Yesterday, Judge Owen M. Panner dismissed Chen v. Bank of America, N.A., which centered around the accusation of a wrongfully initiated foreclosure and violation under the Oregon Trust Deed Act. Evidence found that the Plaintiff was indeed been given proper notice of the foreclosure sale, which barred his post-sale challenges to the foreclosure.
In addition, Judge Panner also denied the same plaintiff’s request to, “amend his complaint to align his allegations with the recent Brandrup v. Recontrust and Niday v. GMAC decisions from the Oregon Supreme Court, in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled MERS did not meet the statutory definition of trust deed “beneficiary” under Oregon law.” The warrant for the judge’s disapproval on this request was due to the fact that the Brandrup and Niday cases were “pre-sale” challenges, not a “post-foreclosure” complaint.
The dismissal of the case allowed MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. to take a breather, as they were being targeted for their role in the borrower’s deed of trust. MERS was able to confirm that they were not a party to the action.
MERSCORP Holdings’ Vice President for Corporate Communications Janis Smith commented, “as Judge Panner made clear here, and in his Mikityuk decision, when a borrower is properly notified of the foreclosure sale of their property and they fail to stop the sale, they cannot seek to void a completed sale with allegations against MERS and its role in the borrower’s trust deed.”
Judge Panner himself had pointed out that the two companies being persecuted above dealt with the different kinds of foreclosure sales than the plaintiff was addressing. Brandrup and Niday deal with pre-sale challenges to non-judicial foreclosure sales, and the plaintiff is dealing with post-sale challenges (barred under Oregon state law).
To find out more about MERS practices, click here.