MERS Complaint | Marlya Depauw and Sharon & Terrance Lafrance v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
As promised from an earlier post, MERS Hit with $400,000,000 Lawsuit | Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Sued Over Michigan Foreclosures, here is the complaint...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
* * * * * * * *
MARLYA DEPAUW and SHARON &
TERRANCE LAFRANCE, Individually and
as Representatives of a Class of Individuals
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
c/o The Corporation Trust Company,
as Statutory Agent
Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange Street
New Castle, DE 19801,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL ENDORSED HEREON
From the complaint...
8. MERS, and its founding lenders, had determined that without the need to record
mortgages upon the land records of individual counties each time a transfer or sale occurred,
MERS members could save millions of dollars in transfer and recording fees.
9. MERS’ decision to avoid the filing of mortgages upon transfer in the county where the
property is located, has resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to county and state governments
and taxpayers, from the collection of required transfer and recording fees.
13. MERS, for itself and at the direction of, and on behalf of, its members, has filed
thousands of foreclosures by advertisement in the State of Michigan.
14. During this period, MERS has illegally prosecuted numerous non-judicial foreclosures by
advertisement as permitted under MCL 600.3201, et seq., purchased the property at the
subsequent sheriff’s sales and then quit-claim deeded the properties to its associated note holding
15. Under information and belief MERS has adopted this illegal practice of circumventing
the required judicial foreclosure process in order to obtain title to mortgaged properties in less
time, at substantially less cost and to usurp the due process rights of mortgagor homeowners as
included within the Class.
16. In many of the actions filed by MERS, mortgagor homeowners responded by filing
pleadings arguing that MERS did not have the capacity to foreclose by advertisement as they did
not own or have any interest in the underlying indebtedness.
17. In response to these challenges, MERS would normally answer by providing confusing
loan documents and claiming an interest in the underlying debt, even though they knew this was
not true and that they were not complying with the requirements of MCL 600.3201, et seq.
18. Even in the face of these challenges, MERS did, and continued for a period of years, to
knowingly, fraudulently and illegally foreclose using a State law upon which they had no
authority or right to utilize.
19. In these cases, MERS lacked the authority to foreclose by advertisement pursuant to
MCL 600.3201, et seq., as MERS was never either the owner of the underlying indebtedness or
loan and was not the servicing agent of the mortgage.
20. On April 21, 2011, the State of Michigan, Court of Appeals in the consolidated case of
Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Gerald Saurman, (Residential Funding Co, LLC v. Saurman,
290248, 291443 (MICA)), issued a ruling stating in pertinent part that in cases where MERS did
not own the underlying indebtedness, did not own an interest in the indebtedness secured by the
mortgage, or did not service the mortgage, MERS was therefore unable to comply with the
statutory requirements of MCL 600.3201(1)(d), and subsequently had no right to foreclose by
21. The Court of Appeals continued, and ruled that in those such cases where MERS did
foreclose by advertisement upon the foregoing conditions rendered those foreclosure proceedings
void ab initio.
29. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount
in controversy between the Class, as defined herein, and the Defendant exceeds One
Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. The Class of
Plaintiffs in this action consists of all owners of residential real property located within the
State of Michigan, whose property was illegally foreclosed upon by MERS, through the use
of the non-judicial foreclosure by advertisement procedures as prescribed in MCL
600.3201, et seq. Defendant is a foreign corporation conducting a considerable amount of
business within the State of Michigan.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY ORDER
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT
ACTION TO SET ASIDE FORECLOSURES AND QUIET TITLE
ACTION FOR POSSESSION/REPOSSESSION
INTERFERENCE WITH POSSESSORY INTEREST
Full complaint below...