Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12251
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs mortgaged their homes in 2005–2006 and executed notes secured by deeds of trust.
- Loans were securitized; four Defendant Trusts and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company served as trustee.
- Plaintiffs allege PSAs and related assignment agreements were not properly complied with, affecting ownership and rights.
- Plaintiffs claim Defendants lack ownership to collect payments and lack authority to foreclose; seek declaratory, monetary, and equitable relief.
- District court dismissed for lack of standing, finding plaintiffs were not parties or intended beneficiaries of the PSAs; no class was certified.
- On appeal, plaintiffs argue they have standing and viable claims despite not being parties to the PSAs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge PSA compliance | Rajamin asserts standing as mortgagors to challenge ownership | Defendants contend plaintiffs lack standing as non-parties to PSAs | No standing; plaintiffs lacked constitutional and prudential standing |
| Intended third-party beneficiary status | Plaintiffs claimed they were intended beneficiaries of PSAs | PSAs did not indicate party status for mortgagors or intended beneficiaries | No standing as intended beneficiaries; insufficient pleadings to show beneficiary status |
| Trusts and EPTL § 7-2.4 theory | Trusts’ acts breached trust terms; void or voidable transfers | Unauthorized acts may be ratified by beneficiaries; plaintiffs are not beneficiaries | EPTL claim fails; acts may be ratified by beneficiaries, plaintiffs are not beneficiaries |
| Nothing-was-transferred theory | Alleges depositor did not own loans; assignments void | Schedules identify loans; recordation post-closing does not render transfers void | Claims implausible; post-closing recordation alone does not void transfers; assignments valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing requirement; injury in fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (prudential standing considerations; party must have a personal stake in the outcome)
- Rent Stabilization Ass'n v. Dinkins, 5 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 1993) (standing; plaintiff bears burden to demonstrate standing; de novo review of standing on appeal)
- McManus, 47 N.Y.2d 717 (1979) (trust beneficiary standing to enforce trust terms; ratification by beneficiaries limited to all beneficiaries)
- Genet v. Hunt, 113 N.Y.1 (1889) (trust terms and capacity to enforce voidable vs void acts)
- MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 N.Y.3d 90 (2006) (mortgage assignment and foreclosure principles; note and mortgage as inseparable)
- U.S. Bank v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752 (2d Dep’t 2009) (note passes with the mortgage; security interest transfers with debt)