Main Contents

VICTORY IN OREGON FEDERAL COURT: JUDGE DENIES MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED BY ONE WEST BANK AND MERS; INJUNCTION AGAINST SALE GRANTED FOR DURATION OF BORROWERS’ LAWSUIT; ONE WEST’S COUNSEL ADMITS ON THE RECORD THAT MERS CANNOT TRANSFER PROMISSORY NOTES

September 30, 2010

September 30, 2010

FDN attorneys Jeff Barnes, Esq. and Elizabeth Lemoine, Esq. have achieved a significant victory in Federal Court in Oregon. On Tuesday, September 28, Mr. Barnes and Ms. Lemoine defended and argued Motions to Dismiss the borrowers’ lawsuit challenging a nonjudicial foreclosure. The Motions were filed by the Defendants OneWest Bank and MERS. The action was originally filed in state court where a temporary restraining order was entered stopping the sale. On the eve of the scheduled hearing on the borrowers’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Defendants OneWest Bank, MERS, and Regional Trustee Services removed the case to Federal Court in an obvious attempt to circumvent the state court injunction hearing. The Federal Court entered an Injunction and scheduled a hearing on the Motions filed by the Defendants.

During the course of the hearing, the Court repeatedly raised the “MERS as nominee” issues to counsel for the Defendants, with said counsel finally admitting, upon repeated inquiry by the Court, that MERS cannot transfer promissory notes. The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss and has, by Order, commanded the injunction against the sale to remain in place through the duration of the borrowers’ lawsuit.

The questions posed to the Defendants’ counsel by the Court on the record demonstrate, again (as with the concerns of the Michigan court highlighted in our other post today), that courts are really starting to examine the inconsistent claims made by MERS (e.g. that it is “solely a nominee” yet purports to have authority to further foreclosures by, among other things, transferring promissory notes and appointing successor trustees). As those of you who follow this website know, what the case law is consistently holding is that MERS cannot do what it has purported to do (and has done in what appears to be over sixty (60) million mortgage transactions nationally).

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com

Filed under: Uncategorized |

Leave a comment

Login