In pdf Gardner v. Mortgage Elec. Registrations Sys., Inc. (306 KB) the plaintiff filed a quiet title action against MERS and alleged that because MERS was merely a nominee of the original lender of the mortgage and never held the note, MERS could not assign the mortgage.
The trial court determined the allegations in this action were without merit. In its Memorandum of Decision, the court, citing many other cases supporting their ruling, quoted from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision in pdfCulhane v. Aurora Loan Servs. of Nebraska (115 KB) , 708 F.3d 291, 293 (1st Cir. 2013), which held that MERS may “validly serve both as the holder of ‘bare legal title as mortgagee of record’ and as ‘nominee for the member note-holder.’” Further, the court found that the MERS assignment was “sufficient on its face and in accordance with [the state statute].”
In its opinion, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts ruled, “The Plaintiff’s underlying claim that the mortgage assignment by [MERS] to GreenPoint Mortgage, Inc., is invalid is without merit for substantially the reasons explained in the memorandum decision.”
“Massachusetts courts have consistently ruled that MERS may validly serve as both the mortgagee of record and the nominee for MERS® System member note holders,” said MERSCORP Holdings Vice President for Corporate Communications, Janis Smith.
For descriptions of cases and other materials pertaining to MERS’ business and role in U.S. housing, please visit www.mersinc.org.