finding that MERS, designated as the lender's nominee under the deed of trust, was merely the lender's agent, had no authority to exercise the lender's rights, and was not a necessary party to a foreclosure action where the borrowers, lender, and trustee were parties
Summary of this case from Nicdao v. Chase Home Fin.08-1299
Opinions Delivered April 16, 2009
Appeal from Benton Circuit.
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING:
finding that MERS, designated as the lender's nominee under the deed of trust, was merely the lender's agent, had no authority to exercise the lender's rights, and was not a necessary party to a foreclosure action where the borrowers, lender, and trustee were parties
Summary of this case from Nicdao v. Chase Home Fin.Full title:Mortgage ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, Inc., Appellant v. SOUTHWEST…
Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas
Date published: Apr 16, 2009
In opposition, the Vawters argue that MERS is not a true beneficiary despite the language of the Deed of…
Simon v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.See D.E. 1-2 at 4, ¶ 5. It is true that the propriety of MERS's role in mortgage transactions has been…