Trotter v. Bank of New York Mellon
152 Idaho 842
| Idaho | 2012Background
- Trotter, a homeowner, defaulted on a loan secured by a deed of trust in Idaho.
- MERS was named the beneficiary of the deed of trust as nominee for the lender.
- In 2009, MERS assigned its interest to Bank of New York Mellon, which then appointed ReconTrust as successor trustee and recorded a Notice of Default.
- A Notice of Trustee's Sale was issued, scheduled for January 11, 2010, and TROs paused the sale.
- Trotter filed suit asserting Bank of New York and ReconTrust lacked standing to foreclose and challenging the assignment chain, leading to district court dismissal.
- This appeal followed, with Trotter proceeding pro se and seeking declaratory relief and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a trustee prove standing before nonjudicial foreclosure? | Trotter contends a foreclosing party must show standing by proving an interest in the note and deed. | Bank of New York asserts standing is not required before foreclosing nonjudicially under the Act. | No standing proof required; trustee may foreclose upon meeting statutory requirements. |
| Was MERS authority to assign the deed of trust to Bank of New York properly established? | MERS is a nominal beneficiary and had no authority to assign to Bank of New York. | Record supports MERS's authority to assign; assignment valid. | Issue waived: no cogent authority; record supports assignment; MERS had authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 148 Idaho 391 (2008) (standards for reviewing summary judgment and factual disputes)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 142 Idaho 790 (2006) (free review when interpreting statutes and applying law to facts)
- Karlson v. Harris, 140 Idaho 561 (2004) (frivolous or unfounded appeals may bear attorney fees implications)
- Taylor v. AIA Services Corp., 151 Idaho 552 (2011) (award of attorney fees and fee-shifting standards)
- Bowles v. Pro Indiviso, Inc., 132 Idaho 371 (1999) (adequate briefing required; issues not supported by authority may be waived)
- State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259 (1996) (decisive factors for appellate review and preservation of issues)