Happy Birthday Webster The Nevada Supreme Court issued a ruling concerning MERS on Thursday September 27, 2012. Edelstein v. Bank Of New York Mellon, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported it was a “win” for the banks in foreclosure?

What does it mean?  The banks that relied on MERS are allowed to foreclose.  What is MERS?  See below.

  SHORT ANSWER  – MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.), was confirmed as a proper player in the foreclosure process, and the assignments to and from MERS were upheld. The Court clarified however that the holder of the note and the holder of the deed must be the same. So, to say it is a win for the banks?  I guess you could look at it that way.  Mostly it clarified that at the time of foreclosure, the note holder (lender) and the deed holder (usually MERS) must be the same.  So MERS must assign the deed to the note holder (lender) for foreclosure to proceed.  In this case the note and deed were held by the foreclosing bank, so the Court allowed the foreclosure.

LONG ANSWER – It is obviously more complicated than that, Bank of New York Mellon’s trustee ReconTrust, BNY Mellon’s trustee, physically possessed the note a the time of the Nevada Supreme Court Mediation and used their servicer Bank of America as their representative in the Nevada Supreme Court Mediation Program.  But at the end of the day, the note and deed were held by the same bank and that bank was allowed to foreclose. So, a win for the banks? Not really, another way to look at it is that the banks must, yet again, clean up their paper work and hold both the note and deed at the time of foreclosure. This is not going to cause a landslide of foreclosures. It was not the impediment per se. It will make some mediations in the Nevada Supreme Court program perhaps go smoother.

What is this MERS you speak of centurion? MERS is often the holder of a deed of trust, and it is shown to that effect on the deed.  However, often the rights to the deed are transferred but not recorded at the county recorder. The Court explained MERS in a pretty succinct manner,

Typically, when a loan is originated, MERS is designated in the deed of trust as a nominee for the lender and the lender’s ‘successors and assigns,’ and as the deed’s ‘beneficiary’ which holds legal title to the security interest conveyed. If the lender sells or [transfers] the … [note] to another MERS member, the change is recorded only in the MERS database, not in county records, because MERS continues to [be the beneficiary of record] on the new lender’s behalf. So long as the sale of the note involves a MERS Member, … [t]he seller of the note does not and need not assign the [deed of trust] because under the terms of that security instrument, MERS remains the holder of title to the [deed of trust], that is, the mortgagee, as the nominee for the purchaser of the note, who is then the lender’s successor and/or assign. According to MERS, this system ‘saves lenders time and money, and reduces paperwork, by eliminating the need to prepare and record assignments when trading loans.

In Nevada to perform a non-judicial foreclosure on an owner-occupied residential property …(in other words not a judicial foreclosure NRS 40.430 nor a non-owner occupied foreclosure) the lender must meet certain requirements…

The Court confirmed that to enforce a foreclosure the deed and note must be held together by the same person/entity.  In this case MERS held the deed and note was held by a number of different lenders.  At the time of foreclosure MERS transferred the deed to the current note holder. The Court concluded, that the temporary separation (when one group held the deed and another held the note) was not irreparable or fatal to either the promissory note or the deed of trust. However, if they are not brought together, it prevents enforcement of the deed of trust through foreclosure. The two documents must ultimately be held by the same party.

The Court concluded that when MERS is the named beneficiary and a different entity holds the promissory note, the note and the deed of trust are split, making nonjudicial foreclosure by either improper. However, any split is cured when the promissory note and deed of trust are reunified. Because the foreclosing bank in this case became both the holder of the promissory note and the beneficiary of the deed of trust, proceeding to foreclosure was proper.

More importantly were the three cases before the Nevada Supreme Court this morning, addressing, statute of limitations on short sales, and junior liens and the right to sue borrowers as passed by the Nevada Legislature in 2011.

 Sandpointe Apartments., LLC vs. Dist. Ct. (CML-NV Sandpointe, LLC) Docket No. 59507

Nielsen vs. Dist. Ct. (Branch Banking and Trust Co.) Docket No. 59823

Lavi vs. Dist. Ct. (Branch Banking) Docket No. 58968.

These upcoming decisions will affect thousands of Nevadans that have been foreclosed upon or sold via a short sale.  I will let you know when I hear more.

Questions:  darren@dwelshlaw.com

About these ads