Kansas Supreme Court Leaves MERS, 2nd Mortgage Holder Holding The Bag; OK's Foreclosure Sale By First Mortgagee Despite Lack Of Notice To Either Firm

Housing Wire reports:

• A ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court determined Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS)(1) was not a “necessary party” in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding initiated by a first lien holder. [...] The court’s ruling involves a case where MERS was listed as the mortgagee of a second-lien mortgage originated by Millenia Mortgage Corp. When the primary lien holder, Landmark National Bank went to court to seek foreclosure action, MERS wasn’t notified. Although Millenia was notified, it already sold its interest in the loan to Sovereign Bank.

• Representatives from the second lien loan were not present at the hearing. The lower court allowed Landmark to proceed with the foreclosure and sell the property at sheriff’s sale. In response, Sovereign and MERS attempted to vacate the judgment, which was denied by the trial court. The ruling to deny the motion was upheld by the state’s court of appeals and later, its supreme court. In its ruling, the supreme court said that MERS was not a “contingently necessary party.”

• It added since Sovereign Bank didn’t register its interest with the county’s register of deeds, it had no rights in the foreclosure proceeding.(2)

For more, see Court Ruling Upholds Foreclosure Sale Despite MERS’ Appeal.

For the Kansas Supreme Court ruling, see Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler, No. 98,489, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (August 28, 2009), affirming Kansas Court of Appeals in Landmark Nat'l Bank v. Kesler, 40 Kan. App. 2d 325, 192 P.3d 177, 2008 Kan. App. LEXIS 138 (2008).

(1) MERS acts as the representative for lenders and services in county land records for mortgages registered with the company. MERS keeps track of the loan, even when servicing rights are traded or sold, and notifies lender and servicer clients of action against the property.

(2) The proceeds of the foreclosure sale in this case exceeded the amount owed to the foreclosing first mortgage holder. The balance of the proceeds, after distribution of the amount owed to the foreclosing lender (generally referred to as the surplus funds or the overage, among other descriptive references), is then typically distributed to any subordinate lienholders in an amount not to exceed the balance of their claims; the remainder, if any, then goes to the foreclosed upon homeowner. Interestingly, according to the facts as laid out in the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling, it appears that the foreclosed upon homeowner walked off with the entire foreclosure sale surplus; neither MERS nor the second mortgage holder participated in the distribution of these proceeds. EpsilonMissingDocsMtg