Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/45109241/NV-Fed-Chap-7-Linda-Riegal
Timestamp: 2016-08-24 11:28:39
Document Index: 653644991

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 37', '§ 5', '§ 104', '§ 107', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§1553']

NV Fed Chap 7 Linda Riegal
UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more1 2 3 4Entered on Docket March 31, 2009
__________________________________ Hon. Linda B. Riegle United States Bankruptcy Judge
5 ___________________________________________________________ 6 7 8 9 10 In re 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 noted. 1 Motions have been filed in the following cases: #07-16226, #07-016333, #07-16645, #07-17577, #07-18851, #08-10427, 08-11007, #08-11860, #07-13593, #08-10108, #08-10778, #08-12255, #07-17468, #08-11245, #08-11608, #08-11668, #08-11725, #08-11819, #08-12206, #08-12242, #08-12317, #08-12319, #08-10052, #08-10072, #08-10718, #08-11499, #07-16519. Each of the judges will enter their own orders in the matters that are assigned to them.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ****** ) ) JOSHUA & STEPHANIE MITCHELL, ) ) Debtor(s). ) ) ) ________________________________________ ) Case No. BK-S-07-16226-LBR Chapter 7
August 19, 2008 3:30 p.m.
MEMORANDUM OPINION Mortgage Electronic Recording Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) through various counsel has filed a number of motions to lift stay.1 Some of the motions were filed in the name of MERS, while others have been filed in the name of MERS as the nominee for another entity. An order for joint briefing was entered because the substantially same issues were presented in the motions, and a joint hearing was held. Mitchell (#07-16226) has been designated as the lead case.2 The trustee or counsel for the debtor in these cases has opposed the lift-stay motions on the
The docket numbers mentioned in this opinion are to the Mitchell case unless otherwise
Ramirez-Furiati (#08-10427). and the MERS Terms and Conditions of Membership.5 As noted. Rather it described the role of MERS and its members by relying on law review articles and the recitation of facts in other cases in other districts involving MERS. The initial response filed by MERS contained no evidentiary support. The Declaration also incorporated the prior declaration filed by Mr. Exhibit 1. in addition to explaining MERS’ rationale for withdrawing the motions.” Exhibit D to that Declaration sets forth the name of the motions withdrawn and the reason for withdrawal. also attached as exhibits copies of the MERS Membership Application. References in this memorandum to the declaration filed in Mitchell include the incorporated declaration and the exhibits thereto. The declaration of William Hultman was filed in Dart. Inc. Hawkins (#07-13593). Docket #47 in Dart. Declaration of William Hultman (“Hultman Declaration”). “The fact that MERS chose to not go forward on these . MERS admits that it failed to follow its own procedures in the motions it wants to withdraw. and Zeigler (#0810718). motions was not a determination by MERS that it does not have standing to move for relief from stay.7 This court will discuss the issues raised in the motions that
Dart (#08-11007).3 The declaration. the chapter 13 trustee. MERS attempted to withdraw the motions filed in all but four of the cases. Docket #74. 2
. A supplemental declaration was filed in Michell.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
grounds of standing and that MERS is not the real party in interest. . the MERS Procedural Manual. MERS has attempted to withdraw all but four of its original motions. 45. and MERS subsequently stipulated to a lift of stay in Ramirez-Furiati which the court approved with the acknowledgment that the order contained no finding about MERS’ standing. MERS then filed a declaration at the court’s direction explaining why the motions were withdrawn.4 The court also requested appropriate evidentiary support for the allegations concerning the relationship between MERS and the entities for whom the motions were brought. Prior to the initial argument.
Docket #54 in #08-10427. Hultman in Dart. leaving only Dart (#08-11007). . the lead case. the MERSCorp. pp.6 The debtor.
Docket #74 in Mitchell (“Huntman Declaration”). Rules of Membership.
10 The MERS website says this: MERS is an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated. Under these rules. which counsel agreed to continue pending a ruling in the “test case.” filed with Hultman Declaration. and to name MERS as the lienholder of record in a nominee capacity on all 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FED . which MERSCORP wholly owns. BANKR. CIV .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
MERS attempts to withdraw. R. P. R. R. to act as their common 18 agent. Some cases were added to the argument calendar after the April 29. 2008 joint hearing order. P.9 The court has advised the parties that it would consider any information contained on the MERS website at http://www.” See Transcript (Docket # 83) pp.
“MERS Members” are mortgage lenders and other entities. William Hultman. MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.org/ unless an objection was made. Separate orders will be entered in each of those cases. The court thus takes judicial notice of the contents of the MERS website. 9014 makes FED . 7041 incorporates FED . which are the two cases that are now pending before it. has testified in his Declaration that loans are
14 registered to a “MERS Member” who has entered into the MERS Membership Agreement. 15 MERS Members enter into a contract with MERSCORP to electronically register and track 16 17 Members agree to appoint MERS. 41. BANKR. Docket #74. Created by the real estate finance industry.8 and by this order issues its ruling in Dart and Hawkins.
beneficial ownership interests and servicing rights in MERS registered mortgage loans. which includes lift stay motions. sold and tracked. P. No objection has been filed by either party. Docket # 49. and neither is true here.11 MERS
MERS Response. R. P. a party can voluntarily dismiss a lift-stay motion without a court order only if there is a stipulation to dismiss or the dismissal is filed before an opposition is filed. BANKR. WHAT IS MERS? MERS is a national electronic registration and tracking system that tracks the beneficial ownership interests and servicing rights in mortgage loans. 9 and 76. (“Membership in MERS Overview. Secretary of MERS. or nominee. p. 3.) 3
. and FED .mersinc. 7041 applicable to contested matters.
4001(a)(1). 472 (1982)(citations and internal quotations omitted). Hultman Declaration at ¶ 4. 498 (1975)). at a minimum. CIV . P. 17. MERS must also have prudential standing. to which FED . 4
.S.15 in order to be entitled to lift-stay relief.” Kowalski v. Seldin.12 Hultman goes on to say in his Declaration that once MERS becomes the beneficiary of record as nominee. 422 U. 464. R. 454 U. 422 U. incorporates Rule 7017. that a party must have suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the defendant’s conduct. 543 U. Am.”). which makes FED . When a promissory note is sold by the original lender to others. CIV . 9014 is applicable. BANKR. which is judicially-created set of principles that places limits on the class of persons who may invoke the courts’ powers. R. Beyond the Article III requirements of injury in fact. Stay-relief requests are governed by FED . Docket # 74. and redressibility. P.S. R.13 STANDING MERS must have both constitutional and prudential standing. Valley Forge Christian Coll. it remains the beneficiary when the beneficial ownership interests in the promissory note or servicing rights are transferred by one MERS Member to another and that it tracks the transfers electronically on the MERS System. 128-29 (2004) (quoting Warth v. 490. BANKR. v. So long as the sale of the note involves a member of MERS. R. United for Separation of Church and State. 17 applicable (“[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. MERS remains the beneficiary of record on the deed of trust and continues to act as nominee for the new beneficial owner.S. P.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
recorded security instruments relating to the loans registered on the MERS System.
Docket #74. Constitutional standing under Article III requires. 125. that the injury be traced to the challenged action.14 and be the real party in interest under FED . in turn.S. 490. Hultman Declaration at ¶ 3. Tesmer. P. Seldin. and that it is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See Warth v. causation.
The standing doctrine “involves both constitutional limitations on federal-court jurisdiction and prudential limitations on its exercise. the various sales of the notes are tracked on the MERS System. Rule 9014.
a plaintiff must assert “his own legal interests as the real party in interest. as noted. 1112 (9th Cir. Compare the following arguments. it is the trustee. However. 5
. which provides “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. 17. p. or as the agent of the entity entitled to enforce the note. with the powers expressly set forth therein.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
499 (1975). Docket # 73. [MERS] must at least be the record beneficiary under the Deed of Trust. p. 10.18 (See also. p. R. CIV . it is not the beneficiary that is authorized to make the sale under the trust deed. 10.
Docket #49. p. 10. in addition. United States. as found in FED . 2004). Docket #49.”17 MERS states that the issue of standing focuses on who can foreclose and that MERS can foreclose on the properties as a “person authorized to make the sale under the terms of the trust deed.19 It is unclear whether MERS is arguing that it has standing in its own right.”16 MERS argues in its supplemental brief: “It would be reasonable to hold that a motion that pleads MERS is the of-record beneficiary on the deed of trust is prima facie evidence of standing to move for relief from stay and contains an implied certification that MERS is able to discharge the responsibilities of a movant. 9 (emphasis added). This procedure fully establishes standing under this court’s rules and Nevada law. Docket # 83.” MERS’ primary contention is that it has standing by virtue of the fact that it was named as the beneficiary under the deeds of trust and that the trustor (the maker of the note) recognized MERS could take actions of the beneficiary or that it is the nominee of the beneficiary. “In non-judicial foreclosure states. 358 F.3d 1107. or both. 14-15. all
MERS’ Response. Supplemental Brief of MERS. Transcript.” Dunmore v.
Docket #49. it may become the holder on the note under some circumstances.) MERS also argues that it has standing which follows principles set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code that entitle a nominee holder of an instrument to sue to enforce the instrument. including the power of foreclosure. pp. As a prudential matter. P.
. 1. p. The 12 document first says this: 13 14 15 And later it says this: 16 17 18 19 20 21
MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. Exhibit B. 3. #07-16226. 11 The deed of trust attempts to name MERS as both a beneficiary and a nominee. p. In re Mitchell. MERS is the agent of the original lender and its successors and assigns for defined purposes (such a relationship is termed a ‘nominee. Subpart In re Mitchell.20 MERS argues at page 9 of the brief that “this evidence demonstrates MERS right to enforce the note as the note’s ‘holder.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
made in the same supplemental brief. 2. Exhibit B.24
The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS. Motion to Lift Stay (Docket # 30). at page 8. p. in any event.) Docket #73. It is not a beneficiary and. Docket #73. p. Motion to Lift Stay (Docket # 30). the mere fact that an entity is a named 10 beneficiary of a deed of trust is insufficient to enforce the obligation.25
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (E).’”21 In the same brief. #07-16226. (Emphasis added.”23 STANDING AS THE NAMED BENEFICIARY OR THE NOMINEE OF THE BENEFICIARY OR ITS ASSIGNEE MERS does not have standing merely because it is the alleged beneficiary under the
9 deed of trust.’). Docket # 73. it argues “[t]his evidence further demonstrates MERS authority to act for the current beneficial owner of the loan or its servicer. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.”22 And at page 1 of the brief MERS argues this: “In the motions at issue. 8. p. 9.
Docket #73.
in an administrative capacity. talk like a duck. Under Nevada law a negotiable promissory note28 is enforceable by: (1) the holder29 of the
“MERS Terms and Conditions” filed in Dart (#08-11007) at ¶ 2. or the motion was brought by the beneficiary.27 But more importantly. or to any of the properties secured by the loans. Elias v. 2004). there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that MERS lacked possession of the notes.) A “beneficiary” is defined as “one designated to benefit from an appointment. disposition.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 165 (8th ed. . (Emphasis added. Nev. and the trustee’s deed upon sale established MERS’ standing. if it doesn’t walk like a duck. But it is obvious from the MERS’ “Terms and Conditions” that MERS is not a beneficiary as it has no rights whatsoever to any payments. for the beneficial owner or owners thereof from time to time. that the notes in question are negotiable instruments. Docket #47-7. To reverse an old adage. The court assumes. or assignment . The Terms and Conditions say this: MERS shall serve as mortgagee of record with respect to all such mortgage loans solely as a nominee. MERS agrees not to assert any rights (other than rights specified in the Governing Documents) with respect to such mortgage loans or mortgaged properties. or to receive something as a result of a legal arrangement or instrument. (Emphasis added.) The court is aware of at least one case in this district. Homeeq Serv. then it’s not a duck. notices of foreclosure. While the court in Elias found the deeds of trust. even if MERS is the nominee of the beneficiary. in which MERS has been found to have standing to foreclose as a nominee beneficiary of a deed of trust. References herein to “mortgage(s)” and “mortgagee of record” shall include deed(s) of trust and beneficiary under a deed of trust and any other form of security instrument under applicable state law. . that mere allegation is not sufficient to confer standing. 7
. MERS shall have no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage loans.. without deciding. If they aren’t. 2009 WL 481270 (D. For example. 2009)(slip copy). then custom and practice will treat them as if they are. and quack like a duck. to any servicing rights. to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans. or to any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MERS’ “Terms and Conditions”26 identifies MERS’ interests.
a (1997). and is of a type that in ordinary course of business is transferred by delivery with any necessary endorsement or assignment. Given this. POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
note. § 104. “Where the mortgagee has ‘transferred’ only the mortgage. A “holder” is the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to a bearer or to an identified person who has possession. “or any other writing that evidences a right to the payment of a monetary obligation . Nevada’s Article 9. an “instrument” is defined as a negotiable instrument. has a worthless piece of paper. . typically a mortgage or a deed of trust. N. For there to be a valid assignment for purposes of foreclosure both the note and the deed of trust must be assigned.S. it is troubling that MERS apparently believes that in states such as Nevada
under N. § 104.4 cmt. and a person holding only a deed of trust suffers no default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment on it. the transaction is a nullity and his ‘assignee.3301(c) by a nonholder of a note that has been stolen.R. or (2) a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder. or paid by mistake.R. § 104. e (1997). The maker of the note is the trustor and the payee is the beneficiary.9012(tt).R. as a practical matter.” “Instruments” are thus defined somewhat broadly according to ordinary business practices. .1201(u) N. POWELL. “the note becomes. A mortgage loan consists of a promissory note and a security instrument.4 cmt. § 37.” 4 RICHARD R.S.S.R. destroyed. then to enforce it MERS must be a transferee in possession who is entitled to the rights of a holder or have authority under state law to act for the holder.27[2] (2000).’ having received no interest in the underlying debt or obligation.S. A person holding only a note lacks the power to foreclose because it lacks the security. unsecured.” RESTATEMENT (THIRD ) OF PROPERTY (MORTGAGES) § 5.020. Nevada recognizes that parties may secure the performance of an obligation or the payment of a debt by means of a deed of trust. § 104. Simply being a beneficiary or having an assignment of a deed of trust is not enough to be entitled to foreclose on a deed of trust. A negotiable promissory is also enforceable under N.30 Thus if MERS is not the holder of the note. N. 8
. § 107.31 When the note is split from the deed of trust. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD ) OF PROPERTY (MORTGAGES) § 5.3301.R. There has been no allegation in this case making this provision relevant here.S.
MERS must establish that its principal is entitled to enforce the note.. Under Rule 17 a party in interest is any party to whom the relevant substantive law grants a cause of action. 396 B. MERS has tried to withdraw most of its motions because it could not ascertain that its Member had possession of the note when the motion was filed.4 cmt.32 Hultman says this in his declaration: In non-judicial foreclosure states. Exhibit D in Dart). See RESTATEMENT (THIRD ) OF 11 PROPERTY (MORTGAGES) § 5. 2008). 793 F. or deficiency and
8 non-deficiency ones. if MERS is the actual nominee of the present Member who is entitled to enforce the note. U-Haul Int’l. 4.1 2 3 4 5 6 7
possession of the note is not required if no deficiency is sought. Docket #49 at p.R. ¶ 4. P.
DOES MERS HAVE STANDING AS THE AGENT OF THE MEMBER OR IN ITS OWN RIGHT? The mere statement that the movant is a member of MERS does nothing but lay the groundwork for agency. that under no circumstances may the Member allege that the note is in MERS possession and seek enforcement of the note unless MERS actually possesses the note.33 This distinction between judicial and non-judicial foreclosure states. or 10 that it has authority under state law to act for the note’s holder. See Hultman Declaration at p. In re Vargas.11.2d 1034. provided. In order to foreclose. Docket #74. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Despite MERS’ contention that the mere status as a beneficiary or nominee of a beneficiary is sufficient. In order to enforce rights as the agent of the holder. however. R. v. See also. Motions brought by MERS as nominee could meet the threshold test of standing. Inc. Calif. 511. and MERS might be the “real party in interest” under FED . Inc. Counsel for MERS acknowledged during oral argument that MERS is the agent for its
Hultman Declaration. 1038 (9th Cir. Jartran. and Docket #47. if the Member chooses to have MERS foreclose under the power of sale provision in the security instrument and is not seeking a deficiency judgment. 17. then the note does not need to be in the possession of the Member’s MERS Certifying Officer when commencing the foreclosure action. CIV . C.D. is one which MERS has designed out of whole cloth. 516-17 12 (Bankr. Docket #74. 9 MERS must establish there has been a sufficient transfer of both the note and deed of trust. 1986). c (1997). 9
39 a matter which was added to the argument calendar after the order for joint briefing.38 Similarly. 2007. as seen in a later stipulation to sell the property.36 Later.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
members only. In the remaining cases.40 MERS brought a motion to lift-stay as nominee for MILA.34 If a note has been transferred to a non-member. in July 2008. Docket #59.” Under the Membership Agreement. Moore (#07-16333). Docket #74. #07-17690.41 However. This resolution. Docket #28 in Mercado. One cannot assume that just because MERS was named as the initial nominee in the deed of trust that it still retains that relationship with the holder of the note. 10
. then MERS cannot act as the agent. Docket #44 in Mercado. For example in Moore. Exhibit 1 in Mercado. Hultman Declaration at ¶ 4. Docket #59 in Moore. it is apparent that MERS has not tracked (or been appropriately advised of) the assignment of the note to a non-member. Exhibit C. which pre-dates MERS’ lift-stay motion. an amended lift-stay motion was brought by GRP Loan in Moore. appoints the individual as an assistant
See also. MERS provides Members a corporate resolution designating one or more employees of the Member a MERS Certifying Officer. Docket # 50.35 MERS brought a motion to lift-stay in February 2008 as nominee for Quick Loan Funding.37 Exhibit C to the amended motion shows that an assignment of the deed of trust was made from MERS to GRP on February 27. by virtue of the fact that some of the motions were filed even after the note was transferred out of the MERS system. MERS has attempted to establish its standing through the affidavits of “Certifying Officials. in Mercado. Docket #37 in Moore. among other things. Moreover.42 Homecomings Financial Network was the entity who was entitled to enforce the note.
Docket #28 in #07-13593. and Docket #56. its successors and/or assigns. filed in Dart. From the MERS website it appears that the “Certifying Official” (the person who works for the holder of the note) is not an employee of the servicer either. Exhibit C. it is obvious that MERS has no rights to bring the motion as nominee of Fremont given that Fremont no longer had any interest in the note. Inc. #08-11007.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
secretary and vice president of MERS.. in his affidavit at ¶ 6.43 There appears to be absolutely no requirement that these Certifying Officers have any knowledge of the loan in question. your lender more than likely outsourced the job of managing your loan to another company called a SERVICER. They are given the power to “take any and all actions and execute all documents necessary to protect the interest of the Member.”48 Yet the affidavit of Stacey Kranz at ¶ 6 states that “the beneficial ownership interest in the Zeigler Note was sold by Meridias and ownership was transferred by endorsement and delivery. The website says that “[a]fter your mortgage loan closed. Docket #21. While the affidavit goes on to the say that MERS was a holder at the time the motion was filed. Docket #49. Victor Parisi46 states that the beneficial ownership interest in the Hawkins note was sold by Fremont Investment & Loan and ownership was transferred by endorsement and delivery. This is the company you call when you have questions about your loan. #08-10718. in Ziegler47 the motion was brought by MERS “solely as nominee for Meridias Capital. or MERS in any bankruptcy proceeding regarding a loan registered on the MERS System that is shown to be registered to the Member. The Zeigler Note was subsequently endorsed in
Form Corporate Resolution. the beneficial owner of such mortgage loan. #08-10718. Exhibit A in Mitchell. Similarly.”45 However. attached to Exhibit C to the Hultman Declaration. 11
.44 In Hawkins the motion was brought by MERS “solely as nominee for Fremont Investment & Loan. its successors and/or assigns.
” 6A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. “As a general rule. An agent with ownership interest in the subject matter of the suit is a real party in interest. Ms.”53 So while in each of these cases MERS may really be contending that is it entitled to enforce the note in its own right through possession. who disavowed “any interest in the Note and Deed of Trust regarding the Subject Property.” Under FED . Docket #25 in Dart (#08-11007). or as the nominee of the transferee. Ms. MILLER. Docket #56. a person who is an attorney-in-fact or an agent solely for the purpose of bringing suit is viewed as a nominal rather than a real party in interest and will be required to litigate in the name of his principal rather than in his own name. Exhibit C-1 in Mitchell. R. FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §1553 (2d ed. and who “had (or has) physical possession of the note in its files. CIV . Mech testified that “the beneficial ownership interest in the Dart Note was sold by Centralbanc and ownership was transferred by endorsement and delivery. Exhibit C-3 in Mitchell. There is no evidence. Docket #81-1 at ¶ 4 in Mitchell. Mech. The Dart Note was subsequently endorsed in blank. P.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
blank.”50 A slightly different defect exists Dart.”49 An additional affidavit was filed by German Florez. That motion was brought by MERS “solely as nominee for Centralbanc Mortgage.”51 However. 17 an action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. the president of Meridias. Docket #49-1 at ¶ 6 in Mitchell. 1990). each motion has been brought in the name of the lender and “its successors and/or assigns. testifies that the note is held by Bank of America. 12
. however. the motion was brought instead as nominee of an entity that no longer has any ownership interest in the note. Id.”52 In a previous affidavit. as Certifying Officer. Additionally. of an agency relationship here or that MERS has any ownership interest
Docket #56. its successors and/or assigns. who is listed as the current servicer.
”). The Federal Rules of Evidence apply in bankruptcy56 yet there is no evidence that these Certifying Officers have adequate personal knowledge of the facts under FED . had (and has) physical possession of the original notes in its files. EVID . P. Mech testifies in her affidavit (Docket # 81-1) that at the time MERS filed the motion to lift stay in Dart: Bank or America. testifies in Hawkins that “MERS was a holder of the Hawkins Note at the time the 13
. who is listed as the current servicer on the Dart (MIN: 100233602006080675) loan registered on the MERS System. R. “an Assistant Secretary of [MERS] under a Corporate Resolution” testifies in Zeigler (#08-10718) that “MERS was in physical possession of the Zeigler Note at the time MERS filed the motion . Victor Parsi.54 the testimony in these cases is neither competent nor admissible. Mr. .55 First. and if called upon to testify as to the facts set forth in this Affidavit. Mr.57
For example. . R. (“MERS”) under a Corporate Resolution that was executed on [date]. Each of the affiants in the remaining cases testify as follows: I have been appointed as Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Docket #74 in Mitchell. 9017. similarly appointed.
Stacey Kranz. I make this affidavit in support of Movant.
FED . The affiant then purports to set forth the history of the negotiation and transfer of the note and who now has possession. BANKR. Hultman Declaration. I could and would testify competently based upon my review.”(Docket #73 in Zeigler #08-10718). Inc.. this testimony is not admissible because there is no evidence that the affiants are competent witnesses. For example Ms.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
making it the real party in interest under Rule 17. 602 (“A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. OTHER EVIDENCE PROBLEMS Even if the defects were ones of pure pleading. Hultman has stated that a number of motions were withdrawn because they identified MERS as the payee under the note. I have reviewed the loan file relating to the above-referenced matter. MERS in turn has possession of those documents through a MERS Certifying Officer who is an employee of the member listed as servicer on the MERS System. .
”(Docket #56-2 filed in Mitchell. EVID . Indeed. there is no evidence that the named nominee is entitled to enforce the note or that MERS is the agent of the note’s holder. . (2) made pursuant to a regular practice of the business activity. These elements must be established either by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness or must meet certification requirements. 437. 2005). the evidence is to the contrary. R. IT IS SO ORDERED. method.) 14
Motion for Relief was filed in MERS name. or from information transmitted by. . .A. 9th Cir. 444 (B. 336 B. a person with knowledge. and (4) the source. (3) kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity.P. For business records to be admissible as an exception from the hearsay rule under FED .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Ms. While MERS may have standing to prosecute the motion in the name of its Member as a nominee. or circumstances of preparation must not indicate lack of trustworthiness. Neither are the purported notes and deeds admissible.R. the note has been sold. and the named nominee no longer has any interest in the note. MERS may not enforce the notes as the alleged beneficiary. CONCLUSION The lift-stay motions in Dart and Hawkins are denied. Mech’s bald assertion that she has “reviewed the loan file” is inadequate to show that she is personally knowledgeable of the facts. See In re Vee Vinhnee. 803(6) there must be a showing that the records were: (1) made at or near the time by.
SECOQUIAN U. JIMENEZ LENARD E. TRUSTEE . FRITZ THOMAS J. CARDOZO LAURA L. HOLTHUS EDDIE R.LV Copies noticed through BNC to: JOSHUA & STEPHANIE MITCHELL 1081 NORTH CLIFF CREEK MERIDAN. ABRAMS JEREMY T BERGSTROM RAYMOND A. IO 83642
.S. SCHWARTZER ELSIE L.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Copies noticed through ECF to: MICHELLE L.
More From This User2012 Survival GuidechongamicusbrieffinalNV Fed Chap 7 Linda Riegal
NV Fed Chap 7 Linda Riegal by Lynn Chase Burke12 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedJoshua & Stephanie Mitchell Debtor(s) United States Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada 8-19-2008by chunga85Def Deut First Set of Req for Admission Propoundedby j mcguireRes Judicata & Due Processby Diane Sternmers-citibank-not-real-partiesby Henry CossioIllinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law - Statutesby ForeclosureGate.org LibraryCaporaleMemoinOppositionMotLiftStayDkt48by velocityfactorTelluride Sonjaby White-FangBk Case 2 Assignmentsby luke17Secured Transactions Spring 2010by Joshua Ryan CollumsArkansas Supreme Court, Wetzel vs. MERS, Opinionby ForeclosureGate.org LibraryPrudence Realization Corp. v. Geist, 316 U.S. 89 (1942)by Scribd Government DocsMers Order in Re Mitchellby 900adayResonse Motion to Lift Stay Revised 2-21-2012by Anthony K. HenryStaker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 10th Cir. (2013)by Scribd Government Docs2560 Bailey vs BONY Mellon Rulingby Andrew Cameron BaileyBalderrama BK Mid Dist FLby StopGovt WasteNote Mortgage Unenforceable Dorsey v Vanderbuilt 3 14by A. CampbellIn Re Balder Ram A wby DinSFLASurvillo v. McDonoughby Richard VetsteinUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT HSBC ADV CLby roberts101Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjiengby Ihna Alyssa Marie SantosElderly Citizensby maddpeterLNV Corp. v Madison Real Estate, LLCby Foreclosure FraudTsai vby Katrina Anne Layson YeenStanding to Forecloseby xosasunabi 2010by A. CampbellDavis v. Elite Mortg. Servs., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (USDC D. Ill., East. Div. 2009)by richdebtEvangelista vs Mercatorby Honey SitonSimilar to 07-16226 MERS Opinion Joshua & Stephanie Mitchell Debtor(s) United States Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada 8-19-2008Def Deut First Set of Req for Admission PropoundedRes Judicata & Due Processmers-citibank-not-real-partiesIllinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law - StatutesCaporaleMemoinOppositionMotLiftStayDkt48Telluride SonjaBk Case 2 AssignmentsSecured Transactions Spring 2010Arkansas Supreme Court, Wetzel vs. MERS, OpinionPrudence Realization Corp. v. Geist, 316 U.S. 89 (1942)Mers Order in Re MitchellResonse Motion to Lift Stay Revised 2-21-2012Staker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 10th Cir. (2013)2560 Bailey vs BONY Mellon RulingBalderrama BK Mid Dist FLNote Mortgage Unenforceable Dorsey v Vanderbuilt 3 14In Re Balder Ram A wSurvillo v. McDonoughUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT HSBC ADV CLBerkenkotter v. Cu UnjiengElderly CitizensLNV Corp. v Madison Real Estate, LLCTsai vStanding to Forecloseabi 2010Davis v. Elite Mortg. Servs., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (USDC D. Ill., East. Div. 2009)Evangelista vs MercatorRule 68 Judicial Foreclosure.docxEvangelista v Mercartor Finance Corp