ILNews

Judges split on mortgage issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression between a lender and the mortgagee on record, the Indiana Court of Appeals was divided as to whether the mortgagee on record had an enforceable right under a mortgage.

Shannon Barabas’ mortgage on her property in Pendleton said that the security instrument “is given to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), (solely as nominee for Lender, as hereinafter defined, and Lender’s successors and assigns), as mortgagee.” It also defined the lender in the mortgage as Irwin Mortgage Corporation and gave its address, and said any notice to lender shall be given to lender’s address.

Barabas refinanced the property with ReCasa, defaulted, and ReCasa foreclosed in June 2008. It named Irwin as a defendant, which disclaimed any interest in the real estate. The property was sold back to ReCasa at a sheriff’s sale and then sold to Rick Sanders in March 2009.

In April 2009, MERS assigned the MERS mortgage to Citimortgage and in October, Citi filed a motion to intervene and for relief from the September 2008 amended default judgment in the foreclosure lawsuit. Citi claimed as the assignee of MERS, it could assert any and all rights of MERS and it was the holder of the first mortgage on the property. It sought to foreclose on the MERS mortgage. The trial court declined to set aside ReCasa’s amended default judgment.

Citi argued that because ReCasa didn’t name MERS as a party defendant, it rendered the foreclosure judgment ineffective as to MERS and its assignee, Citi. The trial court held that Citi failed to redeem the property within one year of the judicial sale and as a result, its claim is precluded by Indiana Code Section 32-29-8-3. The majority, citing the June 2008 date in which ReCasa filed its foreclosure complaint, affirmed the lower court in Citimortgage, Inc. v. Shannon S. Barabas, et al., No. 48A04-1004-CC-232.

Judge Elaine Brown dissented on this point, noting that the time period is one year after the sale. The judicial sale happened on Jan. 23, 2009, in this case, not on the date ReCasa first foreclosed on the property or the date the mortgage was assigned to Citi. She wrote that the statute didn’t preclude Citi’s claim because it filed a motion to interview and for relief in October 2009.

The judges also disagreed as to whether MERS is a party possessing rights under the mortgage. Citi also argued that I.C. Section 32-29-8-3 doesn’t apply because MERS – as the mortgagee on record – should have been given notice of ReCasa’s initial foreclosure lawsuit instead of Irwin. An analysis of this relationship between MERS and Irwin is a matter of first impression.

The majority chose to follow the ruling in Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158, 161 (Kan. 2009), which held that MERS was little more than a “straw man” for a lender.

“Like Landmark, Citi seeks to have the default judgment set aside based on the fact that it received its interest from MERS, which served as the mortgagee ‘solely as nominee’ for Irwin Mortgage,” wrote Judge Patricia Riley. “Thus, when Irwin Mortgage filed a petition and disclaimed its interest in the foreclosure, MERS, as mere nominee and holder of nothing more than bare legal title to the mortgage, did not have an enforceable right under the mortgage separate from the interest held by Irwin Mortgage.”

Judge Brown dissented, noting in the instant case, the mortgage was given to MERS as mortgagee, which was not the case in Landmark. Also, the fact that MERS assigned the mortgage to Citi and Irwin issued a disclaimer of interest indicate that MERS was more than a “straw man” and had a real interest in the property, she wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT