Foreclosure Rulings

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SHELTON R BERTRAND ET AL

Plaintiffs

v

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC a Virginia corporation ET AL

Defendants

Terrance J Slominski SLOMINSKI amp ASSOCIATES Commerce Plaza 7150 SW Hampton Street Suite 201 Tigard OR 97223

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Robert D Newell Blake J Robinson DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2300 Portland OR 97201-5630

) ) Civil No 09-857-JO ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ) ) ) ) )

Case 309-cv-00857-JO Document 57 Filed 032311 Page 1 of 10 Page ID 409

Rochelle L Stanford PITE DUNCAN LLP 4375 Jutland Drive Suite 200 P O Box 17935 San Diego CA 92177-0935

Attorneys for Defendants

JONES Judge

Plaintiffs Shelton and Rebecca Bertrand bring this action against defendants SunTrust

Mortgage Inc First American Title Insurance Company and Federal National Mortgage

Association seeking to void a foreclosure sale of their home in September 2009 and to recover

damages for breach of contract

The case is before the court on defendants motions for summary judgment ( 27 33) I

initially took the motions under advisement in November 2010 after a veritable tsunami of

investigation into and litigation over mortgage foreclosure practices broke loose on a national

scale Because of significant controversy in the foreclosure field over the role of Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems Inc (MERS) and in view of a decision that Judge King had

recently issued in Rinegard-Guirma v Bank of America et a1 CV No 10-1065-PK I deferred

ruling on the summary judgment motions to permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing to

distinguish this case from Rinegard-Guirma That briefing is complete

After reviewing the parties submissions and the developing case law in this court and in

other jurisdictions for the reasons explained below I conclude that summary judgment is

appropriate and therefore grant defendants motions

2 - OPINION AND ORDER


FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the parties concise statements ofmaterial facts

which largely are undisputed any material disputed facts will be discussed in context

On January 22008 plaintiffs gave a Note to Northwest Mortgage Group Inc (NW

Mortgage) in which they promised to pay NW Mortgage the principal amount of$339500 plus

interest accruing at 6375 per annum Plaintiffs monthly payments were to be $211804 The

Note provided that [t]he Lender may transfer this Note The Lender or anyone who takes this

Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the Note

Holder Declaration of Blake Robinson in Support of Defendants SunTrust Mortgage Inc and

Federal National Mortgage Associations Motion for Summary Judgment (Robinson Decl)

Exhibit (Exh) 11

On January 2 2008 plaintiffs also executed a Deed of Trust The Deed of Trust lists

plaintiffs as borrower NW Mortgage as lender Ticor Title (Ticor) as trustee and Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems Inc (MERS) as beneficiary acting as NW Mortgages

nominee The Deed of Trust was recorded on January 8 2008 Robinson Decl Exh 2 p 1

The Deed of Trust secured the Note Robinson Decl Exh 2 p 2

As pertinent in the Deed of Trust plaintiffs conveyed to Ticor in trust with power of

sale property located at 1941 Buck Street West Linn OR 97068 The Deed of Trust also

provided (1) that the lender could accelerate the loan secured by the Deed of Trust if plaintiffs

breached any covenant or agreement in the Deed of Trust (2) that plaintiffs would timely make

all payments due under the Note that MERS has the right to exercise any or all of those

interests including but not limited to the right to foreclose and sell the Property and to take any

action required of Lender including but not limited to releasing and canceling this Security

Plaintiffs dispute the quoted language but the Note speaks for itself



Instrument Robinson Decl Exh 22 The Deed of Trust further provides that ifthe lender

invokes the power of sale Lender or Trustee shall give notice of sale in the manner prescribed

by Applicable Law Id

On January 3 2008 plaintiff Shelton Bertrand signed a Notice of Assignment Sale or

Transfer of Servicing rights which stated that effective March 1 2008 the right to receive

plaintiffs payments on the Note would be transferred from NW Mortgage to defendant SunTrust

Mortgage Inc (SunTrust) Declaration of Kimberly Blankenship in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment (Blankenship Decl) Exh 1

From July 2008 through the date of the foreclosure sale in September 2009 plaintiffs did

not make the monthly payments required by the Note Blankenship Decl ~ 3

In November 2008 several actions took place Jackie Ballos an officer of beneficiary

MERS3 executed an Assignment of Deed of Trust which transferred all beneficial interest in the

Deed of Trust and Note from MERS to SunTrust The Assignment was recorded in Clackamas

County on November 102008 Robinson Decl Exh 3 Ms Ballos as a vice president of

SunTrust4 also executed an Appointment of Successor Trustee appointing defendant First

American Title Insurance Company (First American) co ForeclosureLink as successor trustee

to Ticor The Appointment of Successor Trustee was recorded in Clackamas County on

November 10 2008 Robinson Decl Exh 4

Also on November 10 2008 ForeclosureLink as agent for First American recorded in

Clackamas County a Notice of Default and Election to Sell which ForeclosureLink prepared on

2 Plaintiffs dispute the quoted statement but again the language in the Deed of Trust speaks for itself

3 Plaintiffs question whether Ms Ballos was an officer of MERS but the evidence of record Ms Ballos Declaration is uncontested and establishes that she was an authorized agent of MERS Declaration of Jackie Ballos ~ 2

Plaintiffs also question whether Ms Ballos was authorized to act on behalf of SunTrust but again Ms Ballos Declaration on this point is uncontested and establishes that she was a vice president of SunTrust when she executed the Appointment of Successor Trustee Declaration of Jackie Ballos ~ 3



November 5 2008 Affidavit of Marsha Townsend in Support of First Americans Motion for

Summary Judgment (Townsend Aff) ~ 9 The Notice of Default stated that plaintiffs were in

default under the Deed of Trust for failure to pay when due the amount owing on July 12008

and that First American was foreclosing the Deed of Trust The Notice also stated that under the

original Deed of Trust dated January 2 2008 plaintiffs were the grantor Ticor was the trustee

and MERS was the beneficiary as nominee for the lender See Robinson Decl Exh 5

Townsend Aff Exh D Two mailing addresses are listed in the Notice of Default one for First

American Title Insurance Company Co ForeclosureLink Inc 4401 Hazel Ave Ste 225 Fair

Oaks CA 95628 Robinson Decl Exh 5 p 1 and the second for SunTrust at the same

address as First American The Notice directs inquiries to the latter entity at the same Hazel Ave

address Robinson Decl Exh 5 p 2

ForeclosureLink next prepared a Trustees Notice of Sale and a Notice pursuant to ORS

Chapter 86 and on November 24 2008 mailed the notices to plaintiffs and other parties entitled

to receive notice Townsend Aff ~ 5 and Exh E On March 62009 an Affidavit of Mailing

Notice of Sale with a Trustees Notice of Sale and NoticeS attached was recorded in Clackamas

County Robinson Decl Exh 6 pp 1-3 Townsend Aff Exh E The Trustees Notice of Sale

lists the same Hazel Ave address that was included in the Notice of Default and lists plaintiffs

as grantor Ticor as trustee and MERS as nominee for the lender as beneficiary Robinson

Decl Exh 6 p 2

On July 242009 plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in this court seeking among

other things to enjoin the sale They did not pursue any temporary relief to stop the sale and on

September 212009 First American sold the property to SunTrust for $37233688 The

trustees deed dated September 252009 was recorded in Clackamas County on September 29

2009 Robinson Decl Exh 7 On the same date a statutory warranty deed which conveyed the

5 The Notice warns of the impending foreclosure sale and states at the top of the page in large print YOU[] ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR PROPERTY IF YOU DO NOT TAKE ACTION IMMEDIATELY Townsend Aff Exh E pp 7-8



property from SunTrust to Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was recorded

in Clackamas County

On December 10 2009 plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint seeking to set

aside the sale and to recover damages

STANDARDS

Summary judgment should be granted ifthere are no genuine issues of material fact and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law Fed R Civ P 56(c) If the moving

party shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact the non-moving party must go

beyond the pleadings and designate facts showing an issue for trial Celotex Corp v Catrett 477

US 317 322-23 (1986) A scintilla of evidence or evidence that is merely colorable or not

significantly probative does not present a genuine issue of material fact United Steelworkers of

America v Phelps Dodge 865 F2d 1539 1542 (9th Cir 1989)

The substantive law governing a claim determines whether a fact is material Anderson

v Liberty Lobby Inc 477 US 242 248 (1986) see also TW Elec Service v Pacific Elec

Contractors 809 F2d 626 630 (9th Cir 1987) Reasonable doubts as to the existence of a

material factual issue are resolved against the moving party TW Elec Service 809 F2d at

631 Inferences drawn from facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party

rd at 630-31

DISCUSSION

Defendants move for summary judgment on plaintiffs claims contending that the

foreclosure sale on September 21 2009 was valid in both documentation and process

Plaintiffs oppose summary judgment challenging the foreclosure sale on two basic

premises Plaintiffs primary contention is that MERS could neither act as beneficiary under the

Deed of Trust nor assign its beneficial interest to SunTrust Plaintiffs also claim that defendants

failed to follow the statutory procedures required for a nonjudicial foreclosure As explained

below neither of plaintiffs claims has merit



1 MERS Properly Served as Beneficiary Under Oregon Law

Plaintiffs central premise that MERS lacked authority to act as beneficiary or assign its

beneficial interest to SunTrust is not supported by the facts or the law The Deed of Trust at

issue specifically states

MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Agreement

Robinson Decl Exh 2 p 1 In signing the Deed of Trust plaintiffs acknowledged that

Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument but if necessary to comply with law or custom MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns) has the right to exercise any or all of those interest including but not limited to the right to foreclose and sell the Property and to take an action required of Lender including but not limited to releasing and canceling this Security Instrument

Robinson Decl Exh 2 p 2

Courts in several jurisdictions have held that regardless of whether MERS is an economic

beneficiary (one of the issues plaintiffs raise in this case) the above-quoted language grants

MERS the power to initiate foreclosure and to assign its beneficial interest under the Deed of

Trust See eg Germon v BAC Home Loans Servicing LP 2011 WL 719591 at 2 (SDCal

Feb 22 2011) (Upon review of the language of the Deed of Trust it is clear that MERS had the

legal right to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure and could assign such right) Santarose v Aurora

Bank FSB 2010 WL 2232819 at 5 (SD Tex June 2 2010) (By the plain language of the

Deed of Trust MERS had the right to foreclose the property) see also Jones v Wells Fargo

Bank 2011 WL 683887 at 1 (DAriz Feb 182011) (same) Vawter v Quality Loan Service

Corporation of Washington 2010 WL 1629355 at 9 (WDWash April 22 2010) (same)

Recently Judge Hogan of this court recognized that MERS role as beneficiary under a

deed of trust with the authority to assign those beneficial rights does not necessarily mean that

the arrangement violates the Oregon Trust Deed Act such that foreclosure proceedings could not



be initiated by MERS or its substitute trustee Burgett v Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems Inc 2010 WL 4282105 at 2 (DOr Oct 20 2010) Judge Hogan explained

Under ORS 86705(1) a beneficiary means the person named or otherwise designated in a trust deed as the person for whose benefit a trust deed is given or the persons successor in interest and who shall not be the trustee unless the beneficiary is qualified to be a trustee under ORS 86790(1)(d) Plaintiff contends that MERS cannot meet this definition because there is no evidence that the trust deed was made to benefit MERS However the trust deed specifically designates MERS as the beneficiary

Burgett id at 2 In Burgett as in other cases now pending in this court the problem with the

nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding was not MERS involvement in the foreclosure per se rather

it was the failure of the foreclosing parties to record all necessary assignments as required for a

nonjudicial foreclosure under Oregon law See eg Burgett id at 3 (The problem that

defendants run into in this case is an apparent failure to record assignments necessary for the

foreclosure) see also Ekerson v Mortgage Electronic Registration System et aI CV No

110178-HU (Temporary Restraining Order Feb 11 2011)(Brown J) Barnett v BAC Home

Loan Servicing LP et aI CV 11-213-ST(Temporary Restraining Order Feb 23 2011)(Brown

J)

As demonstrated by the evidence of record in this case all assignments were recorded in

due course and plaintiffs do not contend otherwise Consequently to the extent plaintiffs

challenge the foreclosure sale on the basis ofMERS involvement plaintiffs claims are without

merit



2 Defendants Compliance with Statutory Procedures

Plaintiffs next assert that the Notice of Default and Notice of Sale failed to comply with

the requirements of the Trust Deed Act and were inadequate to permit the nonjudicial

foreclosure Specifically plaintiffs challenge the foreclosure documents on this basis

Defendant by its own admission stated that Notice of Default and Election to Sell and Trustees Notice of Sale specified ForeclosureLink Inc Although Defendant contends that ForeclosureLink is an agent the notice goes on to state that inquiries are to be directed [t]o SunTrust co ForeclosureLink 4401 Hazel Ave Ste 225 Fair Oaks CA 95628 Simply put the trustees address which is required to be there and be set forth was not given by Defendant First American Title thus the Notice of Default and Notice of Sale fail to comply with [] ORS 86735 and 86745 and are inadequate

Plaintiffs Response to First Americans Motion p 6 Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of

Response to SunTrusts Motion p 6

ORS 86745 which contains the requirements on which plaintiffs rely provides that the

notice of sale shall set forth (1) The names ofthe grantor trustee and beneficiary in the trust

deed and the mailing address of the trustee ORS 86735 on which plaintiffs also rely

provides in relevant part

The trustee may foreclose a trust deed by advertisement and sale if

(3) The trustee or beneficiary has filed for record in the county clerks office in each county where the trust property or some part of it is situated a notice of default containing the information required to ORS 86745 and containing the trustees or beneficiarys election to sell the property to satisfy the obligation

ORS 86735(3)

Plaintiffs do not dispute that they were in default on their payments Nor do they

challenge the trustees or the beneficiary s actions in other respects under the Trust Deed Act

Instead they focus entirely on the alleged deficiency in the mailing address of the trustee in both

the notice of default and the notice of sale

The Notice of Default and Election to Sell states that both the beneficiary (SunTrust) and

the trustee (First American) have elected to foreclose the Trust Deed Robinson Decl Exh 5

p2 The address of both entities co ForeclosureLink Inc 4401 Hazel Ave Ste 225 Fair



Oaks CA 95628 is set forth in the Notice of Default Similarly the Trustees Notice of Sale

states that both the beneficiary (SunTrust) and the trustee (First American) have elected to sell

the real property Robinson Decl Exh 6 p 2 Again the address of both entities co

ForeclosureLink Inc 4401 Hazel Ave Ste 225 Fair Oaks CA 95628 is set forth in the Notice

of Sale F oreclosureLink Inc s address again the Hazel Ave location also is set forth in the

Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Sale All documents were duly recorded

Plaintiffs evidently object to SunTrusts and First Americans use of an agent and the

agents address but nothing in the Trust Deed Act prohibits use of an agent And while plaintiffs

may be correct that the Trust Deed Act represents a well-coordinated statutory scheme to

protect grantors from the unauthorized foreclosure and wrongful sale of property6 nothing in

the documentation of this loan and the subsequent foreclosure violates the letter or spirit of that

statutory scheme

I conclude that the documents in question adequately set forth the names ofthe grantor

trustee and beneficiary as well as the mailing address of the trustee as required by the Trust

Deed Act and that the documents therefore complied with the Act Consequently plaintiffs

claim that the foreclosure sale should be invalidated due to inadequate documentation is without

merit

CONCLUSION

Defendants motions for summary judgment ( 2733) are GRANTED Any other

pending motions are denied as moot and this action is dismissed with prejudice

DATED this 23rd day of March 2011

RO~ 6 Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Response p 5 and Plaintiffs Response to

First Americans Motion p 5 (both quoting Staffordshire v Cal-Western Reconveyance 149 P3d 150 157209 Or App 528 (Or 2006))



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IVAN HOOKER

HOOKER and KATHERINE

Plaintiffs Civ No 10-3111-PA

v ORDER

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC BANK OF AMERICA NA MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC

Defendants

PANNER J

Before the court is a mot to dismiss (8) and request for

judicial notice (6) by Bank of America NA and Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems Inc (MERS) Defendants

request for judi al notice is GRANTED Defendants motion to

dismiss is DENIED Plaint if request for a de ratory judgment

is GRANTED

Plainti dismissed their claims against Northwest Trustee Services Inc (Northwest)

ORDER 1

Case 110-cv-03111-PA Document 32 Filed 052511 Page 1 of 16 Page ID 393

BACKGROUND

where noted the following background is

or judicially noticeable materials

On November 17 2005 plaintiffs obtained a loan from GN

Mortgage LLC A trust deed secured the loan The note and trust

list GN as the lender The trust deed lists MERS as the

MERS is not listed on the note The trust deed lists

Trustee Services Corp as trustee On November 23 2005

trust was recorded in the Jackson County land records

In r 2009 plaintiffs defaulted On May 3 2010

MERS ass trust deed to Bank of America Also on May 3

MERS appointed Northwest successor trustee That same day

Northwest executed a notice of default and election to sell On

May 7 2010 defendants recorded the May 3 assignment of the

trust deed appointment of successor trustee and notice of

It and election to sell

On September 7 2010 plaintiffs filed the complaint in

state court On September 13 2010 Wells Fargo Bank NA as

attorney in for Bank of America appointed Northwest

successor trustee On September 16 2010 Northwest executed a

res ssion of the notice of default recorded on May 7 2010 Also

on r 16 2010 Northwest executed a second notice of

e ion to sell On September 20 2010 defendants

the September 16 2010 appointment rescission and

2 - ORDER


second notice of default

On October 7 2010 defendants removed the case to this

court On January 19 2011 pursuant to my order defendants

submitted a complete chain of title for the note and trust deed

Defendants chain of title included a copy of a January 3 2011

MIN Summary and Milestones (Jan 31 2011 McCarthy Decl Ex

1 1-2) The MIN Summary is how MERS members track transfers of

servicing and ownership rights of loans within the MERS system

According to the MIN Summary on December 9 2005 Guaranty Bank

FSB transferred the beneficial interest in the trust deed to

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (Jan 31 2011 McCarthy Decl Ex 1

1-2) Although Guaranty Bank appears to have been the original

servicer of the loan the record is silent as to how or when

Guaranty Bank obtained the beneficial interest in the trust deed

On December 14 2005 Guaranty Bank transferred the

servicing rights to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (Jan 31 2011

McCarthy Decl Ex 1 2) On July 15 2006 Wells Fargo Home

Mortgage transferred the benefic interest in the trust deed to

Bank of America (Jan 31 2011 McCarthy Decl Ex 1 2)

Defendants did not record the transfer of the beneficial interest

in the trust deed from Guaranty Bank to Wells Fargo or from Wells

Fargo to Bank of America in the Jackson County land records As

noted above defendants did record a May 3 2010 assignment of

the trust ed from MERS to Bank of America

3 - ORDER


STANDARDS

On a motion to smiss the court reviews the s ficiency of

the comp into Scheuer V Rhodes 416 US 232 236 (1974) This

review is generally limited to the allegations in the complaint

exhibits attached to the complaint and judicially noticeable

materials Swartz V KPMG LLP 476 F3d 756 763 (9th Cir 2007)

To survive a motion to smiss under Rule 12(b) (6) a complaint

must contain sufficient cts that state a cia to rei f that

is plausib on s face Ashcroft v Iqbal 129 SCt 1937

1949 (2009) This plausibil y standard requires the pleader to

present facts that demonstrate more than a sheer possibility

that defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct Id

In considering a motion to dismiss a court must distinguish

between the factual allegations and legal conclusions asserted in

the complaint 1 allegations of material fact are taken as

true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party American Family Assn Inc V City amp County of San

Francisco 277 F3d 1114 1120 (9th Cir 2002) At the pleadings

stage a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his

entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and

conclusions Bell Atl Corp v Twombly 550 US 544 555

(2007) Therefore if the well-pleaded factual allegations

plausibly give rise to the relief sought a court shall deny the

motion to dismiss Iqbal 129 SCt at 1950

4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice

ral Rule of Evidence 201 states a court may take

judicial notice of a ct outside the ngs if the is

capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned Lee v City of

250 F3d 668 689 (9th Cir 2001) impliedly

overruled on other grounds as discussed in Gallardo v Dicarlo

203 FSupp2d 1160 1162 n2 (CD Cal 2002) Defendants st

the court take judicial notice of the following documents

reco September 20 2010 (1) rescission of the May 3 2010

notice of default and e ction to sell (2) September 13 2010

appointment of successor trustee and (3) ember 16 2010

notice of default and election to sell document is recorded

in the Jackson County land records De s request r

judici notice (6) is GRANTED

II Motion to Dismiss

Under the Oregon Trust Deed Act ~Beneficiary means

person or otherwise ignated in a trust deed as the

person whose benefit a trust deed is given or the persons

successor in interest ORS 86705(1) The trust at

issue states

The ficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (so ly as nominee r Lender and rs successors and assigns) and successors and assigns of MERS

5 - ORDER


This security Instrument secures to Lender (i) the repayment of the Loan and all renewals extensions and modifications of the Note and (ii) the performance of Borrowers covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note

Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument but if necessary to comply with law or custom MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns) has the right to exercise any or all of those interests including but not limited to the ght to foreclose and s 1 the Property and to take any action reguired of Lender including but not limited to releasing and cancelling this Security Instrument

(Notice of Removal Ex 1 8 (emphasis added))

Although the trust deed lists MERS as the nominal

bene ciary solely as a nominee for Lender (Notice of

Removal Ex 1 7) the deed makes clear that MERS is not the

person for whose benefit a trust deed is given ORS 86705(1)

Instead the trust deed con rms that GN holds the beneficial

interest The trust deed lists GN not MERS as Lender (Notice

of Removal Ex 1 6) All payments on the loan are owed to GN

not MERS (Notice of Removal Ex 1 8) GN not MERS may

invoke the power of sale and any other remedies permitted by

Applicable Law (Notice of Removal Ex 1 18 ~ 22)

While the trust deed lists MERS as the nominal beneficiary

the trust deed does not authorize MERS to take any actions on its

own behalf First MERS holds only legal t Ie to the trust deed

(Notice of Removal Ex 1 8) Second MERS acts solely as

ORDER 6


nominee for GN (Notice of Removal Ex I 7-8) Finally MERS

may act as GNs nominee only if necessary to comply with law or

custom[] (Notice of Removal Ex I 8) The trust deed

emphasizes that MERS is not the beneficiary but rather the

nominee or agent of the lender Because the trust deed clearly

demonstrates GN and not MERS is the person for whose benefit

the trust deed was given GN (or its successor in interest) is

the beneficiary of the trust deed ORS 86705(1) see In re

McCoy 2011 WL 477820 at 3 (Bankr D Or Feb 7)2

That MERS was the agent or nominee of the benefi ry does

not mean the non-judicial foreclosure proceedings necessarily

violated Oregon law In re McCoy 2011 WL 477820 at 4 As

in other recent cases in this district The problem that

defendants run into in this case is an apparent failure to record

assignments necessary r the foreclosure Burgett v MERS 2010

WL 4282105 at 3 (D Or Oct 20) see also In re McCoy 2011 WL

477820 at 4 In Oregon a trustee may conduct a non-judicial

foreclosure sale only if

The trust deed any assignments of the trust deed by the trustee or the beneficiary and any appointment of a successor trustee are recorded in the mortgage records

2The note reinforces my conclusion that aintiffs granted the trust deed for the benefit of GN not MERS The note states the trust deed protects the Note Holder from possible losses that might result if I do not keep the promises that I make in this Note (Notice of Removal Ex 1 28 1 11) GN not MERS is the Note Holder (Notice of Removal Ex 1 26 1 1) MERS is not mentioned in the note

7 - ORDER


t counties in which the property described in the deed is situated

ORS 86735 (1) (emphasis added)

Should the beneficiary choose to itiate non-judicial

foreclosure proceedings the Acts recording requirements mandate

the recording of any assignments of the beneficial interest

the trust deed Burgett 2010 WL 4282105 at 2 In re McCoy

2011 WL 477820 at 3 Defendants appear to argue that rather

than requiring the recording of every assignment of the trust

deed the Act allows defendants to instead track every assignment

of the trust deed within the MERS system recording only the

final assignment of the trust deed in the county land records

Because the Oregon Trust Deed Act requires the recording of all

assignments by the beneficiary defendants argument fails ORS

86735(1) see In re McCoy 2011 WL 477820 at 3 4

Oregons recording requirement is consistent with the

longstanding rule that the trust deed or mortgage generally

follows the note Carpenter v Longan 83 US 271 274 (1872)

US Natl Bank of Portland v Holton 99 Or 419 427 9 195 P

823 826 (1921) (collecting cases) As not by defendants the

assignment of the note automatically assigns the underlying

interest in the trust deed because MERS is nominee for whichever

entity is the owner (if the owner is a MERS member) (Defs

Reply 10) Defendants also state the content of the deed of

trust itself established the parties intent that the trust

8 - ORDER


deed and MERS agency relationship follow the note (Id at

11) In fact the trust deed expressly states The Note or a

partial interest in the Note (together with this Security

Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to

Borrower (Notice of Removal Ex 1 16 J[ 20 (emphasis added))

If there were transfers of the benefi al interest in the trust

deed defendants were required to record those transfers prior to

initiating a non-judicial foreclosure in the manner provided in

ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)

Considering what is commonly known about the MERS system and

the secondary market in mortgage loans plaintiffs allege

sufficient facts to make clear that defendants violated the

Oregon Trust Deed Act by iling to record all assignments of the

trust deed 3 Therefore defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED

The record demonstrates that in addition to requiring the

denial of defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs are entitled

to declaratory relief Pursuant to my order defendants submitted

the MIN Summary and Milestones for the loan at issue The MIN

Summary demonstrates that on December 9 2005 Guaranty Bank FSB

transferred the beneficial interest in the trust deed to Wells

3For background information on MERS see generally Gerald Korngold Legal and Policy Choices in the Aftermath of the Subprime and Mortgage FiNancinc Crisis 60 SC L Rev 727 741shy42 (Spring 2009) and Christopher L Peterson Foreclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System 78 U Cin L Rev 1359 1368-1374 (Summer 2010)

9 - ORDER


Fargo Home Mortgage (Jan 31 2011 McCarthy Decl Ex 1 2) As

noted above the record is silent as to how or when Guaranty Bank

acquired any interest in the loan On July 15 2006 Wells Fargo

transferred the benefi 1 interest in the trust deed to Bank of

America (Jan 31 2011 McCarthy Decl Ex 1 2) Defendants did

not record Guaranty Banks transfer of the beneficial interest in

trust deed to Wells Fargo Defendants chain of tit

submission therefore demonstrates that defendants vio ed ORS

86735(1) by initiating non-judicial foreclosure proceedings

prior to recording all assignments of the trust deed in the

Jackson County land records

While I recognize that plaintiffs have failed to ma any

payments on the note since September 2009 that failure does not

permit defendants to violate Oregon law regulating non-judicial

foreclosure The Oregon Trust Deed Act represents a well shy

coordinated statutory scheme to protect grantors from the

unauthorized foreclosure and wrongful sale of property whi at

the same time providing creditors with a quick and efficient

remedy against a defaulting grantor Staffordshire Investments

Inc v Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp 209 OrApp 528 542 149

P3d 150 157 (2006) In part due to the legislatures desire to

protect the grantor against the unauthoriz loss of its

property a party conducting a non-judicial foreclosure must

demonstrate strict compliance with the Act As demonstrated

10 - ORDER


above the MIN Summary demonstrates fendants led to comply

with the Oregon Trust Deed Act

Although not affecting my conclusion here the MIN Summary

ses an additional concern relevant to numerous cases pending

fore me As noted above GN is listed as Lender on both the

trust deed and the note The MIN Summary however makes no

mention of GN In fact MIN Summary is silent as to how or

when Guaranty Bank became an Investor ho ng the ficial

interest in the trust deed (Jan 31 2011 McCarthy Decl Ex 1

2) The MIN Summary indicates only that on December 1 2005

Guaranty Bank registered the in the MERS system What

occurred before registration and how or when Guaranty Bank

obtained any erest the loan (from GN or another) is not

revealed

The apparent gap in chain of title is not the only issue

that causes me concern On May 7 2010 defendants recorded ( 1 )

an assignment of trust deed from MERS to Bank of America (2 )

MERSs appointment of Northwest as successor trustee and (3) a

ce of fault and e ion to sell Regarding the May 7

recordings defendants state After rece ng plaintiffs

complaint Northwest Trustee Services Inc recognized that

certain documents were recorded out-of-order (Oct 14 2010

Mem Supp Mot Di ss 4) Upon recognizing the problems shy

after initiating non-judi al foreclosure proceedings and only

11 - ORDER


after receiving plaintiffs complaint alleging improper

recordings - defendants rescinded the May 7 2010 notice of

default and election to sell The out-of-order recordings

demonstrate problems not atypical in my view often caused by

foreclosing parties rushing to expedite non judicial

foreclosures

On May 3 2010 a Vice President MERS assigned the

trust deed to Bank of America (Notice of Removal Ex 1 32)

That same day another Vice President of MERS appointed

Northwest successor trustee (Notice of Removal Ex 1 34) Also

on May 3 2010 an Assistant Vice President of Northwest signed

the notice of de It and election to sell (Notice of Removal

Ex 1 36-37) The same notary publ apparently witnessed all

three executives sign the documents on the same day Cons ring

de ndants relied on the May 3 2010 documents to justi non-

judicial foreclosure proceedings defendants document review

appears rushed Considering the time spent reviewing the

documents assigning the trust deed appointing a successor

trustee and issuing a notice of default and election to sell I

am not surprised to learn that [a]fter receiving plainti


certain documents were recorded out-of-order

Notwithstanding the above concerns I note the May 3 2010

assignment states that MERS assigns all beneficial interest

12 ORDER


the trust deed to Bank of America (Notice of Removal Ex 1

32) As explained above MERS never had any bene 1 interest

in the trust ed MERS held only legal title as an agent or

nominee of GN (or GNs successors) If MERS acted only as an

agent or nominee why is the principal not identif in t May

3 2010 assignment confusion is ightened as the MIN

Summary demonstrates at least two unrecorded transfers of the

benefi al interest in trust deed occurred be re May 3

2010 As Justice Page of the Supreme Court of Minnesota

summariz

MERS claims to hold legal title but only legal tit to the mortgage ing foreclosed MERS also claims that in losing mortgages it acts only as nominee its members But MERS can act as nominee for only the particular MERS member who holds the promissory note at any parti ar time and when that promissory note is assigned between members the member for which MERS acts as nominee and on whose behalf MERS holds 1 1 title necessarily changes In other wo the entity on whose behalf MERS holds 1 1 title to the mortgage changes every time the promissory note is assigned

Jackson v Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc 770

NW2d 487 503-04 (Minn 2009) (Page J dissenting) Although

Justice Page wrote in dissent in a case involving a Minnesota

statute his concerns apply to numerous cases pending fore me

Fo sure by advertisement and sale which is designed to

take place outs of any judi al review necessa ly relies on

the foreclosing party to accurately review and assess its own

authority to forec se Considering that non-judicial

13 ORDER


foreclosure of ones home is a particularly harsh event and

given the numerous problems I see in nearly every non-judicial

foreclosure case I preside over a procedure relying on a bank or

trustee to self-assess its own authority to foreclose is deeply

troubling to me

I recognize that MERS and its registered bank users

created much of the confusion involved in the foreclosure

process By listing a nominal beneficiary that is clearly

described in the trust deed as anything but tactual

beneficiary the MERS system creates confusion as to who has t

authority to do what with the trust deed The MERS system raises

serious concerns regarding the appropriateness and validity of

foreclosure by advertisement and sale outside of any judi al

proceeding

Additionally the MERS system allowed the rise of the

secondary market and securitization of home loans A lender

ending to immediat y sell a loan on the secondary mar is

not concerned with the sk involved in the loan but with the

fees generated If a lender aims to quic y pass a loan off onto

an investor a stated-income loan appears not as an unacceptable

risk but as an income stream MERS makes it much more difficult

for all rties to scover who owns H the loan When a borrower

on the verge of default cannot find out who has the authority to

modify the loan a modification or a rt sale even if

14 - ORDER


beneficial to both the borrower and the beneficiary cannot

occur

When no borrowers default the problems inherent in the MERS

system may go unnoticed Unfortunately for banks borrowers

investors and courts throughout the country many borrowers are

now defaulting Countless grantors of trust deeds now the

harsh prospect of losing a home outside of any judicial

proceeding At the same time the MERS s tern greatly increased

the number of investors stuck holding worthless notes A lender

that knows it will immediately sell a loan on the secondary

market has no incentive to ensure the appraisal of the security

is accurate Similarly the lender need not concern itself with

the veracity of any representations made to the borrower In

short the MERS system allows the lender to shirk its traditional

due diligence duties The requirement under Oregon law that all

assignments be recorded prior to a non-judicial foreclosure is

sound public policy

[I]t is apparent with the benefit of hindsight that the abil y of 1 rs to freely and anonymously transfer notes among themselves fa 1 ated if not created the financial banking crisis in which our country currently finds itself It is not only borrowers but also other lenders who rightfully are interested in who has held a particular promissory note For example a lender who holds a promissory note that has become worthless may have an interest in knowing the hands through which that note passed

Jackson 770 NW2d at 504 (Page J dissenting) Justice Page

wrote in dissent but s views are persuasive

15 - ORDER


Although t concerns raised in this 0 r appear in many

foreclosure cases before me I reso the current

controversy on narrow grounds Following de s removal of

the complaint pla i still seek declarato relief that

defendants non-j al foreclosure is wrongful I agree with

Judge Alley that Oregon law permits foreclosure without the

benefit of a judicial proceeding only when interest of the

beneficiary is clearly documented in a public record In re

McCoy 2011 WL 477820 at 4 Because de nts failed to record

all assignments of trust deed the non-judicial foreclosure

proceedings 1 Oregon Trust Act Therefore

plaintiffs are ent led to declaratory relief on that claim

CONCLUSION

Defendants t for judicial notice (6) is GRANTED

Defendants motion to dismiss (8) is DENIED Plaintiffs are

entitled to a ratory judgment stati fendants violated

ORS 86735(1) This non-judicial foreclosure proceeding is

dismissed Judgement and costs r plaintiffs

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED t s ~day of May 2011

OWEN M PANNER US DISTRICT JUDGE

16 - ORDER


Rochelle L Stanford PITE DUNCAN LLP 4375 Jutland Drive Suite 200 P O Box 17935 San Diego CA 92177-0935

Attorneys for Defendants

JONES Judge

Plaintiffs Shelton and Rebecca Bertrand bring this action against defendants SunTrust

Mortgage Inc First American Title Insurance Company and Federal National Mortgage

Association seeking to void a foreclosure sale of their home in September 2009 and to recover

damages for breach of contract

The case is before the court on defendants motions for summary judgment ( 27 33) I

initially took the motions under advisement in November 2010 after a veritable tsunami of

investigation into and litigation over mortgage foreclosure practices broke loose on a national

scale Because of significant controversy in the foreclosure field over the role of Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems Inc (MERS) and in view of a decision that Judge King had

recently issued in Rinegard-Guirma v Bank of America et a1 CV No 10-1065-PK I deferred

ruling on the summary judgment motions to permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing to

distinguish this case from Rinegard-Guirma That briefing is complete

After reviewing the parties submissions and the developing case law in this court and in

other jurisdictions for the reasons explained below I conclude that summary judgment is

appropriate and therefore grant defendants motions



FACTUAL BACKGROUND










Exhibit (Exh) 11



























































Decl Exh 6 p 2










in Clackamas County



STANDARDS













rd at 630-31

DISCUSSION












































J)




merit
















ORS 86735(3)





















statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER


FACTUAL BACKGROUND










Exhibit (Exh) 11



























































Decl Exh 6 p 2










in Clackamas County



STANDARDS













rd at 630-31

DISCUSSION












































J)




merit
















ORS 86735(3)





















statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER













































Decl Exh 6 p 2










in Clackamas County



STANDARDS













rd at 630-31

DISCUSSION












































J)




merit
















ORS 86735(3)





















statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER




















Decl Exh 6 p 2










in Clackamas County



STANDARDS













rd at 630-31

DISCUSSION












































J)




merit
















ORS 86735(3)





















statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER



in Clackamas County



STANDARDS













rd at 630-31

DISCUSSION












































J)




merit
















ORS 86735(3)





















statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER




































J)




merit
















ORS 86735(3)





















statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER













J)




merit
















ORS 86735(3)





















statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER















ORS 86735(3)





















statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER













statutory scheme





merit

CONCLUSION









IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER



IVAN HOOKER



v ORDER


Defendants

PANNER J






is GRANTED


ORDER 1


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER


BACKGROUND
























2 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER


























3 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER


STANDARDS
























4 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER


DISCUSSION

I Judicial Notice




















issue states


5 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER



















ORDER 6






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER






















7 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER


























8 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER










ORS 86740 to 86755 ORS 86735(1)













9 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER


























10 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER















revealed











11 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER







foreclosures



















12 ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER











summariz










13 ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER






troubling to me









proceeding











14 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER



occur















sound public policy




15 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER














CONCLUSION






IT IS SO ORDERED



16 - ORDER


Documents

Foreclosure Rulings