Oregon Case Survives BAC Home Loan Servicing Motion to Dismiss

Oregon Case Survives BAC Home Loan Servicing Motion to Dismiss

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Charles Cox for finding this one.  This is amazing in and of itself since my information indicates that BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP ceased to exist on 7/1/2011.

Excerpt 1:

Second, Defendants argue that the loan modification agreement is subject to the statute of frauds and Plaintiff failed to plead that the loan modification agreement was subscribed by BAC. Under Oregon’s statute of frauds, an “agreement is void unless it… is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged[.]” Or. Rev. Stat. § 41.580(1). Partial performance may, however, take a contract out of the statute of frauds. Strong v. Hall, 253 Or. 61, 70 (1969);Royer v. Gailey, 252 Or. 369, 373 (1969). Plaintiff’s allegation that BAC accepted partial payments as described under the loan modification agreement for five months is sufficient pleading at this stage to survive Defendants’ argument that the agreement failed to satisfy the statute of frauds. Continue reading “Oregon Case Survives BAC Home Loan Servicing Motion to Dismiss”

MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard

The following is a New York Bankruptcy motion for relief from stay ruling from February 10th, 2011




In re:

Case No. 810-77338-reg


Chapter 7




Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) seeking relief from the automatic stay

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2), to foreclose on a secured interest in the Debtor’s real

property located in Westbury, New York (the “Property”). The movant is Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association,

as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”). The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion

contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only

interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from

the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original

lender. The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal

authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s

rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues

that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an

enforceable right against the Property.1 The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that

MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself which

allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of

record.” The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a

creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale

entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. The Movant argues

that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured

creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the

judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a

valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.
Continue reading “MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard”