In a decision that has sparked a great deal of discussion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently decided a borrower has standing to raise certain challenges to the assignment of his or her mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to a lender. At the same time, the court affirmed the legal validity of the MERS system, putting to rest any questions about the propriety of a MERS loan under Massachusetts law. Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servs. of Neb., No. 12-1285, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3313 (1st Cir. Feb. 15, 2013).
In a matter of first impression, the court held that, under Massachusetts law, a borrower has standing to challenge the assignment of his or her mortgage, even though he or she was not a party, nor a third-party beneficiary, of the assignment. Previously, federal district courts in Massachusetts had ruled borrowers lacked standing to challenge mortgage assignments because a "litigant should not normally be permitted to assert the rights and interests of a third party." Id. at *13 (collecting cases). Evaluating those decisions, the First Circuit opined that the district court decisions denying standing painted "with too broad a brush." Id. at *14. Although the court agreed with the general principle that a nonparty that does not benefit from a contract lacks standing to assert rights under the contract, it disagreed with the conclusion reached by other courts and found, instead, that borrowers in Massachusetts have such standing, partly because of the "unusual" position they are in when their mortgages contain a power of sale provision. Id.
The court explained that, under Massachusetts law, a borrower has the right to challenge an assignment because (i) the borrower has a statutory right to ensure that a foreclosure on his or her home is conducted lawfully, and (ii) the lender is permitted to foreclose without prior judicial authorization. Under these circumstances, to ensure that the statutory right to a lawful foreclosure has been met, the borrower must have an opportunity to challenge the lender's right to foreclose.
The court cautioned this is a narrow holding and a borrower only "has standing to challenge a mortgage assignment as invalid, ineffective, or void (if, say, the assignor had nothing to assign or had no authority to make an assignment to a particular assignee)." Id. at *16. A borrower may not, however, challenge an assignment that is "effective to pass legal title," even if the assignment is voidable by a party to the agreement. Id.
While providing borrowers with the right to contest the standing of a lender to foreclose, the decision also laid to rest questions about the validity of the MERS system. As the court stated, the "MERS framework is faithful to the age-old tenets of mortgage law." Id. at *3. In so ruling, the court rejected the borrower's claim that MERS did not legitimately hold the mortgage at the time of assignment because "MERS never owned the 'beneficial half' of the 'legal interest' in the mortgage." Id. at *18. Upholding the MERS system, the court held "there is no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the common arrangement whereby MERS holds bare legal title as mortgagee of record and the noteholder alone enjoys the beneficial interest in the loan." Id. The court, therefore, found MERS had legal title to the property when it made the assignment and MERS derived authority to properly assign the mortgage "both from MERS's status as equitable trustee and from the terms of the mortgage contract." Id. at 22.
Notably, the court also rejected the borrower's claim that the assignment was invalid because MERS appointed an individual employed by the servicer to certify as to the validity of the assignment as an officer of MERS. Affirming the MERS framework, the court rejected the borrower's argument, finding it was "little more than wishful thinking," Id. at *25, because the "Massachusetts statute neither places restrictions on who may be elected as an officer of the assignor nor imposes special requirements (say, regular employment) on who may serve as a vice president of an assignor corporation." Id. at *19.
This is a narrow holding that is limited to Massachusetts foreclosures. Nonetheless, banks and loan servicers should expect an increase in challenges by borrowers to a lender's right to foreclose, if only to delay the proceedings. On the positive side for lenders, the greater impact of the holding may be to put to rest, at least under Massachusetts law, challenges to the validity of the MERS system.
Joy Harmon Sperling and Sarah Sakson Langstedt wrote an article, “New Jersey Appellate Division Holds Bank Has Standing to Foreclose Even If Allonge to Note Was Not Affixed When Executed,” for Pratt’s Journal of Bankruptcy Law. The article analyzes the significance of the New Jersey Appellate Division’s recent decision in U.S. Bank National Association v. Morris Bayonne Associates I, LLC. In that case, the court ruled that the plaintiff in a foreclosure action had established a prima facie case for foreclosure even though the allonge to the note was not physically attached when the allonge was executed.
Tom O'Neill, Darian Butcher and Joy Harmon Sperling authored the article, "Mass. Has New Requirements For Foreclosing Mortgagees," in Law360. The article focuses on the significance of the decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage Co. In that decision, the Court ruled that Emigrant Mortgage Co. Inc.'s failure to notify the mortgagors of their right to initiate a pre-foreclosure lawsuit rendered void, rather than voidable, Emigrant's subsequent exercise of its power of sale and the conveyance of the property by foreclosure deed to a bona fide purchaser. The Court further found that mortgagees are required to strictly comply with the terms of a mortgage and provide the necessary notices to mortgagors.
John DeSimone was mentioned in an article, “Executive Moves: Who hired whom this week,” in NJBIZ. DeSimone recently joined Day Pitney’s real estate and litigation practices from Porzio. He joined the firm with colleagues Peter Wolfson, Katharine Coffey, Douglas Henshaw and Catherine Nolan
Jim Tancredi was mentioned in an article, “Garvey Schubert Says $75M 50 Cent Suit Belongs In NY Court,” in Law360. Tancredi is representing Garvey Schubert Barer in a malpractice suit brought by Curtis Jackson, more commonly known as rapper 50 Cent, who filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Jackson is suing Garvey Schubert Barer over allegedly mishandling licensing deals and intellectual property disputes.
Stamford, Conn., August 24, 2015 - Day Pitney is pleased to announce that 68 attorneys have been selected for inclusion in the 2016 Best Lawyers in America. Best Lawyers ranks lawyers through peer-review surveys, and has been published annually since 1983.