Edwards v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
154 Idaho 511
| Idaho | 2013Background
- Edwards challenged a nonjudicial foreclosure on grounds MERS lacked standing as beneficiary and trustee.
- Deed of trust naming MERS as lender’s nominee governed foreclosure authority via the lender’s actions.
- Subsequent substitution of trustee to Pioneer via Quality Loan gave Pioneer authority to foreclose.
- Notice of default and trustee’s sale were recorded with MERS directing foreclose actions.
- District court granted motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; sale occurred before judgment but rescission later attempted to restore status quo.
- Court held case not moot and affirmed district court’s dismissal, addressing standing, authority, and compliance with Idaho law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does mootness bar review given the rescission of the trustee’s deed? | Edwards argues rescission moots the appeal. | MERS delays foreclosure; case remains live until merits resolved. | Case not moot; real controversy remained. |
| Did MERS have standing or authority to foreclose as beneficiary and to appoint a successor trustee? | Edwards contends MERS lacked interest and authority. | MERS acted as nominee with authority; principal’s actions bind. | MERS had authority; trustee foreclosed per agency law. |
| Were the notice of default and recordation of the sale compliant with Idaho statute? | Notice misstates beneficiary as MERS; challenge to compliance. | Notice identified breach and proper election to sell; statutory requirements satisfied. | Notice compliant; foreclosure valid. |
| Was Edwards given adequate discovery time before the motion to dismiss? | Edwards needed discovery before responding. | No requested continuance; record shows readiness. | No error; no continuance requested, discovery not compelled. |
| Should Edwards or MERS be awarded appellate attorney fees? | Edwards seeks fees under Idaho law. | Prevailing party entitlement limited; Rule 40/41 do not authorize fees. | No appellate attorney fees awarded to Edwards; MERS not entitled under those rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ameritel Inns, Inc. v. Greater Boise Auditorium Dist., 141 Idaho 849 (Idaho Supreme Court 2005) (mootness requires a live, justiciable controversy)
- McLean v. Cheyovich Family Trust, 153 Idaho 425 (Idaho Supreme Court 2012) (timeliness of mootness raised on appeal)
- Fenn v. Noah, 142 Idaho 775 (Idaho Supreme Court 2006) (judicial review limited to cases with practical relief)
- Trotter v. Bank of New York Mellon, 152 Idaho 842 (Idaho Supreme Court 2012) (standing not required for nonjudicial foreclosure; agency principles apply)
- Wait v. Leavell Cattle, Inc., 136 Idaho 792 (Idaho Supreme Court 2001) (summary judgment standard; record must show no genuine issue)
- Bollinger v. Fall River Rural Elec. Co-op, Inc., 152 Idaho 632 (Idaho Supreme Court 2012) (scintilla of evidence is insufficient for genuine issue)
- Gilman v. Davis, 138 Idaho 599 (Idaho Supreme Court 2003) (appellate rules do not authorize unintended fee awards)
- White v. Doney, 82 Idaho 217 (Idaho Supreme Court 1960) (principals bound by agents acting within apparent authority)
- Knutsen v. Cloud, 142 Idaho 148 (Idaho Supreme Court 2005) (agency principles in mortgage transactions)
- Infanger v. City of Salmon, 137 Idaho 45 (Idaho Supreme Court 2002) (summary judgment standard and burden on nonmoving party)