Do Lenders Need To Hold Both Promissory Note & Mortgage At Foreclosure?

SJC To Consider “Produce The Note” Foreclosure Defense In MERS Mortgage Case

RDV profile picture

by RICH VETSTEIN on SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 in
FANNIE MAE, FORECLOSUREMASSACHUSETTS REAL ESTATE LAWMORTGAGE CRISISMORTGAGES

Do Lenders Need To Hold Both Promissory Note & Mortgage At Foreclosure?

In a rare “sua sponte” (on their own) direct appellate review, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear an appeal considering the controversial “produce the note” defense in foreclosure cases and whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Based on arguments asserted by the lender, the court may also consider the circumstances by which a mortgage granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) can be effectively foreclosed in Massachusetts.

FORECLOSUREThis could be a very important decision — potentially as important as the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case issued in the spring. A ruling against the lenders could expose a gaping and fatal legal black hole with many foreclosure-bound mortgages that were hastily bundled and sold to Wall Street during the real estate boom years. A rejection of the borrower’s arguments as recently made by a bankruptcy judge in Worcester, however, could significantly reduce some MERS induced anxiety and heartburn presently being experienced by lenders and foreclosure attorneys.

The case is Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), SJC-11041. The court will hear arguments in October, with a decision coming several months later. The court is also seeking amicus, or friend of the court, briefs from interested parties.

Where’s The Note?

As with many sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Henrietta Eaton had defaulted on her mortgage to Green Tree Mortgage. This was a MERS mortgage originally granted to BankUnited then assigned to Green Tree. Green Tree foreclosed in 1999 and assigned its winning bid to Fannie Mae who attempted to evict Eaton in January 2010.

Eaton was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting the eviction on the grounds that Green Tree did not possess the promissory note underlying the mortgagewhere's THE NOTE? when the foreclosure occurred. This has been coined the “produce the note” defense and has been gaining steam across across the country. This is the first Massachusetts appellate case that I’m aware of to consider the defense and surrounding legal issues.

The Superior Court judge, Francis McIntyre, wrote a well-reasoned 10 page opinion, explaining that Massachusetts has long recognized that although the promissory note and the mortgage can travel different paths after the borrower signs them, both instruments must be “reunited” to foreclose. “The mortgage note has a parasitic quality, in that its vitality depends on the promissory note,” the judge ruled. As is becoming increasingly prevalent, neither Green Tree nor Fannie Mae could located the original signed promissory note; they were only able to produce a copy endorsed in blank without an amendment, or allonge, indicating when it was endorsed or who held it at the time of the foreclosure. Without the note properly endorsed and assigned to Green Tree, the foreclosure was a nullity, the judge held.

Potential Impacts Far and Wide

As I mentioned before, a ruling that foreclosing lenders must produce both the note and mortgage held by the same entity would drastically alter existing foreclosure practice in Massachusetts, and may open existing foreclosures to legal challenge. Although I don’t practice in foreclosures, I do know that rarely, if ever, are properly endorsed and assigned promissory notes in the hands of lenders when they foreclose. As with this case, they are typically endorsed in blank, that is, to no one, and in storage somewhere in New Jersey or Ohio held by a loan servicer. In fact, obtaining such promissory notes from lenders can be nearly impossible. They are often lost, missing pages, or destroyed.

This case, which is typical, illustrates the problem with the entire system. According to Fannie Mae’s brief, after the loan funded, the note was indorsed in blank and allegedly transferred to Fannie Mae. How does an entity as sophisticated as Fannie Mae purchase a loan without getting the promissory note properly indorsed and assigned to it? God only knows. So the best Fannie could do was produce a copy of the note indorsed to no one. That’s just great…

Post image for Mass. Bankruptcy Judge Voids Foreclosure Of MERS MortgageThe mortgage took a different path along the securitization trail. This was a MERS mortgage, so it was originally granted to MERS, the electronic registry who admittedly acts only as a “nominee” and holds no financial stake in the loan. A Mass. bankruptcy court judge recently voided the foreclosure of a MERS mortgage for some of these reasons. Now while the paper is held by Fannie Mae, the mortgage supposedly gets assigned to Green Tree, the loan servicer, which like MERS has no financial stake in the loan. Green Tree then conducts the foreclosure sale, although it has no real financial interest in the loan–that remains with Fannie Mae. Now it doesn’t take a Louis Brandeis to ask, why didn’t the mortgage get assigned to Fannie Mae, and why didn’t Fannie Mae conduct the foreclosure sale since it held all the financial cards in this transaction? I would love someone to explain this to me because I don’t get it, and I’m not the only one. At this point, the whole system is FUBAR.

Of course, a favorable ruling for lenders would preserve the status quo and business-as-usual atmosphere for foreclosures in Massachusetts, while upholding the effectiveness of the MERS mortgage. The SJC wasn’t afraid to drop a bombshell in U.S. Bank v. IbanezEaton v. Fannie Mae may be next. At the very least, the SJC joins a steady stream of jurists who have concerns about the way in which foreclosures are being conducted in a post-subprime world. When the decision comes down, I’ll be on it!
_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure defense and title defect cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure and title dispute.

 

 

 

 

7 thoughts on “Do Lenders Need To Hold Both Promissory Note & Mortgage At Foreclosure?

  1. Rich,
    Thanks for all your hard work on these matters. I wish it was possible to gain more traction in the medis. Average people just don’t have a clue was the banks have been getting away with.
    I have a case against IndyMac, One West and Fannie Mae. Mostly regarding modification fraud. I’ll keep you posted.
    Again many thanks for all you do!
    Dave

  2. Pingback: Do Lenders Need To Hold Both Promissory Note & Mortgage At Foreclosure? | Foreclosure News Online

  3. From Levya v National Default Servicing, et al
    NV Supreme Court No. 55216 July 7, 2011
    This case was taken sua sponte from the appeals court.
    “Conveyance’ shall be construed to embrace every instrument in writing, except a last will and
    testament, whatever may be its form, and by
    whatever name it may be known in law, by which
    any estate or interest in lands is created,
    aliened, assigned or surrendered.” NRS 111.010(1)…………
    A deed of trust is an instrument that
    “secures(s) the performance of an obligation or
    the payment of any debt. NRS 107.020….
    Transfers of deeds of trust and mortgage notes
    are distinctly separate, thus we discuss each
    one in turn…..
    This court has previously held that a deed of
    trust “constitutes a conveyance of land as
    defined by NRS 111.010.” Ray v. Hawkins, 76

    Nev. 164, 166, 350 P.2d 998, 999 (1960). The
    statute of frauds governs when a conveyance
    creates or assigns an interest in land:
    No estate or interest in lands . . . nor any
    trust or power over or concerning lands, or in
    any manner relating thereto, shall be created,
    granted, assigned, surrendered or declared . . .
    unless . . . by deed or conveyance, in writing,
    subscribed by the party creating, granting,
    assigning, surrendering or declaring the same,
    or by the party’s lawful agent thereunto
    authorized in writing……
    The obligor on the note has the right to know
    the identity of the entity that is “entitled to
    enforce” the mortgage note under Article 3, see
    NRS 104.3301, “[o]therwise, the [homeowner] may
    pay funds to a stranger in the case.” In re
    Veal, No. 09-14808, 2011 WL 2304200, at *16
    (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 10, 2011)…….

  4. Perhaps the paperwork and ownership snafu was really designed to cover up the mass fraud of OVERSELLING the SAME COLLATERAL to multiple parties for even MORE PROFIT and UNJUST ENRICHMENT with the same banking trading partners. It was all a scam? Where are the RICO indictments???

  5. This case cites to many useful recent cases and is interesting, as well:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s