Oregon Supreme Court Hearing Certified Questions Regarding Oregon’s Statutory Definition of Beneficiary and MERS

28 Jul

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 5:59 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Oregon Supreme Court Hearing Certified Questions Regarding Oregon’s Statutory Definition of Beneficiary and MERS

JUNE 10, 2012

Oregon Supreme Court Hearing Certified Questions Regarding Oregon’s Statutory Definition of Beneficiary and MERS

On April 2, 2012, this Court certified the following four questions to the Oregon Supreme Court pursuant to Or.Rev.Stat. § 28.200 and LU. 8345(a):

1. May an entity such as MERS, that is neither a lender nor successor to a lender, be a “beneficiary” as that term is used in the Oregon Trust Deed Act?

2. May MERS be designated as beneficiary under the Oregon Trust Deed Act where the trust deed provides 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 Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests”?

3. Does the transfer of a promissory note from the lender to a successor result in an automatic assignment of the securing trust deed that must be recorded prior to the commencement of nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings under ORS 86.735(1)?

4. Does the Oregon Trust Deed Act allow MERS to retain and transfer legal title to a trust deed as nominee for the lender, after the note secured by the trust deed is transferred from the lender to a successor or series of successors?

See Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co., Civ, No. 3:11–cv–1390–HZ (D.Or. Apr. 2, 2012) (doc. 20). To date, the Oregon Supreme Court has not issued a decision regarding the certified questions.

However, it is precisely these requirements, and others under the OTDA, that are designed to protect the borrower from the “unauthorized foreclosure and wrongful sale of property.” Staffordshire, 209 Or.App. at 542, 149 P.3d 150 (emphasis added). I do not find that Oregon statutory requirements should be disregarded so easily. Thus, I proceed to the merits of plaintiff’s claims.

Celestino v. Recontrust Co., N.A., 6:11-CV-6367-AA, 2012 WL 1805495 (D. Or. May 16, 2012)

OR-USDC-Order-Celestino-v-Recontrust.docx

Advertisements

One Response to “Oregon Supreme Court Hearing Certified Questions Regarding Oregon’s Statutory Definition of Beneficiary and MERS”

  1. LINH TRAN January 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    According Oregon Deed of Trust trustee hold legal title and can not be beneficiary. MERS hold only legal title and as agent nominee, not make any loan payments or not secure obligation repayment debt owed, not name on note therefore in my opinion MERS can not be beneficiary in Oregon.

    My concern is MERS as nominee agent from private deed of trust but not name in note and MERS as court ruled not make any loan payments and not have any obligation repayment debt owed therefore MERS can not beneficiary according Oregon Deed of Trust. Since note and secure deed of trust has different name therefore note is not secured by deed of trust . that means note not be secured repayment obligation debt anymore and under Oregon law, if service or bank does not have any interest or beneficiary is secured obligation repayment debt owed, how banks or servicers can fill out claim default mortgage or standing foreclosure house? impossible right? conflict law in Oregon?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: