Fitch Law Partners LLP
Excellence in Complex Litigation
617-542-5542

Posts tagged "MERS"

Massachusetts Appeals Court Reaffirms MERS' Role As Mortgagee

The Massachusetts Appeals Court, in a Rule 1:28 decision, has once again reaffirmed its holdings in Sullivan v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 85 Mass.App.Ct. 202 (2014) and Shea v. Federal Natl' Mort. Assn., et al., 87 Mass.App.Ct. 901 (2015), that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") system of mortgage assignments comports with Massachusetts law.  The Appeals Court further reaffirmed that MERS' status as mortgagee, even "solely as nominee for [lender] and [lender]'s successors and assigns," grants to MERS all the rights and powers of a mortgagee, including the right to foreclose and exercise the power of sale in the mortgage.  Epps v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., 15-P-1095, 2016 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 974 (Oct. 11, 2016).

MERS Requires No Authorization to Assign Mortgage

A Judge of the Massachusetts Superior Court, relying on earlier Massachusetts Appeals Court cases, has held that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") does not need authorization from the holder of the promissory note secured by a mortgage before assigning the mortgage to another entity.  O'Neil et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 33 Mass. L. Rptr. 1, 8 (Mass. Super. July 20, 2015).

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reaffirms MERS System Under Texas Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has held that recording Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") as the holder or beneficiary of a mortgage comports with Texas law.  Harris County Texas, et al. v. MERSCORP Inc., et al., No. 14-10392, 2015 WL 3937927 (5th Cir. June 26, 2015).  This adds to the Court's prior holding in Welborn v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 557 Fed.Appx. 383 (5th Cir. 2014), treated in this blog on April 11, 2014, that certain government entities could not recover from MERS on the basis of federal RICO statutes.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Reaffirms MERS Mortgage System

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has reaffirmed its holding in Sullivan v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 85 Mass.App.Ct. 202 (2014), that mortgagors have standing only to challenge assignments of their mortgages that are void, not merely voidable, and that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") system of mortgage assignments comports with Massachusetts law.  The Court in Shea v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., No. 13-P-1630, slip op. (Mass. App. Ct. Feb. 18, 2015), further reaffirmed that a mortgagee need not ever hold the note secured by the mortgage, and that Massachusetts law does not require authorization from the noteholder for a mortgagee to assign the mortgage to another party.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Upholds MERS Mortgage System

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has joined the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in upholding the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") business model under Massachusetts law.  Explicitly referencing the First Circuit's decision in Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, 708 F.3d 282 (1st Cir. 2013), the Appeals Court in Sullivan v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 85 Mass.App.Ct. 202 (2014), held that mortgagors have standing to challenge an assignment of their mortgages, but only to the extent that such assignment is void, not merely voidable.  Further, the Appeals Court found that the MERS system of mortgage assignments fully comports with Massachusetts law.

RICO Claims By Government Agencies Against MERS Fail

The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has held that government land recording offices cannot state a claim under the federal RICO statutes for loss of revenue due to fewer filing fee revenues or for allegedly inaccurate records.  Welborn v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., No. 13-30103, 2014 WL 843262 (5th Cir. March 5, 2014).

First Circuit Affirms Culhane, Woods, and MERS Assignments of Mortgages

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has reaffirmed its prior holdings in Culhane v Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, 708 F.3d 282 (1st Cir. 2013) and Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 733 F.3d 349 (1st Cir. 2013) regarding Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s ("MERS") assignments of mortgages.  The Court in Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 2014 WL 563457 (1st Cir. Feb. 14, 2014) found that while a plaintiff has standing to challenge a void assignment, they lack standing to challenge allegedly voidable assignments, and the MERS system for assignments comports with Massachusetts law.

First Circuit Upholds MERS Mortgage System Under Massachusetts Law

The First Circuit has affirmed a holding finding that the system under which mortgages are held in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., commonly known as MERS, comports with Massachusetts law relating to mortgage transactions.  In the underlying matter, Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, 826 F.Supp.2d 352 (D.Mass. 2011), Judge Young of the United States District Court had held that a mortgagor possesses standing to challenge the chain of assignment of his or her mortgage in defense to a foreclosure action, but further held that the MERS system of registration and transfer of mortgages is lawful.

First Circuit Court of Appeals Hears Culhane Case

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral argument in the matter of Oratai Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska earlier this week.  The panel was comprised of Chief Judge Hon. Sandra L. Lynch, Senior Circuit Judge Hon. Bruce M. Selya, and retired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Hon. David H. Souter, sitting by designation.  The Culhane case is notable for District Court Judge Hon. William G. Young's discussion in a summary judgment decision of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") and the propriety of MERS's system of assigning mortgages held in its name to loan servicers prior to foreclosure.  See Culhane v. Aurora Loan Serv. of Neb., 826 F. Supp.2d 352 (2011).  

Contact Us

Fitch Law Partners LLP
1 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108

Phone: 617-542-5542
Fax: 617-542-1542
Boston Law Office Map

Fitch Law Partners LLP
56 Pine St
Providence, RI 02903

Phone: 401-521-6500
Fax: 401-274-2780
Providence Law Office Map

Fitch Law Partners LLP
110 Cedar Street
Suite 250
Wellesley Hills, MA 02481

Phone: 617-542-5542
Fax: 617-542-1542
Map & Directions