Rogers v. Bank of America

Citation:
Rogers v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 14-2841 (8th Cir. June 1, 2015)
Tag(s):
Ruling:
The 8th Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court (D. Minn.) granting defendants' motion to dismiss. The 8th Circuit agreed that plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory judgment that home foreclosure was invalid where claim was based on lenders' alleged breaches of a pooling agreement to which plaintiff was not a party. Eighth Circuit ruled that denial of standing did not contradict Minnesota foreclosure law. Whether pooling agreement's choice of law provision providing that New York law applied was irrelevant, where Minnesota and New York law regarding standing was not materially different.
Procedural context:
Plaintiff brought suit in U.S. District Court (D. Minn.) seeking declaratory judgment that foreclosure was void, based on violations of lenders' pooling agreement. District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed to Eighth Circuit.
Facts:
Plaintiff and her late husband refinanced an existing home mortgage in 2005. The mortgage was executed in favor of Countrywide, and listed MERS as Mortgagee. In 2008, MERS transferred its interest in the mortgage to a securitized mortgage trust, with "BONY" as trustee. In 2011, MERS again executed a purported assignment to BONY. BONY was a party to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement between various entities. Neither plaintiff nor her late husband were parties. In 2012, following default, BONY foreclosed on the house. Bank (BONY) foreclosed on plaintiff's house as trustee of a mortgage trust. Plaintiff sued multiple parties in U.S. District Court (D. Minn.), seeking a declaratory judgment that the foreclosure was invalid. She claimed that the assignment of her mortgage to the trust violated a Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the trust, and that the foreclosure violated certain statutory requirements. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the foreclosure based on violating an agreement to which she was not a party.
Judge(s):
Wollman, Beam, Colloton

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3060 in the system

2952 Summarized

1 Being Processed