Jose Ramos v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, Na
690 F. App'x 533
9th Cir.2017Background
- Home foreclosure suit in diversity court: appellants are third parties challenging an assignment of their loan into the AR5 securitization trust.
- Appellants contend SAMI transferred the loan without proper endorsement of the promissory note and without assignment of the deed of trust (DOT), violating the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA).
- District court dismissed appellants’ complaint (six causes of action) for failure to state a viable claim; denial of leave to amend as futile was affirmed.
- Appellants also alleged issues tied to securitization and MERS’s role; they did not raise any robosigning allegations below.
- The panel treated PSA breaches as creating voidable, not void, transfers and held that MERS had authority under the DOT to assign its beneficial interest and that Wells Fargo could direct foreclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assignment into securitized trust after trust closing is void or voidable | Assignment violated PSA and thus is void, invalidating foreclosure | PSA breaches render assignments voidable and plaintiffs lack standing to attack them | Assignment is voidable, not void; plaintiffs lack standing to challenge it |
| Whether MERS could assign its beneficial interest and authorize foreclosure | MERS lacked authority because note/assignment defects and MERS absence on the note undermines power | DOT expressly names MERS as nominee with authority to assign and act as historical nominee | MERS had authority under DOT; successor (Wells Fargo) could instruct trustee to foreclose |
| Whether robosigning claim survives where not argued below | Robosigning supports invalidation of foreclosure | Defendants: claim forfeited by failure to raise below | Claim abandoned; cannot be raised on appeal |
| Whether dismissal of all six causes and denial of leave to amend was proper | Appellants: claims based on securitization and assignment defects justify relief | Defendants: core allegations fail as a matter of law; amendment would be futile | Dismissal affirmed; leave to amend denied as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 245 Cal. App. 4th 808 (Cal. Ct. App.) (PSA/assignment violations render assignment voidable)
- Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal. 4th 919 (Cal.) (addressed wrongful-foreclosure standing in securitization context)
- Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 6 Cal. App. 5th 802 (Cal. Ct. App.) (post-Yvanova decisions treating assignments as voidable)
- Yhudai v. Impac Funding Corp., 1 Cal. App. 5th 1252 (Cal. Ct. App.) (assignment defects are voidable, not void)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (MERS may act as nominee under DOT; power to foreclose)
- Walsh v. Nevada Department of Human Resources, 471 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir.) (failure to raise an argument below forfeits it on appeal)
- Haskell v. Harris, 745 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir.) (denial of leave to amend appropriate where amendment would be futile)