Wisconsin Supreme Court Hears Case Involving Equitable Assignment of Mortgages

19 March 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

Today the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments in Dow Family LLC v. PHH Mortgage Corp., 2013AP221, a case involving the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), an electronic mortgage tracking system operated by MERSCORP. (The oral argument is available on WisconsinEye here.) The result in the case could affect mortgage lending throughout Wisconsin.

Dow Family LLC purchased a condominium in 2009 that was subject to two mortgages relevant to the appeal, one from 2001 and one from 2003. The sellers represented to Dow that the 2003 mortgage was a refinance of the 2001 mortgage. Only the 2003 mortgage was satisfied at closing, and Dow did not obtain a title insurance policy. Shortly thereafter, PHH Mortgage Corp., which had been servicing the 2001 mortgage, wrote to Dow informing it that the loan underlying the 2001 mortgage had not been paid in full. Dow filed an action for declaratory judgment, PHH filed a foreclosure action, and the cases were consolidated. Dow argued that because one entity owned the 2001 note (PHH) while another was the mortgagee of record (MERS), the mortgage was unenforceable. The question in the case was whether PHH was assigned the mortgage either actually or through equitable assignment when it became the holder of the note.

The circuit court ruled in favor of PHH on summary judgment and entered judgment of foreclosure. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial because PHH had not made a prima facie case that it was entitled to enforce the note. PHH submitted two affidavits that were insufficient to authenticate the note and provide evidence that PHH actually held the note. The court of appeals, however, held that the doctrine of equitable assignment would apply to permit PHH to foreclose the 2001 mortgage if PHH could establish that it was entitled to enforce the note.

The supreme court is expected to take up the issue of whether Wisconsin law recognizes equitable assignment of a mortgage. This issue is important for foreclosure cases in which the plaintiff is in possession of the original note, endorsed specifically or in blank, but no assignment of mortgage from the original mortgagee has been recorded. A separate issue in this case is Dow’s attack on the MERS system itself, an argument that has been rejected by a number of other courts.

A decision is expected by mid-July.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Cryptocurrency in China is like BIG BROTHER in 1984!
20 October 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
California Governor Signs New Telehealth Insurance Law
18 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
Continued Increase in E-Commerce and Online Ordering Changes Landscape of Urban Transportation
17 October 2019
Dashboard Insights
CMS Proposes Revisions to Stark Law
16 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.