Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC
829 N.W.2d 53
Minn.2013Background
- Ruiz executed a promissory note to Chase Bank, N.A. in 2005 and granted a mortgage, recorded August 2005.
- The mortgage was assigned to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. in 2006 and recorded June 2006.
- A second assignment, listing 1st Fidelity rather than 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, was executed in 2009 and recorded November 2009.
- A third assignment was executed May 3, 2010 and recorded May 18, 2010, the same day as the first publication of the foreclosure sale notice.
- Foreclosure by advertisement commenced May 18, 2010; Ruiz’s sale occurred November 30, 2010; Ruiz did not redeem.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 580.02(3) requires all mortgage assignments to be recorded before foreclosure by advertisement | Ruiz: strict compliance required; all assignments must be recorded before initiation | 1st Fidelity: may rely on substantial compliance; timing before sale may suffice | Strict compliance required; all assignments must be recorded before foreclose by advertisement |
| Whether the Curative Act (§ 582.25) cures untimely recording of assignments | Ruiz: curative Act does not apply to assignment timing | 1st Fidelity: Curative Act may cure publication defects | Curative Act does not apply to untimely assignment recording; strict compliance remains required |
| Whether the second/third assignments relate back to timing of recording to satisfy § 580.02(3) | 1st Fidelity argues third assignment relates back to second | Relating back is inapplicable; third assignment not timely recorded | Relation-back rejected; third assignment not recorded before start of foreclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Adlinger v. Close, 161 Minn. 404 (Minn. 1925) (interprets requisites must exist when the first step is taken in foreclosure)
- Jackson v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. 2009) (strict compliance principles in foreclosures by advertisement)
- Brown v. Morrill, 45 Minn. 483 (Minn. 1891) (relates back context for corrective mortgages not applicable here)
- Willard v. Finnegan, 42 Minn. 476 (Minn. 1890) (strict compliance considerations in foreclosure protections)
- Holmes v. Crummett, 80 Minn. 28 (Minn. 1882) (early strict-compliance considerations in foreclosures)