Pilgeram v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
373 Mont. 1
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Pilgerams obtained a fixed-rate mortgage for $512,000 on September 7, 2006, with a Deed of Trust naming Citizens Title & Escrow as trustee and Mann as the lender.
- Promissory note was endorsed to GreenPoint Mortgage Funding on the same day; DOT allowed sale of the note and change of loan service with notice to borrower; MERS identified as nominee for lender in the DOT.
- After multiple transfers, Pilgerams defaulted in April 2008; MERS assigned the DOT to GreenPoint and GreenPoint appointed Peterson as successor trustee in July 2008.
- Countrywide became servicing entity in December 2008; Pilgerams received notices of default, acceleration/foreclosure, and how to cure.
- Pilgerams filed suit challenging lender authority to foreclose; District Court granted summary judgment to the Lenders (relying on MERS as STFA beneficiary) and denied their later motion to amend.
- On appeal, the Court reverses, holding MERS is not an STFA beneficiary and remands for further agency-related findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MERS qualifies as STFA beneficiary | Pilgerams: MERS not the beneficiary under STFA; lacks authority to endorse/assign the DOT. | Lenders: MERS designated as beneficiary under the DOT and can act as lender’s agent/beneficiary. | MERS is not an STFA beneficiary; remand not based on agency. |
| Whether MERS can be considered the lender’s agent for purposes of summary judgment | Agency relationship between MERS and lenders is not established by record; new theory raised on appeal improper. | MERS could be the lender’s special agent under agency principles; summary judgment should consider it. | Agency issue not properly developed below; remand for further factual findings on MERS’ principal-agent relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estates of Milliron v. Francke, 243 Mont. 200 (1990) (statutory interpretation and interpreting the meaning of terms)
- Elkins v. Husky Oil Co., 153 Mont. 159 (1969) (statutory interpretation and pure questions of law)
- Semenza v. Kniss, 344 Mont. 427 (2008) (summary judgment standards and burdens of proof)
- Prindel v. Ravalli County, 331 Mont. 338 (2006) (summary judgment framework and burdens)
- Brandrup v. Recontrust Co., N.A., 303 P.3d 301 (Or. 2013) (nominee status and agency considerations for MERS)
- Edwards v. MERS, 300 P.3d 43 (Idaho 2013) (agency/beneficiary status of MERS under STFA-related analysis)