Correia v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. Ex Rel. Pooling & Servicing Agreement Series ITF INABS-2005-A (In Re Correia)
452 B.R. 319
| 1st Cir. BAP | 2011Background
- In 2004, Debtors executed a promissory note and mortgage to IndyMac F.S.B. with MERS as nominee; MERS described as mortgagee under the Security Instrument.
- IndyMac transferred the note (blank-endorsed) to Deutsche Bank; MERS continued to hold the mortgage for Deutsche Bank.
- The Debtors’ note and mortgage were pooled into the Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust Series INABS-2005-A under a PSA dated March 1, 2005, with Deutsche Bank as trustee and IndyMac as depositor/servicer.
- Debtors defaulted in 2006 and filed Chapter 13 in January 2007; case briefly converted to Chapter 7 and reconverted to Chapter 13; IndyMac obtained stay relief for foreclosure while in Chapter 7.
- In August 2007, MERS assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank; Deutsche Bank foreclosed, and Debtors challenged the PSA-based chain of title while arguing they lacked standing as non-parties to the PSA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge PSA compliance | Correias lack standing as non-parties to the PSA. | Debtors cannot challenge PSA terms since they are not parties. | Debtors lacked standing; affirmed. |
| Signing authority of MERS officer on assignment | Officer lacked signing authority to execute the MERS-to-Deutsche Bank assignment. | Affidavit established signing authority; challenge raised belatedly. | No triable issue; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Almeida, 417 B.R. 140 (Bankr.D.Mass.2009) (standing to challenge PSA terms discussed; non-parties generally cannot enforce PSA provisions)
- Kunelius v. Town of Stow, 588 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2009) (standing and merits considerations in municipal matters; caution against broad challenges)
- In re Garrido Jimenez, 370 B.R. 878 (1st Cir. BAP 2007) (finality and standing principles for bankruptcy appeals)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1985) (standing as a threshold jurisdictional requirement)
- Elkin v. Shkolnikov, 337 B.R. 1 (1st Cir. BAP 2006) (standing and justiciability in bankruptcy context)