Bankruptcy Court Disallows Creditor Claim, Voids Mortgage Lien Due To Lender's Screw Up In Establishing Chain Of Title

On the Bankruptcy Law Network blog, Massachusetts attorney L. Jed Berliner comments on a 2006 case in which a bankruptcy judge disallowed a mortgage lender's secured claim for a loan it held and voided the lien of the mortgage:

• Foreclosures are being stopped because the purported mortgage holder cannot prove it holds rights to the mortgage. Those cases do not remove the mortgage entirely, but only stop the foreclosure. More can be done.

• Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code will permanently void a mortgage [lien](1) if the claim is disallowed. This can be easier than you think. With so many mortgages being sold and resold, the electronic transfer of the funds moves much faster than the papers. Sometimes the paperwork is never completed.

• In In re Long, 353 B.R. 1 (Bankr D MA 2006) (Somma, J.), the bankruptcy court permanently voided a mortgage where the holder could not prove it held rights to the mortgage.(2)

Source: Missing Assignment Voids Mortgage.

For other posts that reference the failure of some mortgage lenders and their attorneys to file the required loan documents when starting foreclosures, Go Here, Go Here, Go Here, and Go Here.

(1) In contrast to voiding the actual debt secured by the mortgage lien.

(2) According to the following excerpt from the case, bankruptcy judge ruled that the existence of two critical gaps in the mortgage loan's chain of title from the initial mortgage holder to the last mortgage holder was fatal to the secured creditor's bankruptcy claim (see In re Long, pp. 26-27):

• Portfolio contends that it holds title [to the mortgage in question] by virtue of two assignments: the first from Astrum to Union Mortgage Company, and the second from Resolution GGF OY “as successor in interest to Union Mortgage Company” to Portfolio. The first assignment has been well established: the assignment from Astrum to Union Mortgage Company, having been made and signed by Astrum itself, appears to be valid and in order.

• The second assignment, however, was not executed by Union Mortgage Company, the assignee under the first mortgage. Rather, it was executed by “Foremost Servicing Company, Inc., by Power of Attorney for Resolution GGF OY, Successor in Interest to Union Mortgage Company, Inc.”

• The assignment is effective only if (1) Resolution GGF OY was in fact the successor in interest to Union Mortgage Company with respect to ownership of the promissory note and mortgage and (2) Foremost Servicing Company, Inc. held a valid power of attorney for Resolution GGF OY.

• The assignment itself is not evidence that either of these necessary conditions was satisfied when the assignment was executed. (my emphasis added) Proof that these conditions were satisfied requires evidence extraneous to the assignment. Portfolio submitted no such evidence either with the proof of claim or at the evidentiary hearing.22

• Hence, there are two critical gaps in the Portfolio’s proof that it holds title (my emphasis added). In view of these gaps, I conclude that the Debtor has rebutted the prima facie evidence of the proof of claim, that the burden of proof was thereby shifted to Portfolio to prove that it is the holder by assignment of the promissory note and mortgage, and that Portfolio has failed to carry this burden. Portfolio has failed to establish that it is the holder by assignment of the second mortgage. The Debtor’s objection to the secured claim of Portfolio must therefore be sustained, the claim disallowed, and, in accordance with 11 U.S.C. §506(d),23 the mortgage declared void. missing mortgage foreclosure docs gamma