Matt Weidner – Fighting For The American People

Courts across the country are starting to really beat back the lenders on standing grounds….read on good people.  They’re New York Cases, but the judicial groundswell is bubbling.

Mortgage Foreclosure/Standing   – Plaintiff commenced an action on September 4,
2007  to  foreclose a mortgage  that was assigned  to  it on September 17, 2007 by an
instrument  which  recited  that  its  effective  date  was  July  29,  2007.  The  Supreme   6
Court,  Kings  County,  denied  the  Plaintiff’s  motion  for  an  Order  of  Reference,
without prejudice to file a renewed motion within ninety days accompanied by proof
that  the Plaintiff owned  the mortgage and note prior  to  the commencement of  the
foreclosure.  Otherwise,  the  action  would  be  dismissed  for  lack  of  standing.
According  to  the  Court,  “[w]]here  there  is  no  evidence  that  plaintiff,  prior  to
commencing  the  foreclosure action, was  the holder of  the mortgage and note,  took
physical delivery of the mortgage and note, or was conveyed the mortgage and note
by written  assignment,  an  assignment’s  language  purporting  to  give  it  retroactive
effect prior to the date of the commencement of the action is insufficient to establish
the plaintiff’s  requisite  standing”. Washington Mutual Bank  v. Patterson, decided
December 15, 2008, is reported at 21 Misc. 3d 1145 and 2008 WL 5233195.

Mortgage  Foreclosure/Standing  – The  Supreme Court, Kings County,  denied  the
foreclosing Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and for an Order of Reference,
holding that the Plaintiff  lacked standing. It held that the purported assignment of
the note and mortgage by MERS, as nominee for First Franklin, to the Plaintiff was
invalid. It recited that  it was executed by an attorney on behalf of MERS pursuant
to a corporate resolution. However, neither a corporate resolution nor a power-of-
attorney  was  recorded.  The  Court  granted  the  Plaintiff  leave  to  renew  upon
providing  the Court within  sixty days with  (i) a valid assignment of  the mortgage,
(ii)  an  affirmation  that  the  assignor  and  the  assignee  consented  to  simultaneous
representation  in  connection with  the  assignment,  and  (iii)  an  affidavit  explaining
why  the  Plaintiff  purchased  a  nonperforming  loan.  In  addition,  “if  a  power  of
attorney is used for an agent to act as MERS’ assignor of the instant mortgage and
loan  to Deutsche Bank,  the  power  of  attorney  presented  to  the Court must  be  an
original  or  a  copy  certified  by  an  attorney,  pursuant  to  CPLR  Section  2105″
(“Certification by attorney”). Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee,
v. Campbell, decided December 16, 2008, is reported at 2008 WL 5220543.

Mortgage  Foreclosure/Standing  –  A  mortgage  foreclosure  commenced  by  New
Century Mortgage Corporation (“New Century”) on March 7, 2007 was dismissed
by  the  Supreme  Court,  Kings  County,  for  lack  of  standing.    On May  11,  2007,
MERS, the record holder of the mortgage (which appears to have been intended to
have  held  the mortgage  as  nominee  for  New  Century),  purportedly  assigned  the
mortgage  to New Century by Assignment of Mortgage which  included  the phrase:
“Date of Transfer: March 5, 2007″. According  to  the Court, “[w]here  there  is no
evidence  that plaintiff, prior  to commencing  the  foreclosure action, was  the holder
of  the mortgage and note,  took physical delivery of  the mortgage and note, or was
conveyed  the mortgage and note by written assignment, an assignment’s  language
purporting to give it retroactive effect prior to the date of the commencement of the
action  is  insufficient  to establish  the plaintiff’s requisite  standing”.  In addition, on
April 30, 2007 MERS had assigned the mortgage to a different lender. New Century
Mortgage Corporation v. Durden, decided February 2, 2009, is reported at 22 Misc.
3d 1118 and at 2009 WL 264134.

Mortgage Foreclosure/Standing –The Defendant in a mortgage foreclosure asserted
that the Plaintiff did not have standing to commence the action on October 11, 2007
since the mortgage being foreclosed and the note it secured were assigned to it by an
assignment dated October 15, 2007 which recited that it was effective on October 8,
2007. The note, endorsed in blank, was delivered to the Plaintiff on October 8, 2007.
According  to  the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, “an  indorsement of a mortgage
note  in blank together with  its delivery by the owner or  its agent to a transferee  is
sufficient  to  transfer  ownership  of  said  note  and  of  a  mortgage  given  to  secure
it….Said  assignment  [on October  15,  2007]  accurately  reflected  that  the  plaintiff
acquired ownership of the note and mortgage on October 8, 2007, by  its receipt of
delivery of the note  indorsed  in blank. The mortgage followed as an  incident to the
transfer of  the note. The plaintiff was  thus  the owner of  the note and mortgage at
the  time  of  the  commencement  of  this  action”.  Deutsche  Bank  National  Trust
Company v. Gillio, dated February 26, 2009,  is reported at 22 Misc.3d 1131 and at
2009 WL 595560.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

4 Responses to “Foreclosure Fraud Case Law Update- Standing Challenges”