scale.” Bertrand v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., Civ. No. 09-857, Opinion and Order at 2 (D.Or. Nov. 1, 2010) . Until case law within this jurisdiction is developed regarding MERS’ role as beneficiary, it is impossible to conclude whether plaintiffs’ complaint states a claim.

Moreover, plaintiff is correct that a foreclosure may be invalid where the entity commencing foreclosure is not the holder of the note. Despite plaintiff’s requests, defendants have failed to provide proof that the foreclosing bank owned the promissory note or can trace its assignment. Therefore, the foreclosure may have been improper independent of MERS’ general authority to assign the Deed of Trust.

Therefore, plaintiff’s claim for a judgement declaring that defendants’ actions are void for failure to be licensed by the state of Oregon or to comply with Oregon’s Trust Deed Act fail as a matter of law and are dismissed.

However, to the extent that plaintiff is seeking a declaration that MERS lacks the general authority to assign the Deed of Trust as beneficiary, or that the foreclosure was improper because the foreclosing bank did not own the underlying note or failed to track its assignment, defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.

Finally, as an equitable matter, I find that it is necessary to enjoin defendants from completing foreclosure proceedings until all issues regarding the disputed property are resolved. As such, this Court finds it unnecessary to address plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, since the result sought therein has now been reached.

III. Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Fraud

Plaintiff’s second claim alleges that BAC and ReconTrust made misrepresentations to plaintiff regarding ReconTrust’s authority to act as trustee under Oregon law. Further, plaintiff contends that BAC made material misrepresentations about a negotiated short sale, a forbearance, and its status as a holder in due course entitled to payment.

As discussed above, ReconTrust is qualified to act as a trustee under Oregon’s Trust Deed Act. Accordingly, any representations that were allegedly made by BAC or ReconTrust relating to ReconTrust’s role as trustee were not false and cannot support a claim for fraud. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part in regard to this aspect of plaintiff’s second claim.

Moreover, I find that the remainder of plaintiff’s fraud claim fails to meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements. To satisfy Rule 9(b)’s standard, “the pleader ‘must state the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.'” Schreiber Distrib. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). A plaintiff must also “‘set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.'” Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003. Additionally, “Rule 9(b) does not allow a complaint to merely lump multiple defendants together but ‘require[s] plaintiffs to differentiate their allegations . . . and inform each defendant separately of the allegations surrounding his alleged participation in fraud.'” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764-5 (9th Cir. 2007) .

Here, plaintiff failed to identify the time, place, specific content, and the parties that allegedly made false representations. Furthermore, if plaintiff is alleging fraud based in part on an agreement between the parties that BAC would accept payment of a lesser amount in full satisfaction of the loan, plaintiff needs to provide evidence of this agreement to the Court. I will, however, grant plaintiff leave to amend her First Amended Complaint to add pleadings sufficient to meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

Finally, while not included in the second claim for relief, plaintiff alleges that defendants fraudulently recorded documents with Lane County. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants impermissibly used a “robo-signer,” who was not authorized to act on defendants’ behalf, in order to endorse the Assignments of the Deed of Trust and the Notice of Default. Plaintiff seeks relief for this alleged wrongdoing in her eighth claim for invalid encumbrances. However, because the basis of that claim is defendants’ fraud, the Court suggests that plaintiff include these allegations instead in her second claim for relief, and plead them in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

IV. Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Plaintiff’s third claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing appears to be asserted only against defendant BAC. Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed for two reasons. First, the factual allegations supporting the claim are conclusory. The entirety of plaintiff’s third claim states merely that “BAC had a common law duty of good faith and fair dealing to plaintiff by virtue of the contract between defendant BAC and plaintiff. Defendant BAC breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealing as set forth above.” Amended Complaint ¶ 30-1. Because the pleadings amount to nothing more than bare assertions of the elements of a claim, they are not entitled to the presumption of truth. Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1951.

Second, plaintiff again misconstrues the law and facts surrounding this case. The basis of plaintiff’s claim appears to be that BAC breached its contract with plaintiff in bad faith. In fact, plaintiff first breached the contract by failing to pay her mortgage in accordance with the terms of the promissory note. Therefore, to the extent that defendants proceeded to foreclose pursuant to the express terms of the contract, there can be no claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Uptown Heights Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Seafirst Corp., 320 Or. 638, 645, 891 P.2d 639 (1995) (“if a written contract between the parties expressly allows for a particular remedy by one of the parties, in the face of a specified breach, the parties’ objectively ‘reasonable expectations’ under the contract include the invocation of that remedy in the face of that breach. The party invoking its express, written contractual right does not, merely by so doing, violate its duty of good faith”).

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part, and plaintiff’s third claim is dismissed.

V. Plaintiff s Fourth Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Plaintiff withdraws her claim for breach of fiduciary duty against defendant BAC, acknowledging that BAC s relationship with plaintiff is not fiduciary in nature. Uptown Heights, 320 Or. At Page 18 649-50. Therefore, plaintiff’s fourth claim is dismissed.

VI. Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for Declaratory Judgment

Plaintiff’s fifth claim is for a declaratory judgment defining the rights of the parties. Plaintiff alleges that the securitization of her loan was in direct violation of the parties’ lending agreement. However, as stated above, plaintiff has failed to provide this Court with any documentation of the loan or its terms. Further, plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint regarding the terms of the agreement are unspecific and conclusory. Thus, it is impossible for this Court to determine whether defendants could have acted impermissibly in regard to selling investor certificates in plaintiff’s underlying note.

As stated above, if the foreclosing bank cannot show that they own the underlying note or cannot trace its assignment, in part or wholly due to the securitization of the note, plaintiff may have a right to a declaratory judgement. However, plaintiff’s fifth claim for relief currently fails to state a claim, and is therefore, dismissed. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in that regard.

VII. Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Quiet Title

Plaintiff’s six claim seeks a decree from this Court that the property is free and clear of all encumbrances, including the Deed of Trust and promissory note. Here, the factual allegations supporting the complaint are once again conclusory. The entirety of plaintiff’s sixth claim states that ” [p]laintiff is the owner in possession of real property . . . Defendants . . . are not in possession of plaintiff’s real property . . . Defendants claim an interest adverse to plaintiff’s.” Amended Complaint ¶ 4751.

Plaintiff is merely alleging the elements of a claim to quiet title. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.605 (“Any person claiming an interest or estate in real property not in the actual possession of another may maintain a suit in equity against another who claims an adverse interest”). However, plaintiff has failed to allege any particular facts entitling her to relief.

In addition, even if plaintiff’s complaint did state a claim to quiet title, it would not be an appropriate remedy here. In general, a person may bring an equitable quiet title action to obtain resolution of a dispute relating to adverse or conflicting claims to real property. Spears v. Dizick, 235 Or. App. 594, 598, 234 P.3d 1037 (2010). While it is possible that defendants may have failed to follow the proper foreclosure procedures, it is undisputed that defendants had the right to foreclose based upon plaintiff’s default under the loan. Thus, because plaintiff is unable to cure the default, she no longer has a valid claim for entitlement to the property. As such, there are no conflicting claims to the property for this Court to resolve.

Further, “[e]quitable relief does not lie if there is an adequate remedy at law.” Alsea Veneer, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 318 Or. 33, 43, 862 P.2d 95 (1993). Here, plaintiff is seeking several other remedies, including over $2 million in monetary damages, an injunction against defendants from foreclosing on her property, and a declaration that she owns the property free of any mortgage. Based on her complaint, plaintiff clearly believes that there are other adequate remedies available at law. Further, this Court is enjoining defendants from commencing foreclosure proceedings until this matter is resolved. As such, plaintiff has failed to show that she is not entitled to further equitable relief.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law and defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part. plaintiff’s sixth claim is dismissed.

VIII. Plaintiff’s Seventh Claim to Remove Cloud on Title

Plaintiff’s seventh claim seeks the removal of cloud on title. Plaintiff’s claim fails for two reasons. First, the factual allegations supporting the complaint are conclusory. The entirety of plaintiff’s seventh claim states only that defendants “claim a lien or other encumbrance adverse to plaintiff’s interest in real property. The encumbrance is invalid because the beneficiary under the deed of trust is not entitled to payment on the note, as set forth above.” Amended Complaint SI 52-3. Once more, plaintiff is merely asserting the bare elements of a claim. Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1951. Further, because plaintiff “incorporates by reference [all] paragraphs,” it is difficult to even discern what relief plaintiff is seeking and the purported basis for that relief.

Second, as discussed above, MERS, the listed beneficiary under the deed of trust, is not seeking payment on the note. Rather, MERS’ role was limited to essentially recording the transfer of the Deed of Trust. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to relief on that basis.

Therefore, plaintiff’s seventh claim for relief fails as a matter of law. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and plaintiff’s seventh claim for relief is dismissed.

VIV. Plaintiff’s Eighth Claim for Invalid Encumbrance

Plaintiff’s final claim is for invalid encumbrances pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 205.450 et seq. The factual allegations supporting the claim are again conclusory. Plaintiff’s eighth claim states only that “[d]efendant BAC knowingly filed, or directed defendants MERS and ReconTrust to file, an invalid claim of incumbrance against plaintiff’s real property.” Amended Complaint St 56. Plaintiff then goes on to list documents that were recorded in the Lane County Clerk’s Office. Amended Complaint SI 57. However, the fact that these documents were recorded in Lane County does not establish that they were in anyway invalid, much less that defendants knew that they were invalid. Thus, plaintiff is again merely asserting the elements of a claim, without identifying any particular facts entitling her to relief. See Or. Rev. Stat. 205.470 (“[a]ny person who knowingly files, or directs another to file, an invalid claim of encumbrance shall be liable to the owner of the property”). Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted. Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1951.

Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part, and plaintiff’s eighth claim for relief is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 10) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: defendants’ motion is GRANTED as to plaintiff’s claims for fraud, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, fifth claim for declaratory judgment, quiet title, remove cloud on title, and invalid incumbrance; defendants’ motion is DENIED as to plaintiff’s’ first claim for declaratory judgment.

This Court, however, GRANTS plaintiff leave to amend her First Amended Complaint in order to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief, and to replead her fraud claim, such that it complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements. The parties’ requests for oral argument are DENIED as unnecessary.

Further, because this Court is enjoining defendants from foreclosing until the underlying dispute regarding the property is resolved, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (doc. 32), seeking an injunction, is DENIED.

Finally, this Court encourages the parties to pursue mediation via the U.S. District Court of Oregon’s Foreclosure Mediation Panel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

WWLP–

NORTHAMPTON, Mass. (WWLP) – The housing crisis ended with many homes in foreclosure, which is why it was no joke when a man from Northampton got a letter stating his home would be seized if he didn’t pay up zero dollars and zero cents!

Not wanting to lose his house, he called the 22News I-team and finally got some answers.

Continue reading… WWLP

Due to a possible copyright issue, letter will not be posted. It also provides some information about sending a “Qualified Written Request” if you have any concerns over your loan.

IMO this might have to do with MERS… don’t ask why but it’s just a feeling…possibly due to now “defunct” America’s Wholesale Lender no longer around for MERS to act as nominee, many of these loans originated with AWL… Make your own determinations after you get a better picture… [see Full Deposition Transcript of ROY DIAZ Shareholder of Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A. Law Firm and begin on pg. 58]

via Living Lies–

We are receiving reports that BAC is sending out letters declaring that they are transferring loans from BAC or Bank of America, the parent company as of July 1, 2011.

The question is why? It seems that BOA is starting to realize the title problems inherent in its takeover of Countrywide and the initiation of loans using money from investors who bought bogus mortgage bonds. There is no doubt that the fundamental defects in the original loans is starting to bother BOA and other banks, along with their shareholders and creditors. They managed to get the NY Federal Reserve Bank to issue a statement that was dismissive of such claims. But the Fed doesn’t decide contractual or property rights — that is the exclusive province of the judicial branch applying existing laws.

ABNER SILVA,
Appellant,

v. …………………………Case No. 5D10-3511

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., ETC.,
Appellee.
________________________________/

Opinion filed May 6, 2011

Non Final Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,

Emerson Thompson, Jr., Senior Judge.

Matthew D. Valdes, Kaufman, Englett &
Lynd, PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Abner Silva, the defendant below, seeks review of an order denying his motion to set aside a default final judgment entered against him. We reverse.

In this foreclosure case, substituted service of process was secured on Silva under section 48.031, Florida Statutes (2010), by serving a “Luz Rodriguez”, who purportedly lived at the mortgaged property. However, the affidavits and other information submitted in support of Silva’s motion below established that the mortgaged property had been vacant for some time prior to the purported service, that he did not ?know anyone by the name of Luz Rodriguez, and that his usual place of abode was, and had been for eighteen months prior to the purported service, in Miami.

The party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction has the burden to prove the validity of service of process. See Torres v. Arnco Constr., Inc., 867 So. 2d 583, 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). This record does not reflect competent evidence that BAC Home Loans Servicing L.P., the plaintiff below, met that burden. The default judgment was,
therefore, void and must be set aside. See Alvarez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 635 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

REVERSED.

MONACO, C.J., SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

[ipaper docId=55010635 access_key=key-yfuardbwb8evgw2jmls height=600 width=600 /]

The Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Bank of America Corporation

~

The Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP

~

Published: Saturday, March 05, 2011, 7:34 PM     Updated: Saturday, March 05, 2011, 7:47 PM

By Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian

The sales of hundreds of foreclosed homes in Oregon have been halted or withdrawn in recent weeks after federal judges repeatedly questioned their legality, according to a number of real estate attorneys in the state.

Lenders have withdrawn more than 300 foreclosure sales since February in Deschutes County alone, one of the state’s hardest hit by the housing collapse. About 130 of those notices were filed in the past week, attorneys say.

Dozens of foreclosure listings by ReconTrust Co., the foreclosure arm of Bank of America Corp., have disappeared from its website, attorneys say. A BofA spokeswoman declined comment late Friday.

Continue reading … Oregon Live

Brown Order –Barnett v.BAC Home Loan Servicing LP, Federal National Mortgage Association fka Fannie Mae, ReconTrust Co.

Burgett Case –Burgett v. MERS, et al.

EkersonTRO –Ekerson v. MERS, CitiMortgage Inc., et al

King_ruling –Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al

McCoy –McCoy v. BNC Mortgage Inc., MERS, U.S. Bank, Finance America LLC, et al.

In re MIKE ZITTA AND IRENA ZITTA, Debtors.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING LP, its assignees and/or successors in interest, Movant,
v.
MIKE ZITTA AND IRENA ZITTA, Respondents.

No. 09-bk-19154-SSC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DATED: January 21, 2011.

Not for Publication-Electronic Docketing ONLY

AMENDED1 MEMORANDUM DECISION

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This Court recently received a Notice of Appeal filed by BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.(“BAC”) on December 23, 2010. The Notice of Appeal concerns the Court’s denial of a Motion for Reconsideration filed by BAC relating to its Motion for Relief from Stay in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Mike and Irena Zitta (“Debtors”). Because BAC may have prematurely filed its Notice of Appeal, and because this Court had anticipated an opportunity to execute some sort of Order, with an appended memorandum decision on the issues presented, this Court will amplify its reasoning in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and clarify the record so that the Motion for Reconsideration may be heard on appeal.

BAC filed its Motion for Relief from Stay on August 30, 2010.2 Copies of the interest-only promissory note (“Note”), along with an allonge (“Allonge”), the recorded deed of trust (“Deed of Trust”), and the Broker’s price opinion were attached to the Motion.3 BAC also filed a declaration in support of the Motion.4 However, no assignment of the Deed of Trust from any entity to BAC was included. The Debtors filed a response/objection to the relief requested.5 The Court denied BAC’s Motion by Minute Entry Order issued on October 20, 2010 (the “Minute Entry Order”), because BAC had failed to provide a copy of an assignment of the Deed of Trust with its Motion.6 The October 20 Minute Entry Order was not executed by this Court.

On October 29, 2010, BAC filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Minute Entry Order, asserting that under Arizona law, an assignment of the Deed of Trust was not necessary to establish standing to move for relief from the automatic stay.7 The Court heard the Motion for Reconsideration on December 15, 2010, and denied the requested relief. BAC never submitted a form of order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, and although a minute entry order was generated that same day outlining briefly the Court’s denial of the Motion, the minute entry order was never executed by this Court.8 Rather than wait for an appropriate form of order to be entered, BAC chose to file a Notice of Appeal on December 23, 2010.

In this Memorandum Decision, the Court has set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The issues addressed herein constitute a core proceeding over which this Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(b) (West 2010).

II. FACTUAL DISCUSSION
In the Motion for Relief from Stay filed on August 30, 2010, BAC asserted that it was the “holder in due course” and that it was the “payee and a holder in due course under that certain Promissory Note dated March 20, 2007.”9 The Note attached to the Motion for Relief from Stay stated that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., had provided the financing to the Debtors so that the Debtors could acquire the real property located at 5100 East Blue Jay Lane, Flagstaff, Arizona (“Property”).10 The Note further stated that anyone taking the Note “by transfer and who [was] entitled to receive payments under [the] Note [was] called the “Note Holder.”11 The Allonge, dated March 20, 2007, stated as follows: “Pay to the Order of BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP without recourse.”12 GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. had executed the Allonge, although the signature is difficult to discern.13 The Deed of Trust attached to the Motion for Relief from Stay stated that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. was the lender and that MERS was the nominee for the lender. Specifically, the Deed of Trust stated:

(E) “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 beneficiary under this Security Instrument.14

The Deed of Trust stated that the Debtors acknowledged or executed the document on March 21, 2007, although the Allonge and the Note had an execution date of March 20, 2007. Finally, the Declaration submitted in support of the Motion for Relief from Stay stated that “[it] is in the regular course and scope and business for BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP to prepare and maintain books and records relating to the status of the servicing of Movant’s Deed of Trust.”15 The Declaration also stated that “Movant is the payee under that certain Promissory Note dated March 20, 2007…. Further, Movant is the present holder and owner of that certain First Deed of Trust of same date…. securing said Note against Debtors’ property….”16 Thus, BAC’s Declaration creates an ambiguity as to whether BAC is the servicer of the loan or whether it is the Note Holder who is entitled to payments under the Debtors’ Note obligation. The documentation presented by BAC also includes a security agreement, granting BAC a security interest in the Note.17

A review of the Motion for Relief from Stay reflects the myriad problems that this and other Courts are facing in attempting to handle the tremendous volume of such motions that are filed in the numerous bankruptcy cases that are pending across the country. First, the Motion that was filed in this case appears to be a form that may have been imperfectly tailored to the facts of this case. For instance, the Motion for Relief from Stay alleges that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. “was the original lender on the subject Note and Deed of Trust. Thereafter, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. assigned all of its rights, title and interest in and to said [N]ote and Deed of Trust to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. by way of an Allonge….”18 However, as noted previously, the Declaration seems to indicate that BAC was acting as a servicer. If BAC was simply the servicer, then for whom was BAC receiving payments under the Note? If BAC was holding the Note as the servicer, for whom was it acting? If BAC was the Note Holder, as defined in the Note, then why does the Declaration state that BAC operates as a servicer? Another way to state the problem is that the Motion for Relief from the Stay and the Declaration seem to reflect imperfectly the transfer of the various interests in the Note and Deed of Trust. Given the posture of the record presented to the Court, and the lack of clarity, the Court denied the Motion for Relief from Stay by Minute Entry Order on October 20, 2010. Rather than clarify the record by filing the appropriate assignment, a further declaration or affidavit, or some other documentation, BAC filed its Motion for Reconsideration. BAC chose to provide no further information to the Court from a factual standpoint.

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
The Motion for Reconsideration

As outlined above, part of the problem with the issues to be decided is the context in which the matters have been presented to the Court. When a motion for relief from stay is filed, the Bankruptcy Code, the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Local Rules of this Court are immediately applicable or implicated.

11 U.S.C. §362 (d) states that the bankruptcy court may, for instance, terminate, modify, or condition the automatic stay (1) “for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest,” or (2) “with respect to a stay of an act against
property under subsection (a) of this section if-(A) the debtor does not have an equity interest in such property; and (B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.”19 Section 362(g) states that the party requesting relief from the automatic stay has the burden of proof of whether the debtor has any equity in the property at issue.20 The Local Rules of the Arizona Bankruptcy Court further require that a party filing a motion for relief from the automatic stay be able to provide some support for the relief requested. For instance, if the party is stating that it is a secured creditor requesting relief from the automatic stay to pursue a trustee’s sale under Arizona law, the secured creditor should be able to provide support in the motion that it has a perfected security interest in property of the estate in which the debtor or debtor in possession also has an interest.21

In reviewing the sufficiency of any motion for relief from the automatic stay, the court must also consider under what provision of the Bankruptcy Code the debtor has filed. For instance, if the individual debtor has filed a chapter 7 petition, a trustee in bankruptcy is appointed that must collect and liquidate property of the estate, that has not been claimed exempt by the debtor, for distribution to the debtor’s creditors, according to the priorities set forth in the Bankruptcy Code.22 The trustee in bankruptcy may increase the amount of property of the estate available for distribution to creditors by exercising certain avoidance powers enumerated, inter alia, in Bankruptcy Code Sections 544, 547, and 548.23 An individual debtor may acquire the same duties and responsibilities of a trustee in bankruptcy by filing a chapter 11 petition, seeking to reorganize or to file a plan of liquidation.24 Because the debtor in possession is vested with the same powers of the trustee, the debtor in possession may pursue avoidance actions as well.25 In this case, the individual Debtors filed a chapter 11 petition seeking to reorganize, and no bankruptcy trustee has yet been appointed in this case. As a result, the Debtors exercise the rights of a bankruptcy trustee concerning the ability to avoid certain transfers or transactions.

Because of the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or the debtor in possession, this Court requires that if a party seeking relief from the automatic stay asserts a perfected security interest in any property of the estate, that moving party must be able to present at least a prima faciecase that it has such a perfected security interest under applicable law.26 The fact that the transaction is not avoidable between the parties to the underlying loan transaction is not dispositive of whether the transaction may be avoided by third parties that are, for instance, bona fidepurchasers.27

Turning to the standards of a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show a manifest error of fact, a manifest error of law, or newly discovered evidence. School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, OR v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); In re Gurr, 194 B.R. 474 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1996). A motion for reconsideration is not specifically contemplated by the Federal Rules. To the extent it is considered by the Court, it is under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend an order or judgment. In re Curry and Sorensen, Inc., 57 B.R. 824, 827 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1986). Because BAC presented no new evidence to this Court and has not outlined any manifest error of fact, the sole basis for the BAC Motion for Reconsideration must be a manifest error of law by this Court. BAC has outlined several bases for what it believes is this Court’s manifest error of law.

(A) Is the Movant the Real Party in Interest?

A colleague in the Arizona Bankruptcy Court has stated that a party that brings a motion for relief from the automatic stay must first establish a “colorable claim.” “In order to establish [such a claim], a movant…. bears the burden of proof that it has standing to bring the motion.” In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13, 18 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010) (citing In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392, 400 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009)). In the Weisband decision, the Court states that the moving party may establish standing by showing that it is a “real party in interest.”28 The Weisband Court next states that a holder of a note is a “real party in interest” under FRCP 17 because, under the Arizona Revised Statute (“ARS”) § 47-3301, the note holder has the right to enforce it. Weisband at 18. Relying on a decision from a bankruptcy court in Vermont, the Weisband Court next opines that “[b]ecause there is no federal commercial law which defines who is a note holder, the court must look to Arizona law to determine whether [movant] is [such] a holder.” Id. (citing In re Montagne, 421 B.R. 65, 73 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2009)). Finally, the Weisband Court states that under Arizona law, a holder of a note is defined as, inter alia, “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.” Id. (citing ARS § 47-1201(B)(21)(a)).

BAC’s citation to Weisband fails to address this Court’s concerns. In the Motion for Relief, BAC contends that it is the “payee and a holder in due course.” However, the Declaration that it filed appears to reflect that BAC is the servicer for some other party. Obviously there is a difference. A servicer acts pursuant to a separate agreement with the Note Holder and is paid a separate fee to determine what payments have been made, or not made, by a given borrower. However, the servicer would not normally list the loan on its balance sheet as one of its assets. The Note Holder, according to the definition in the Note, is the party that is entitled to receive the payments under the Note, because it has arguably paid some consideration for the transfer of the obligation to it, and has listed the obligation as an asset in its books and records.29 BAC has not provided any additional facts to clarify whether it is the servicer pursuant to an agreement with the Note Holder, or contrary to its Declaration, it actually acquired the loan and has placed the loan on its balance sheet as one of its assets.

From the documentation provided by BAC, it appears that GreenPoint provided the original funding for the loan to the Debtors so that they could acquire the Property. Yet, at the time of the closing, GreenPoint immediately assigned its interest in the Note to BAC. The Declaration submitted by BAC, however, seems to indicate that BAC is only in the business of servicing loans-perhaps for some other entity associated or related to BAC. If BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, is acting as the servicer of a Bank of America entity, for which entity is it acting? Conversely, if GreenPoint transferred the Debtors’ loan from its books and records to some other entity, was it BAC? If BAC alleges in its Motion for Relief from the Stay that it is the Note Holder, is it, in fact, the one legally entitled, because of the purchase of the Debtors’ obligation, to receive the Debtors’ payments?

As a part of its prima faciecase, BAC should have provided the Court with more factual information in support of its position. As a result, this Court may deny the Motion for Reconsideration, and the underlying Motion for Relief from the Stay, on the basis that BAC has failed to provide sufficient documentation to this Court so that the Court may ensure that BAC is the proper Note Holder, or servicer if appropriate, to pursue such a Motion for Relief from the Stay.

Thus, the focus of the BAC’s Motion for Reconsideration does not consider all of the factual and legal issues that it should. It does not address whether BAC, in this matter, has presented an appropriate factual and legal basis to proceed on this loan concerning the Debtors and their Property. BAC could have easily supplemented the record to provide the appropriate documentation to proceed, but chose not to do so.

(B) Has BAC Set Forth a Prima Facie Case That It Has
A Perfected Security Interest in the Property Given the Status
Of the Debtors As Debtors In Possession?

In its Motion for Reconsideration, BAC relies on ARS § 33-817, which states, “The transfer of any contract or contracts secured by a trust deed shall operate as a transfer of the security for such contract or contracts.” ARS § 33-817. BAC further points out that the Supreme Court of Arizona has held that a mortgage is a “mere incident to the debt,” and its “transfer or assignment does not transfer or assign the debt or the note,” but “the mortgage automatically goes along with the assignment or transfer” of the note. Hill v. Favour, 84 P.2d 575, 578 (Ariz. 1938) (emphasis added). However, at the hearing on December 15, 2010, the Court expressly stated its concern about the ability of BAC to proceed given that it had not provided any information as to a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust. The Court asked counsel how her analysis was appropriate given (1) the status of the Debtors as Debtors in Possession who had objected to the relief requested, and (2) ARS § 33-818 which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

[A]ssignment of a beneficial interest under a trust deed,… shall from the time of being recorded impart notice of the content to all persons, including subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers for value.
As outlined above, the Debtors, as Debtors in Possession, acquire the status of a bona fide purchaser and are able to set aside any real estate transaction, concerning their Property, for which the creditor has not taken appropriate steps under Arizona law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) (West 2010). Arizona law requires that if a secured creditor with a lien on the Debtors’ Property wishes to ensure that said interest is not subject to the claims of a bona fide purchaser, that said secured creditor record an assignment of its interest with the Recorder in the County where the Debtors’ Property is located. If notice of the assignment has not been provided, through recordation, the secured creditor may have its interest avoided by a bona fide purchaser. See Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434, 172 Ariz. 221 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1992) (Unless and until the transferee of the beneficial interest in the deed of trust records an assignment of the deed of trust, the security interest in the real property remains unperfected.)

At the time of the hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration, BAC’s counsel agreed that although vis-a-vis the original parties to the transaction, no assignment of the Deed of Trust need be produced or recorded, because of the Debtors’ filing of a bankruptcy petition, ARS § 33-818 required that an assignment be prepared and properly recorded given the new status of the Debtors as Debtors in Possession.30 It is unclear why BAC has not simply supplemented the record to provide the assignment of the Deed of Trust.

The request that an assignment be recorded is not a burdensome requirement. MERS, through its registration system, keeps track of the transfers of the beneficial interests, under a deed of trust, from member to member in the system. When there is some type of default under the loan transaction, MERS generally prepares an assignment of the beneficial interest in the deed of trust for signature and then records the assignment with the appropriate state authority, which in Arizona would be the Recorder in the County where the real property that is subject to the secured creditor’s lien is located. This recordation of the assignment provides the requisite notice to third parties, as required under Arizona law.

Although BAC relies on the decision of Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434, 172 Ariz. 221 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1992), the decision actually supports this Court’s understanding of the importance of the recordation of the assignment of the deed of trust. In Rodney, the borrowers were the Vasquezes, who received purchase money financing from the initial lender, Hal Clonts (“Clonts”), to purchase real property (“Property”) located in Mohave County. The Vasquezes executed a promissory note and deed of trust in favor of Clonts to provide him with a lien on their Property to secure repayment of the note. It is important to keep in mind that the Vasquezes remained the borrowers throughout a series of subsequent transactions that only affected the lender or the party that had a security interest in the promissory note and deed of trust.

Clonts transferred his interest to the Fidlers through an assignment of the beneficial interest in the promissory note and deed of trust. Id. at 435. However, on April 11, 1985, the Fidlers entered into a separate loan transaction in which they borrowed money from a third party, State Bank, later called Security Pacific Bank Arizona (“Security Pacific”). The Fidlers provided security to Security Pacific for their loan transaction by pledging “all monies” received by the Fidlers in “Escrow # 85-02-9290.” Id. Security Pacific immediately notified the title company, for the subject escrow, as to Security Pacific’s interest in the escrow funds. In September 1986, the Fidlers again transferred their beneficial interest in the promissory note and deed of trust to Theron Rodney (“Rodney”). The Fidlers received $20,000 from Rodney for the transfer of their interest. The Fidlers executed an assignment of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust. Rodney recorded his interest in the deed of trust with the Mohave County Recorder’s Officer where the Property was located. Not surprisingly, Security Pacific and Rodney disagreed as to the priority of their respective security interests in the loan proceeds. Security Pacific argued that the interest in the loan proceeds could only be perfected pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. Conversely, Rodney argued that the real property provisions of Arizona law were applicable. Id. at 436.

The sole issue to be addressed by the Appellate Court was whether Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code (as adopted in Arizona) applied to the creation and perfection of a security interest in a promissory note when the note itself was secured by a deed of trust in real property. Id. Before considering the analysis by the Court, let’s diagram the various loan transactions.

+——————————————————————————————————–+———————————————+
| The Vasquezes |                                                                                                                                                  Clonts |
| —- | |
+——————————————————————————————————–+———————————————+
| initial borrowers purchase money financing |                                                                                     initial lender |
+——————————————————————————————————–+——————————————————————+
| Vasquezes continue to pay on the original note and deed of trust to the title company, as escrow agent | (1) transfer of the interest in the note and deed of trust for consideration to the Fidlers |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | (2) separate loan to the Fidlers–security interest in the note and deed of trust given to Security Pacific-consideration given to Fidlers |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | (3) Fidlers again seek financing–security interest in the note and deed of trust given to Rodney |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | for $20,000. |
+——————————————————————————————————–+——————————————————————–+
| | |
+——————————————————————————————————–+——————————————————————–+

Thus, it is only the parties on one side of the initial loan transaction that are in disagreement as to the priority of their security interests. Noting that Security Pacific only wanted to obtain a perfected security interest in the promissory note proceeds, the Court stated “we find that Security Pacific received a corollary security interest in the real property evidenced by the deed of trust, along with its interest in the note, although the corollary interest remained unperfected.” Id. The Court then stated that Security Pacific need not have a perfected security interest in the real property, because Security Pacific’s interest was only in the note which was a security interest in personal property under ARS § 47-1201(37). Id. at 436-37. The Court concluded that “Arizona case law holds that a mortgage note and the debt evidenced thereby are personal property (citing to Hill v. Favour, 52 Ariz. at 571, 84 P.2d at 579). Article Nine of the UCC applies to security interests in personal property….” Id. at 437. However, Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to obtaining a lien on real property. In considering the somewhat murky area of “realty paper,” the Court relied on Commentators J White and R. Summers, who described “realty paper” as follows:

B mortgages his real estate to L. L gives B’s note and the real estate mortgage to Bank as security for a loan. Article Nine does not apply to the transaction between L and B, but does apply to that between L and Bank.

Id.31 Turning to the facts of this case, BAC is arguing that its security interest in the Note and Deed of Trust is perfected as to all others, rather than to just other mortgagees. It has forgotten the other side of the transaction, which is the “mortgagor” in the White and Summers analysis, or someone that may acquire an interest from the mortgagor, such as a bona fide purchaser. To perfect its interest as to the “mortgagor,” which would be the Zittas, or someone who may acquire an interest in the Property from the Zittas, BAC needed to record its assignment in the Deed of Trust, as required under real property law, such as ARS § 33-818 (West 2010). BAC has not shown this Court that any such assignment exists, so its Motion for Reconsideration must be denied as a matter of law.

BAC also relies on In re Smith, 366 B.R. 149 (Bank. D. Colo. 2007), which is inapposite. The debtor had been in a chapter 13 proceeding, but had converted his case to one under chapter 7. Id. at 150. Bank of New York, N.A. (“Bank of New York”) subsequently requested relief from the automatic stay as to the real property owned by the debtor. The debtor did not oppose the motion, and a foreclosure sale, pursuant to Colorado law, subsequently occurred. Bank of New York then recorded a deed upon sale as to the debtor’s real property. Without seeking any stay of the foreclosure proceedings, the debtor filed an adversary proceeding with the bankruptcy court. The debtor asserted that the Bank of New York was not the real party in interest, and therefore, it was unable to proceed with a foreclosure of his real property. The bankruptcy court reviewed the evidence presented and determined that Bank of New York was the holder of the promissory note at the time it commenced its foreclosure sale. The court stated that Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., which had originally provided the financing to the debtor, had endorsed the promissory note in blank. Under Colorado law, such a blank endorsement allowed the promissory note to become “payable to bearer.” However, Bank of New York did submit a Certification of Owner and Holder of the Evidence Debt, which allowed the Colorado court to conclude that Bank of New York was the “holder of the original evidence of debt.” The court then reviewed the deed of trust, determining that it was recorded at approximately the same time as the loan closing between the debtor and Countrywide Home Loan, Inc. The bankruptcy court then concluded that the promissory note was assigned to the Bank of New York. As such, once the promissory note was assigned to the Bank of New York, MERS then functioned as the nominee for the Bank of New York. Id. at 151. Presumably, as a result of MERS nominee status, the bankruptcy court concluded, sub silentio, that no additional action needed to be taken by Bank of New York vis-a-vis the debtor.

This Court questions the analysis by the Smith court.32 Although the Smith court relies on a 2002 decision from the Colorado Supreme Court, the court does not analyze the concept of “realty paper” or discuss White and Summers. As noted by this Court supra, the lender in the original loan transaction or a party that may subsequently obtain a security interest in the promissory note, as a result of a separate loan transaction, may be protected, but this Court is viewing the transaction from a different viewpoint: that of the Debtors in Possession that acquire the status of bona fide purchasers. There is no discussion, in Smith, as to how Colorado law would treat such third parties. Moreover, it is unclear whether Colorado has a similar provision as Arizona’s ARS § 33-818 that focuses on the separate requirements of a creditor that may have a beneficial interest under a deed of trust assigned to it.

In considering the ability of the debtor to pursue a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 544, the Colorado court concludes that the debtor does not have the standing of the bankruptcy trustee. Smith at 152. Such an analysis is correct, since the debtor pursued his claim against the Bank of New York only after he had converted his case to one under chapter 7. The chapter 7 trustee also failed to join with the debtor in the adversary proceeding or to pursue the claim separately.33 However, as to the facts before this Court, the Debtors, as Debtor in Possession, in this chapter 11 proceeding do have the standing to pursue claims under Section 544.34 Thus, this Court must reject the analysis in the Smith case.

This Court concludes that given the summary nature of motions for relief from the automatic stay, 35 the general requirements in the case law and the Local Rules of this Court36 that a creditor alleging a security interest in certain property of the debtor and/or the bankruptcy estate at least set forth a prima facie case as to its perfected security interest, 37 BAC should have provided an assignment of the Deed of Trust. It failed to do so; however, the Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay was denied without prejudice. BAC still has the opportunity to refile the Motion with the appropriate documents as exhibits thereto.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Denial of the Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay. The Court

SARAH SHARER CURLEY, Bankruptcy Judge

[ipaper docId=47798871 access_key=key-9hxj7sdojtiuip83eoq 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 /]

Courtesy of IceLegal

4 Q. You contend that Exhibit 1 is the document
5 that authorizes you to sign on behalf of Countrywide Home
6 Loans Servicing LP?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. How so?
9 A. Countrywide Financial Corporation
10 actually — let me correct myself.
11 The plaintiff, as listed in this particular
12 case, is owned by Countrywide Financial Corporation.
13 It’s one of their entities.
14 Q. Okay. And how do you come to that
15 information?
16 A. Because I know it. I’ve been doing it for
17 a long time. I’ve — I don’t remember at what point in
18 time I found out that knowledge, but I’ve had it.
19 Q. Okay. Now, is Countrywide Home Loans
20 Servicing LP, to your knowledge, a separate corporate
21 entity from Countrywide Financial Corporation?
22 A. I don’t know.

<SNIP>

1 Q. And was that the situation back in December
2 of 2008 when you executed the assignment?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. At that time, who was the owner of
5 the beneficial interest in the mortgage?
6 A. The beneficial interest in the note was
7 held by Fannie Mae. The interest in the mortgage was as
8 to, arguably, the interest in the mortgage was both
9 entities, the plaintiff and the Fannie Mae.
10 Q. Do you have any documents establishing your
11 authority to execute any assignments on behalf of Fannie
12 Mae?
13 A. Did I bring them? What? Say that again.
14 Sorry.
15 Q. Do you have any documents indicating your
16 authority to execute assignments on behalf of Fannie Mae?
17 A. I don’t know.
18 Q. Fannie Mae — excuse me.
19 The mortgage is to secure the note, right?
20 A. The mortgage follows the note, yes.
21 Q. Okay. And if Fannie Mae has the note, they
22 have to transfer or assign their interest in that note —
23 MR. ROSENQUEST: Object to form.
24 BY MR. FLANAGAN:
25 Q. — to someone else.

<SNIP>

20 Q. Okay. Does the name R.K. Arnold mean
21 anything to you?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Do you know Mr. Arnold, who is the
24 president of MERS?
25 A. No.
1 Q. You never heard of him?
2 A. No.
3 Q. If he stated that in order to be a
4 certifying officer and sign an assignment on behalf of
5 MERS somebody needed to pass and complete an examination,
6 is that something that is familiar to you?
7 A. It’s not familiar to me, no. I don’t know.
8 Q. Okay. That was not something that you had
9 to do.
10 A. I did not do that.
11 Q. Okay. And if he’s saying that, if that was
12 a rule or a qualification, that was something that was
13 not made known to you.

Before you go to the deposition, take a look at R. K. Arnold’s reply to one of Senator Brown’s questions on the hearing for “Problems in Mortgage Servicing From Modification to Foreclosure” on November 15, 2010.

Exhibits included below!

[ipaper docId=46780368 access_key=key-t1psb8dexpwmb19c0xs height=600 width=600 /]

via: Matt Weidner

Florida’s District Court of Appeal refuses to cave in to the banks and their games….more later…this is HUGE victory for consumers and for the Rule of Law….Justice Prevails in Florida!

[…]

GREAT JOB TO THE COURT AND TO GREG CLARK!

StentzPetWritCert-1

StentzMtnJudNotice

[ipaper docId=46594959 access_key=key-1fon4t5yuxgp2p0lsgvc height=600 width=600 /]

Causes of Action:

Common law-fraud; aiding and abetting common-law fraud; negligent misrepresentation; and successor and vicarious liability

read the full complaint below…

[ipaper docId=46032654 access_key=key-1x8xbzdx6t2jo6fgkzy9 height=600 width=600 /]