Case Name: Donovan C. WOODRUFF et al. v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 2014-09-25
Citations: 99 A.3d 990
Docket Number: No. 2013-207-Appeal
Parties: Donovan C. WOODRUFF et al. v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 99
Pages: 990–991

Head Matter:
Donovan C. WOODRUFF et al. v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
No. 2013-207-Appeal.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Sept. 25, 2014.
George E. Babcock, Esq.
Dean J. Wagner, Esq.

Opinion:
ORDER
The plaintiffs, Donovan C. Woodruff and Cynthia L. Woodruff, appeal from an entry of summary judgment in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) and Signature Group Holdings, Inc. This case came before the Supreme Court at a session in conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The plaintiffs contend that the assignment of their mortgage and subsequent foreclosure on the mortgage were both invalid. At this time, we proceed to decide this ease without further briefing and argument..
On appeal the plaintiffs argue that questions of fact in the case precluded the entry of summary judgment. However, the plaintiffs have failed to submit competent evidence demonstrating the existence of questions of material fact. See Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527, 532 (R.I.2013) (party opposing summary judgment must submit evidence of substantial nature to dispute questions of material fact). The plaintiffs also have offered no competent evidence to support their assertion that the official who executed the assignment of their mortgage was not authorized to sign it.
The plaintiffs further challenge the ability of MERS to assign the mortgage in this case and challenge the legality of having the mortgage and promissory note held by separate entities. It is well settled that MERS may serve as mortgagee without holding the promissory note and has the authority under the terms of the mortgage in this case to assign it. See Ingram v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 94 A.3d 523, 528 (R.I.2014); Bucci v. Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, 68 A.3d 1069,1085-89 (R.I.2013).
Accordingly, the plaintiffs' appeal is denied and dismissed.