Certainly not every case involving the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems is the same, but federal courts in Idaho have consistently issued opinions upholding MERS role as the trust beneficiary and as the rightful assignor of deeds of trust, MERSCORP said Thursday.
MERSCORP, the parent of MERS, has been under fire from various cases in multiple jurisdictions, where plaintiffs generally claim MERS has no legal basis to serve as the lender’s legal beneficiary or maintain a right to assign foreclosing authority to lenders.
Three cases from the U.S. District Court level in Idaho ruled mostly on the side of MERS when questions about its role in a nonjudicial foreclosure state were brought before judges.
In Van Kirk v. Bank of America, a judge upheld that MERS can be a valid beneficiary. Then, in Purdy v. Aegis Wholesale Corp., the Trotter v. Bank of New York Mellon decision was used to substantiate the validity of MERS assignment to a lender that eventually foreclosed.
A judge in Gilbert v. Bank of America upheld MERS’ role as beneficiary and said MERS possessed authority to assign the deed of trust.
“The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, no stranger to these cases, has ruled definitively that MERS’ role as beneficiary is in accordance with Idaho law,” said Janis Smith MERSCORP Holdings’ vice president for corporate communications said. “The judges have been consistently clear that these claims are baseless.”
