In its recent decision in Gilbert v. Federal National Mortgage Association (pdf), the Middlesex County Superior Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to unwind a foreclosure process that ended with the principal defendant, Fannie Mae, owning the plaintiff’s home. The main claim in the plaintiff’s 10-count complaint – and the one on which the court based its dismissal of the case – was that the foreclosure was unlawful because it was conducted by a party that did not hold the mortgage. The court disagreed, finding a proper, undisputed (albeit convoluted) “chain of custody” of the mortgage.
In the course of refinancing his home, the plaintiff granted a mortgage to MERS as nominee for American Mortgage Network, Inc. MERS then assigned the mortgage to Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu), which went into FDIC receivership. The FDIC, as WaMu’s receiver, sold the mortgage to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), which, undeterred by the plaintiff’s intervening bankruptcy filing, noticed and conducted the foreclosure sale. Chase was the high bidder, and promptly sold the property to Fannie Mae, which commenced an eviction proceeding against the plaintiff.
The court rejected as groundless the plaintiff’s claims – all made “on information and belief” – that Chase didn’t hold the mortgage at the time it noticed and conducted the foreclosure sale. Given its ruling, the court didn’t reach any of the plaintiff’s remaining claims, which included the usual litany of breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, conversion, conspiracy, etc. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of his case, so stay tuned.