Oregon Supreme Court Rulings Allow Nonjudicial Foreclosures To Proceed


On June 6, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings resolving issues around the role of MERS in the non-judicial foreclosure process and allowing such foreclosures to move forward. In Brandrup v. ReconTrust Company, N. A. S060281, slip op. (Oregon Jun. 6, 2013) and Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, SC S060655, 2013 WL 2446524 (Oregon Jun. 6, 2013), the court answered a series of certified questions related to the role of an electronic mortgage registry as the beneficiary listed on trust deeds and applied those answers to the appeal of a state foreclosure action. The court held that, under the Oregon Trust Deed Act: (i) a mortgage registry that is neither a lender nor successor to a lender may not be a beneficiary of a trust deed; (ii) a mortgage registry is not eligible to serve as beneficiary where the trust deed provides that the registry holds only the legal title to the interests granted by the borrower, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, the registry has the right to exercise any or all of those interests; (iii) assignments of a trust deed that result from the transfer of the secured obligation are not required to be recorded; and (iv) a mortgage registry cannot hold and transfer legal title to a trust deed as nominee for the lender, after the note secured by the trust deed is transferred from the lender to a successor or series of successors. The court also explained that, “even if MERS lacks authority to act as the trust deed’s beneficiary, it may have authority to act on behalf of the beneficiary if it can demonstrate that it has an agency relationship with the beneficiary and that the agency agreement is sufficiently expansive.” The court added that this would apply equally to the issue of the registry’s authority to foreclose the trust deed. Effectively allowing nonjudicial foreclosures involving MERS as the beneficiary on trust deeds to proceed, the Court stated that “[i]n either case, MERS’ authority to act as the beneficiary’s agent depends on who succeeded to the lender’s rights, whether those persons manifested consent that MERS act on their behalf and subject to their control, and whether MERS has agreed to so act.”

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BuckleySandler LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.