WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT in Bain v. MERS: “MERS is NOT a Beneficiary for Foreclosure if it Never Held the Note.”

We linked the oral argument to this case in the past.  The Washington Supreme Court answered the following certified questions:

Opinion: Bain v MERS IndyMac WA S Ct

CERTIFIED QUESTIONS

1.     Is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a lawful

“beneficiary” within the terms of Washington’s Deed of Trust

Act, Revised Code of Washington section 61.24.005(2), if it

never held the promissory note secured by the deed of trust?

[Short answer: No.]

 

2.     If so, what is the legal effect of Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., acting as an unlawful beneficiary

under the terms of Washington’s Deed of Trust Act?

[Short answer: We decline to answer based upon what is before

us.]

 

3.     Does a homeowner possess a cause of action under

Washington’s Consumer Protection Act against Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., if MERS acts as an

unlawful beneficiary under the terms of Washington’s Deed of

Trust Act?

[Short answer:  The homeowners may have a CPA action but

each homeowner will have to establsih the elements based upon

the facts of that homeowner’s case.]

Advertisements

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