Further, this Court agrees that this issue is not ripe where foreclosure proceedings have not commenced. See McLaughlin v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 2:11-CV-11012, 2012 WL 995284, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2012), aff'd 519 Fed.Appx. 904 (6th Cir. 2013) ("Plaintiffs have also failed to establish whether a claim for 'wrongful foreclosure' may be brought in this case, in light of the fact that nothing in the record appears to indicate that a foreclosure sale has actually taken place."). In Mowett v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 15-12612, 2016 WL 1259091 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2016), the court concluded that the plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure claim was not ripe because no foreclosure sale had occurred, thus precluding the plaintiff from "demonstrat[ing] any fraud resulting in prejudice relating to a foreclosure proceeding."
As FNMA notes, several district courts have dismissed wrongful foreclosure claims because a foreclosure sale had not occurred at the time the complaint was filed or dismissed. See McLaughlin v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 2:11-CV-11012, 2012 WL 995284, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2012), aff'd 519 F. App'x 904 (6th Cir. 2013) ("Plaintiffs have also failed to establish whether a claim for 'wrongful foreclosure' may be brought in this case, in light of the fact that nothing in the record appears to indicate that a foreclosure sale has actually taken place."). In Mowett v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 15-12612, 2016 WL 1259091 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2016), the court concluded that the plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure claim was not ripe because no foreclosure sale had occurred, thus precluding the plaintiff from "demonstrat[ing] any fraud resulting in prejudice relating to a foreclosure proceeding."
Thus, a record chain of title clearly exists, providing Chase the right to foreclose.No. 11-11012, 2012 WL 995284, at *4 (Mar. 23, 2012) (internal citations to record omitted).This case is identical to Collins and McLaughlin. MERS's recorded assignment of the mortgage to Wells Fargo established a record chain of title.
Thus, a record chain of title clearly exists, providing Chase the right to foreclose. No. 11-11012, 2012 WL 995284, at *4 (Mar. 23, 2012) (internal citations to record omitted). This case is identical to Collins and McLaughlin.
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the courts have previously addressed whether an MSI such as that at issue here creates a valid and enforceable mortgage under Michigan law, and have consistently found the mortgages valid. See McLaughlin v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, No. 2:11-CV-11012, 2012 WL 995284, at *3-4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2012); Golliday v. Chase Home. Fin., LLC, No. 10-cv-532, 2011 WL 4352554, at *7 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 23, 2011), R & R adopted, 2011 WL 4352677 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 16, 2011) ("Over the twenty years that MERS has existed, borrowers who default on their loan obligations have attempted, without success, to attack the validity of the mortgage based on the involvement of MERS."). While some courts have denied MERS the power to foreclose, none of them has held the mortgage itself was invalid.