Justices tackle home foreclosure issue involving MERS

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Justice Mark Massa, writing for the court Thursday, delved into the history of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and its role in today’s mortgage industry in a case involving a foreclosed home in Madison County.

The opinion, Citimortgage, Inc. v. Shannon S. Barabas a/k/a Shannon Sheets Barabas, ReCasa Financial Group, LLC, and Rick A. Sanders, 48S04-1204-CC-00213, provides background on how the mortgage industry has changed from involving just a borrower and lender to now include a lender, loan servicer, title company, and a whole host of other parties. Massa explains the creation in the 1990s of MERS, which maintains a computer database that tracks servicing and ownership rights of mortgage loans in the U.S. MERS member banks list MERS as “nominee” for lender and as “mortgagee” on their mortgage documents.

Shannon Barabas obtained a mortgage through Irwin Mortgage Corp. in 2005, to which the agreement said that the security instrument is given to MERS “(solely as nominee for Lender, as hereinafter defined, and Lender’s successors and assigns), as mortgagee.”

Two years later, she took a second mortgage out with ReCasa Financial Group. But she couldn’t keep up on payments with ReCasa, and it filed suit for foreclosure of the mortgage and for a sheriff’s sale. Irwin disclaimed any interest in the real estate in 2008. The sheriff’s sale occurred in January 2009.

In April 2009, MERS assigned the Irwin mortgage to Citimortgage. Citmortgage then filed a motion pursuant to Ind. Trial Rules 24(A) and 60(B) seeking to intervene in the foreclosure suit and asking that the judgment granted to ReCasa be subject to the mortgage now held by Citimortgage. The trial judge ultimately denied the motion.

The justices unanimously held that Citimortgage has the right to intervene. They found the mortgage contract Irwin had with MERS to be ambiguous and that the parties intended to designate MERS as the lender’s agent.

“This agency relationship conferred various rights upon MERS, including rights that constitute protected property interests sufficient to entitle MERS—and Citimortgage standing in the shoes of MERS—to meet the first requirement for intervention of right,” Massa wrote. MERS’ interest in the mortgage survived through its other principals, including Citimortgage.

The high court also found that disposition of the foreclosure case may impair Citimortgage’s interest and that no other party is adequately representing that interest. Citimortgage’s motion to intervene was timely, as well as its motion for relief, because ReCasa failed to provide Citimortgage or its agent MERS with notice of the foreclosure suit.

Massa pointed out that this case highlights issues with using laws established in 1877 to deal with a modern mortgage industry. The drafters of the original version of I.C. 32-29-8-1 couldn’t have imagined more than two or three actors involved, Massa wrote. The General Assembly may soon have to modernize the law to accommodate “this new and larger cast of characters,” he wrote.

The case is sent back to the trial court with instructions to grant the motion to intervene and amend the default judgment to provide that ReCasa took Barabas’ property subject to Citimortgage’s lien.  



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?