Tag Archives: Indiana

Whitman on Foreclosing on E-Note

Posted on by

Professor Dale Whitman posted a commentary on Good v. Wells Fargo Bank, 18 N.E.3d  618 (Ind. App. 2014) on the Dirt listserv. The case addresses whether a lender foreclosing a mortgage securing an electronic note must provide proof that it had “control” of the note when it filed the foreclosure action. This is an interesting new take on an old issue. Dale’s commentary reads:

By now, everyone is familiar with the requirements of UCC Article 3 with respect to enforcement of negotiable notes. Article 3 requires either proof that the party enforcing the note has possession of the original note, or as an alternative, requires submission of a lost note affidavit. With conventional paper notes, it has become common for courts in judicial foreclosure states to require, as a condition of standing to foreclose, that the note holder or its servicer have had possession of the note on the date the foreclosure complaint or petition was filed. This requirement is problematic if (as is often true) the endorsement on the note is undated. In such cases, the servicer will usually be expected to provide additional proof (commonly in the form of affidavits of employees of the holder and/or servicer) that the note had been delivered to the foreclosing party before the date of filing of the action. See, e.g., Deutsche Bank N.T. v. Beneficial New Mexico, Inc., 335 P.3d 217 (N.M. App. 2014); Boyd v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 143 So.3d 1128 (Fla.App. 2014); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Faruque, 991 N.Y.S.2d 630 (N.Y.App.Div. 2014).

Suppose, however, that the note was electronic rather than paper. Such notes are enforceable under eSign and UETA, but these statutes modify the concepts of delivery and possession. Because an electronic note can be reproduced as many times as desired, and each copy is indistinguishable from the original, eSign creates the concept of the note as a “transferrable record.” Such records must have the following characteristics:

1.  The record must be held within a system in which “a single authoritative copy of the record (the note) exists, which is unique, identifiable, and unalterable.”

2.  To have the equivalent of possession of such a note, if it has been transferred, a person must have “control” in the sense that the system for tracking such notes must reliably establish that the person enforcing the note is the one to whom the record was transferred.

3.  Finally, if the record has been transferred, the authoritative copy of the record itself must indicate the identity of the person who whom it was most recently transferred.

See 15 U.S.C. sec. 7021.

There are very few cases thus far involving foreclosures of mortgages securing e-notes, and little authority on exactly what the holder must prove in order to properly foreclose. In the Good case Wells Fargo was acting as servicer for Fannie Mae, the holder of an e-note that was registered in the MERS e-registry. (MERS’ role with e-notes is very different than for paper notes. In paper note transactions, MERS does not take possession of the note and has no dealings with it, but in e-note transactions, MERS operates a registry to track who has control of the note.)

Accompanying its foreclosure complaint, Wells filed an affidavit by one of its officers, stating that Wells was the servicer, that it maintained a copy of the note, and that its systems provided controls to assure that each note was maintained accurately and protected against alteration. Finally, it stated that the paper copy it submitted with the foreclosure complaint was a true and correct copy of the original e-note.

Unfortunately for Wells, the court found that this affidavit was woefully inadequate to establish Wells’ standing to foreclose the mortgage. Here is the court’s list of particulars:

1.  The affidavit stated that Wells possessed the note, but the court couldn’t tell whether it meant the electronic note or a paper copy.

2.  The affidavit did not assert that Wells had “control” of the record, either by maintaining the single authoritative copy itself in its own system, or by being identified as having control of the single authoritative copy in the MERS registry system.

3.  In fact, Wells never even mentioned the MERS registry system in its affidavit, even though it is obvious from the facts that the note was being tracked within that system.

Wells tried to repair the damage at trial; an employee of Wells testified that Wells was in control of the note, currently maintained it, and serviced the loan. But the court found that this testimony was “conclusory” (as indeed it was) and was insufficient to establish that Wells had control of the note.

Comment: The court provides an extremely useful road map for counsel representing a servicer in the judicial foreclosure of a e-note. The statute itself provides (in 15 U.S.C. 7021(f)) that the person enforcing the note must provide “reasonable proof” that it was in control of the note, and the court felt this must be detailed information and not merely a bare statement.

While the case involved a judicial foreclosure, one might well ask how the “reasonable proof” requirement would be satisfied in a nonjudicial foreclosure. In about eight states, the courts have held (with paper notes) that their nonjudicial foreclosure statutes do not require any assertion or proof of possession of the note. But it is arguable that, if the note is electronic rather than paper, eSign overrides this conclusion by virtue of its express requirement of “reasonable proof.” And since eSign is a federal statute, it is quite capable of preempting any contrary state legislation.  On the other hand, the “reasonable proof” requirement only applies “if requested by a person against which enforcement is sought.” In a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding, how would the borrower make such a request? These are interesting, but highly speculative questions.

The State of the Foreclosure Crisis

Posted on by

Rob Pitingolo of the Urban Institute issued State of the Foreclosure Crisis: Past the Peak but Not Recovered. It opens,

Much attention has been given to statistics that show new foreclosure activity nationally has slowed over the past few years. When it comes to metropolitan area markets, however, some have gotten worse, while others have stagnated. It is not simple enough to declare an end to the foreclosure and delinquency crisis when there are as many as a quarter (25%) of metro areas that have not yet begun their recovery. (1)

It continues,

the rate of 90 day or more delinquency steadily fell in 2010 and 2011, ending at 3.1% in September 2013. In contrast, the foreclosure inventory only turned the corner in mid -2012, and is still higher than the March 2009 level at 4.5%, around seven times the pre-crisis level. Historically, a foreclosure inventory under 1% is what we would expect in “normal” market conditions.” (1, footnote omitted)

It concludes, “attention must be paid to individual metropolitan housing markets. Some are in much better shape than others; and some have made great strides since the peak of serious delinquency in December 2009. However, it may be premature to declare the problem is “ending” until all metro area markets show signs of recovery.” (2) The report identifies the starkest differences in metro areas:

Three geographic regions were hard hit at the beginning of the foreclosure crisis: California metros, Florida metros, and “Rust Belt” metros (those in Midwest states like Ohio, Michigan and Indiana). All three of those regions have seen solid improvements since December 2009.

On the other hand, the Northeast has generally performed poorly in the past several years. Serious delinquency rates in major metropolitan markets like New York City, Philadelphia and Baltimore have all worsened since December 2009. Other metro areas in New York like Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse have similarly struggled, as have metro areas surrounding New York like New Jersey and Connecticut. (5)

The report concludes with a call for a nuanced response to the current state of the foreclosure crisis:  “communities need strong examples to build upon, rigorous data and analysis, and a commitment to evidence-based policymaking that strives toward the best fit between policy solutions and policy problems.” (6) This seems like the right call and the appropriate response to headlines that report the national trend without mentioning the variations among metro areas.

Reiss on Predatory Online Lending

Posted on by

E-Commerce Times quoted me in CFPB Suit Targets Predatory Online Lending Practices. It reads in part:

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau this week put online finance companies on notice that it will not overlook them merely because they operate in cyberspace. Specifically, the bureau sued CashCall for collecting money consumers allegedly did not owe.  In its suit, the bureau charged that CashCall and its affiliates engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, including illegally debiting consumer checking accounts for loans that were void.

CashCall and the associated companies are reportedly owned by J. Paul Reddam, a race-horse owner and philosophy professor-turned-businessman.

The Background

Beginning in late 2009, CashCall and its subsidiary, WS Funding, entered into an arrangement with online lender Western Sky Financial, according to the CFPB. Western Sky Financial has asserted that the laws in the state in which it is based — South Dakota — did not apply to it because it was based on an Indian reservation and owned by a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

The CFPB maintains Western Sky still must comply with state laws when it makes loans over the Internet to people in other states.

The loans ranged from US$850 to $10,000 and came with upfront fees, lengthy repayment terms and annual interest rates from nearly 90 percent to 343 percent, the CFPB said. Many of the loan agreements allowed payments to be debited directly from the borrower’s bank account.

By September 2013, Western Sky had become the subject of several states’ investigations and court actions, and it began to shut down its business. CashCall and its collection agency, Delbert Services, continued to take monthly installment payments from consumers’ bank accounts or otherwise sought to collect money from borrowers.

After its own investigation, the bureau concluded that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps, or both, in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and North Carolina, meaning the consumers did not owe that money that was being collected.

As part of its suit, the CFPB is seeking monetary relief, damages, and civil penalties.

The CFPB did not respond to our request for further details.

*     *     *

‘Particularly Weak’

 

While there might not be much controversy over the CFPB’s suit against an online lender, CashCall is certainly defending itself using other arguments.

Clearly, the action falls within the CFPB’s broad mission of protecting consumers from predatory behaviors in the financial services industry, asserted David Reiss, a professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School.

However, CashCall’s attorneys, Neil Barofsky and Katya Jestin, have said that the CFPB does not have a mandate to impose rate caps.

“Of all of CashCall’s arguments, this one seems particularly weak,” Reiss concluded, “as the CFPB is just seeking to enforce existing state laws that have been allegedly violated across the country.”

Bates Fails to Shake MERS’ Standing in Indiana Superior Court

Posted on by

In Bates v. MERS, et al., 49D12-0911-CT-051734 (June 22, 2012) Bates filed suit against MERS and several lenders in the mortgage industry on behalf of all counties in Indiana, alleging that the MERS system is an attempt to falsify records to avoid paying recording fees. The Marion Superior Court dismissed Bates’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Indiana Whistleblower and False Claims Act, as Bates was not an original source to the information as required by the Act. The court notes that the MERS system has been discussed at length publicly, in prior cases, by media outlets, and by MERS itself; Bates’s allegations against MERS merely reiterate these points, and therefore cannot qualify for whistleblower status under the Act. Furthermore, Bates claimed he obtained this information in June 2009, when the information was already public, so “his knowledge cannot be direct and independent”.

This is Bates’s sixth failed attempt against MERS, as he filed similar actions in California, Hawaii, Nevada, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C. MERS comments on the case here.