Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2012

AARON RICHARD,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

SCHNEIDERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C.,
Defendant-Appellant,

and

GMAC MORTGAGE, and MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________/

By order of December 29, 2011, the proceedings in this case were automatically
stayed by the filing of a petition in bankruptcy. On order of the Court, the bankruptcy
stay having been lifted and the case having been reopened, the application for leave to
appeal the August 25, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant
to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of
the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for
reconsideration in light of Residential Funding Co, LLC, f/k/a Residential Funding Corp
v Saurman, 490 Mich ___ (decided November 16, 2011).

MARILYN KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal.

[ipaper docId=80054632 access_key=key-2z5i88cweuptt2lfxnk height=600 width=600 /]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF RICHMOND

EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff

against

FRED J. CARLO,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
DEBMOR ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF DEBMOR ESTATES CONDOMINIUM III,
NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD,
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, and
MRS. CARLO

Excerpt:
Conclusion

It is the finding of this court that the New York Supreme Court has jurisdiction to
adjudicate mortgage foreclosure matters. That is not the issue. Here, the plaintiff failed to have
ownership of the mortgage and note at the time it filed and served its summons and complaint
with the Richmond County Clerk. Therefore, the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this
action at the time.

Here, the default judgment of foreclosure and sale was taken while the defendant was
unrepresented by counsel. Consequently, he had no legal understanding of making an earlier
technical motion to challenge the standing of the plaintiff. Since the notice of the sale is
defective, the sale must set aside. Moreover due to the failure of the plaintiff to have ownership
of the note and mortgage at the time it commenced this action, it lacked the capacity and standing
to bring this action and to file a notice of pendency. Therefore, this action must be dismissed,
without prejudice.

[ipaper docId=76195227 access_key=key-1w65ml9txi5dz1f9a5ih height=600 width=600 /]

FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN,

Plaintiff,

-against-

ANDREA A. DAVILAR, et al.

Defendants.

EXCERPT:

In this matter, it is the contention of Defendant HSBC BANK USA, as trustee was the holder of the note from the time the action was commenced and that Fremont has misrepresented to this court its ownership status and its standing to foreclose…

[…]

[ipaper docId=72217188 access_key=key-d1v3anm8h5x8j7xlazk height=600 width=600 /]

AARON RICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SCHNEIDERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C., GMAC MORTGAGE and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 297353.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

August 11, 2011, 9:00 a.m.

Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and METER and SHAPIRO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Aaron Richard, appeals as of right an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants, Schneiderman & Sherman, P.C. (Schneiderman), GMAC Mortgage (GMAC), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, vacate the foreclosure proceeding, and remand further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This case arises from plaintiff’s attempts to challenge the foreclosure and sale of property he owned located at 19952 Hubbell in Detroit. Plaintiff purchased the property in part through a $50,000 loan, executed on May 4, 2006, from Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. The loan was secured by a May 4, 2006, mortgage with MERS, as the nominee of Homecomings.

It is not clear from the record when plaintiff fell behind on his mortgage payments. However, on October 9, 2009, Schneiderman, acting as GMAC’s agent, mailed plaintiff a notice stating that his mortgage was in default and informing him of his rights, including to request mediation. The outstanding debt owed to GMAC was listed as $50,267.78. Ultimately, MERS began non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement under MCL 600.3201, et seq., and purchased the property at the subsequent sheriff’s sale.

Plaintiff filed suit, in pro per, during the redemption period, alleging that the sheriff’s sale was “flawed” on numerous grounds and asserted that MERS did not hold any rights to the debt. Defendants filed for summary disposition, asserting, among other things, that the sheriff’s sale was “not only legal, but also valid, as all required procedures were followed.” The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants and dismissed plaintiff’s claim.

Although many of plaintiff’s claims are without merit, it is clear that the sheriff’s sale was invalid because, although MERS was only a mortgagee, MERS foreclosed on plaintiff’s property utilizing non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement. This Court has held that MERS is not entitled to utilize foreclosure by advertisement where it does not own the underlying note. Residential Funding Co, Inc v Saurman, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket Nos. 290248, 291443; April 21, 2011), slip op at 11. Under such circumstances, “MERS’ inability to comply with the statutory requirements rendered the foreclosure proceedings . . . void ab initio.” Id. Because the application of Saurman is dispositive, we must determine whether Saurman is retroactive and, if so, whether to assign it full or limited retroactivity.

“[T]he general rule is that judicial decisions are to be given complete retroactive effect.” Hyde v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223, 240; 393 NW2d 847 (1986). “Complete prospective application has generally been limited to decisions which overrule clear and uncontradicted case law.” Id.

Rules determined in opinions that apply retroactively apply to all cases “still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule[s].” Harper v Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 US 86, 97, 113 S Ct 2510, 125 L Ed 2d 74 (1993). Rules determined in opinions that apply prospectively only, on the other hand, not only do not apply to cases still open on direct review, but do not even apply to the parties in the cases in which the rules are declared. See Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 699, 641 NW2d 219 (2002). [McNeel v Farm Bureau Ins, 289 Mich App 76, 94; 795 NW2d 205 (2010).]

Given that this Court applied its holding to the cases in Saurman, it is clear that the holding in Saurman has been afforded at least limited retroactivity.^[1] However, cases given limited retroactivity apply “in pending cases where the issue had been raised and preserved,” Stein v Southeastern Mich Family Planning Project, Inc, 432 Mich 198, 201; 438 NW2d 876 (1989), while cases with full retroactivity apply to all cases then pending. This distinction makes a difference because, although plaintiff contested the foreclosure, he did not specifically raise and preserve the issue of whether MERS has the authority to foreclose by advertisement. Thus, Saurman is only applicable to this case if it is granted full retroactivity.

“The threshold question is whether `the decision clearly established a new principle of law.'” Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 220; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (citation omitted). Our Supreme Court has held that cases that properly interpret statutes, even if prior caselaw has held differently, “restore[] legitimacy to the law” and, thus, are “not a declaration of a new rule, but . . . a vindication of controlling legal authority.” Id. at 222 (quotation marks and citation omitted). In Saurman, this Court interpreted MCL 600.3204(1)(d). There was no existing caselaw and, therefore, it did not overrule any law or reconstrue a statute. See Hyde, 426 Mich at 240. Consequently, this Court’s decision in Saurman was not “tantamount to a new rule of law,” see Rowland, 477 Mich at 222 n 17, and, therefore should be given full retroactive effect.^[2] Hence, Saurman is applicable to the instant case, rendering the foreclosure proceedings void ab initio. Saurman, ___ Mich App at ___, slip op at 11.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, vacate the foreclosure proceeding, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

[1] In addition, “there is a serious question as to whether it is constitutionally legitimate for this Court to render purely prospective opinions, as such ruling are, in essence, advisory opinions.” Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197, 221; 731 NW2d 41 (2007), quoting Wayne Co v Hathcock, 471 Mich 445, 485 n 98; 684 NW2d 765 (2004).

[2] We reiterate the general rule that a retroactive decision cannot serve to reopen those cases that are already closed. Thus, where the time to oppose the foreclosure by advertisement, the time to oppose the resulting eviction, and the time to appeal from those actions have run, a party may not rely on Saurman in an attempt to reopen those cases to recover possession or ownership.

[ipaper docId=62409203 access_key=key-1dg3grocmbnrusk3fz4 height=600 width=600 /]

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

BENEFICIAL MAINE INC.

v.

TIMOTHY G. CARTER et al.

[…]

[¶3] After the parties were unable to resolve the case through mediation, Beneficial moved for summary judgment and submitted a statement of material facts. See M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(1). In support of its statement of material facts, Beneficial referred to two affidavits—one from Beneficial’s attorney, which clarified the priority of the Carters’ creditors, and one from Shana Richmond, Vice President of Administrative Services for HSBC Consumer Lending Mortgage Servicing, described in the affidavit as Beneficial’s “servicer.” Beneficial cited to Richmond’s affidavit, with its attached exhibits, as the sole evidentiary support for its allegations of its ownership of the note and mortgage, the Carters’ obligation on the note, the Carters’ default, and the amount that the Carters owed. Richmond’s affidavit states the following as the foundation for her factual assertions:

[…]

[ipaper docId=59836524 access_key=key-272ijous2ldzihvw2sfh height=600 width=600 /]

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

RePOST due to a possible hack.

Don’t be a fool. I can assure you, the AG’s that are investigating have this info.

~

2011 NY Slip Op 31747(U)

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS TRUSTEE, 9350 Waxie Way San Diego, CA 92123 Plaintiff,

v.

DANILO PICON, MAGALYS T. PICON, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE,
JOHN DANIELS, YVETTE “DOE” Defendants.

No. 1070/08, Motion Seq. No. 4.

Supreme Court, Queens County.

June 22, 2011.

BERNICE D. SIEGAL, Judge.

EXCERPT:

Once the issue of standing is raised by the Defendant, the burden is placed on the Plaintiff to prove, as in the instant matter, that it owns the Note underlying the action and the validity of any associated assignment (TPZ Corp. v Dabbs, 25 AD3d 787, 789 [2d Dep’t 2006]). A demonstration by the Plaintiff that it owns the Mortgage, without a showing that it also owns the Note is a nullity and any action for foreclosure based on the ownership of the mortgage alone must fail (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [2d Dept 1988]). This result is mandated because the mortgage is “but an incident to the debt which it is intended to secure,” and without more, it provides the holder with no actionable interest on which to commence a foreclosure action (Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY 44, 45 [1867].

While a written assignment or physical transfer of the Note is sufficient to result in an implicit transfer of an associated Mortgage, an assignment of the Mortgage, without an explicit assignment of the Note, will not result in an assignment of that Note (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754 [2d Dept 2009]).

In the case before us, Plaintiff only proffers evidence that the mortgage was transferred to the Plaintiff (through MERS, as nominee for Firs National Bank of Arizona [“Arizona”]) via an Assignment of Mortgage dated January 7, 2008. It does not, critically, provide evidence that the Note itself was transferred to the Plaintiff.

The only documents the Plaintiff submits in connection with the issue of the ownership and assignment of the Note are a copy of the original Adjustable Rate Note Agreement between Arizona and the Defendant dated March 8, 2006, and a copy of an undated allonge between Arizona and the First National Bank of Nevada [“Nevada”], seemingly transferring Arizona’s interest in the Note to Nevada. Although not dated, it is only logical for the court to assume that the allonge was executed prior to any purported assignment of the Note to the Plaintiff. If we were to assume otherwise, it would imply that Arizona was assigning to Nevada a Note that it did not own (since such Note had already been purportedly assigned to the Plaintiff).

Critically, Plaintiff does not provide documents demonstrating that the Note itself was assigned to Plaintiff, such as from MERS (as nominee for Arizona), from Arizona itself, or from a third-party such as Nevada.

The only interpretation the court can adduce from such evidence is that although it is possible that Nevada may own both the Mortgage and the Note since a valid transfer of a Note (in this case through the undated allonge), effectively transfers an associated Mortgage, the assignment of the Mortgage from MERS (as nominee for Arizona) to Plaintiff, under New York law, definitively did not transfer ownership of the Note to Plaintiff.

Since the allonge indicates that the Note is the property of Nevada and not Arizona, Arizona was never in a position to assign the Note to Plaintiff. Therefore, even if Plaintiff holds the Mortgage, without evidence that it also owns the Note, it lacks standing to pursue the foreclosure action at bar. Consequently, Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Mortgage without the underlying Note is insufficient to sustain a foreclosure action and Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the Plaintiff’s lack of standing is granted.

[…]

The other issues raised in Defendant’s Order to Show Cause including the 1) motion to dismiss due to a failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211, and 2) a motion to vacate the default judgment and allow an answer under CPLR 317 are deemed moot as they are subsumed or deemed irrelevant in light of this court’s decision above. Based on the forgoing, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and dismiss the action is granted; it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to have the case dismissed with prejudice due to fraud is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

[…]

[ipaper docId=59328003 access_key=key-118ad3g85p29i38ysxi2 height=600 width=600 /]

[PDF].DEUTSCHE v PICON w RePOST since the content was possibly hacked

2011 NY Slip Op 31747(U)

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS TRUSTEE, 9350 Waxie Way San Diego, CA 92123 Plaintiff,

v.

DANILO PICON, MAGALYS T. PICON, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE,
JOHN DANIELS, YVETTE “DOE” Defendants.

No. 1070/08, Motion Seq. No. 4.

Supreme Court, Queens County.

June 22, 2011.

BERNICE D. SIEGAL, Judge.

EXCERPT:

Once the issue of standing is raised by the Defendant, the burden is placed on the Plaintiff to prove, as in the instant matter, that it owns the Note underlying the action and the validity of any associated assignment (TPZ Corp. v Dabbs, 25 AD3d 787, 789 [2d Dep’t 2006]). A demonstration by the Plaintiff that it owns the Mortgage, without a showing that it also owns the Note is a nullity and any action for foreclosure based on the ownership of the mortgage alone must fail (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 538 [2d Dept 1988]). This result is mandated because the mortgage is “but an incident to the debt which it is intended to secure,” and without more, it provides the holder with no actionable interest on which to commence a foreclosure action (Merritt v Bartholick, 36 NY 44, 45 [1867].

While a written assignment or physical transfer of the Note is sufficient to result in an implicit transfer of an associated Mortgage, an assignment of the Mortgage, without an explicit assignment of the Note, will not result in an assignment of that Note (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754 [2d Dept 2009]).

In the case before us, Plaintiff only proffers evidence that the mortgage was transferred to the Plaintiff (through MERS, as nominee for Firs National Bank of Arizona [“Arizona”]) via an Assignment of Mortgage dated January 7, 2008. It does not, critically, provide evidence that the Note itself was transferred to the Plaintiff.

The only documents the Plaintiff submits in connection with the issue of the ownership and assignment of the Note are a copy of the original Adjustable Rate Note Agreement between Arizona and the Defendant dated March 8, 2006, and a copy of an undated allonge between Arizona and the First National Bank of Nevada [“Nevada”], seemingly transferring Arizona’s interest in the Note to Nevada. Although not dated, it is only logical for the court to assume that the allonge was executed prior to any purported assignment of the Note to the Plaintiff. If we were to assume otherwise, it would imply that Arizona was assigning to Nevada a Note that it did not own (since such Note had already been purportedly assigned to the Plaintiff).

Critically, Plaintiff does not provide documents demonstrating that the Note itself was assigned to Plaintiff, such as from MERS (as nominee for Arizona), from Arizona itself, or from a third-party such as Nevada.

The only interpretation the court can adduce from such evidence is that although it is possible that Nevada may own both the Mortgage and the Note since a valid transfer of a Note (in this case through the undated allonge), effectively transfers an associated Mortgage, the assignment of the Mortgage from MERS (as nominee for Arizona) to Plaintiff, under New York law, definitively did not transfer ownership of the Note to Plaintiff.

Since the allonge indicates that the Note is the property of Nevada and not Arizona, Arizona was never in a position to assign the Note to Plaintiff. Therefore, even if Plaintiff holds the Mortgage, without evidence that it also owns the Note, it lacks standing to pursue the foreclosure action at bar. Consequently, Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Mortgage without the underlying Note is insufficient to sustain a foreclosure action and Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the Plaintiff’s lack of standing is granted.

[…]

The other issues raised in Defendant’s Order to Show Cause including the 1) motion to dismiss due to a failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211, and 2) a motion to vacate the default judgment and allow an answer under CPLR 317 are deemed moot as they are subsumed or deemed irrelevant in light of this court’s decision above. Based on the forgoing, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and dismiss the action is granted; it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to have the case dismissed with prejudice due to fraud is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

[…]

[ipaper docId=59328003 access_key=key-118ad3g85p29i38ysxi2 height=600 width=600 /]

NYDailyNews-

Johnny Ferreira may be the luckiest guy in Queens.

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a struggling homeowner who loses his home to foreclosure will never see it again.

Last month, a judge vacated a bank’s foreclosure sale of Ferreira’s home, effectively handing him back his keys.

As a result, Ferreira is preparing to move back into the same brick two-family with postage stamp front lawn, snug backyard and tidy driveway he’d been evicted from two years ago.