A show-me-the-note argument claims that, "as a prerequisite to the foreclosure of a mortgage, the foreclosing entity must show either that it owns both the mortgage being foreclosed and the note associated with that mortgage, or that it is acting on behalf of one who does." JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 604 (Minn. App. 2012). Minnesota courts have determined that the show-me-the-note argument is without merit.

Minnesota courts have repeatedly rejected this argument. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 604-05 & nn.3-4 (Minn. App. 2012); see also Jackson, 770 N.W.2d at 500- 01. On this record, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of BOA. The Kents' affirmative defenses that BOA lacks standing, is not a real party in interest, and cannot show an injury in fact relate to their arguments that the assignment is invalid.

13–2033, 550 Fed.Appx. 340, 2014 WL 67894 (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014); Hobson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 2:11CV00010 AGF, 2011 WL 3704815, at *2 (E.D.Mo. Aug. 24, 2011)See, e.g., Welk v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 720 F.3d 736, 738 (8th Cir.2013); Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 254–55 (5th Cir.2013) (interpreting Texas law as not requiring the production of the original note prior to foreclosure); Gallant v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 766 F.Supp.2d 714, 720–21 (W.D.Va.2011); Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 230 Ariz. 584, 277 P.3d 781, 783 (2012); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 604 n. 3 (Minn.Ct.App.2012). The one Missouri case that Lackey cites as support discusses a suit brought on the note itself not a non judicial foreclosure.

See, e.g., Welk v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 720 F.3d 736, 738 (8th Cir. 2013); Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2013) (interpreting Texas law as not requiring the production of the original note prior to foreclosure); Gallant v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 766 F. Supp. 2d 714, 720-21 (W.D. Va. 2011); Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 783 (Ariz. 2012); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 604 n.3 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). The one Missouri case that Lackey cites as support discusses a suit brought on the note itself not a non-judicial foreclosure.

Jordan has not plausibly alleged that an unrecorded assignment of the mortgage from U.S. Bank to Federal Home Loan Mortgage existed or that U.S. Bank's bid at the foreclosure sale was defective. See JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 609-10 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). The Court dismisses Count Two.

"[I]t is not necessary that the mortgage holder get the permission of the note holder to foreclose; if the mortgage holder forecloses against the wishes of the note holder, that is a dispute for those parties (and only those parties) to resolve." Welk v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 850 F. Supp. 2d 976, 985(D. Minn. 2012); see also JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, No. A12-0045, 2012 WL 3792624, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2012). In addition, even if Chase was required to prove that it owned the note, the Court finds that it could do so.

Nor was Chase under any obligation to "show the note" to Hamid. See, e.g., Stein, 662 F.3d at 978; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 604 n.3 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). And Hamid has alleged no facts that would undermine the prima facie validity to which the sheriff's certificate of foreclosure sale is entitled under Minnesota law.

And this court adheres to our own previous published decisions. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 608 (Minn. App. 2012). Thus, we will apply Benson to Daniel's MHRA claims.

Linehan remains good law in Minnesota and this court is bound by that decision. See JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 608 (Minn. App. 2012) (noting that this court is bound by Minnesota Supreme Court precedent). Affirmed.

On the contrary, the supreme court has held that “an action to foreclose is one in personam,” although “in a sense it is in the nature of a proceeding in rem, because it has for its object the enforcement of the lien of the mortgage on specific property.” Winne v. Lahart, 155 Minn. 307, 310, 193 N.W. 587, 589 (1923) ; see also JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600, 606 (Minn.App.2012) (“A mortgage foreclosure by action requires a judicial decree and approval of sale and is an in personam proceeding, although it is in the nature of a proceeding in rem since its purpose is to enforce a lien on the mortgaged property.” (quotation omitted)).