Anthony Orlando v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

99 A.3d 989, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 121, 2014 WL 4782862
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedSeptember 25, 2014
Docket2013-264-Appeal
StatusUnpublished

This text of 99 A.3d 989 (Anthony Orlando v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anthony Orlando v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 99 A.3d 989, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 121, 2014 WL 4782862 (R.I. 2014).

Opinion

ORDER

The plaintiff, Anthony Orlando, appeals from an entry of summary judgment in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) and OneWest Bank, FSB. This case came before the Supreme Court at a session in conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment and to quiet title. He contends that the assignment of his mortgage and subsequent foreclosure on the mortgage were both invalid. At this time, we proceed to decide this case without further briefing and argument.

Our recent decision in Rosano v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. 91 A.3d 336 (R.I.2014) is dispositive of this case. In Rosano, this Court stated that a purchaser of a property at foreclosure and current title holder of the property must be joined as a party to a declaratory judgment action seeking to quiet title to the property. Id. at 339-40. In this action, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) purchased the plaintiffs property at the foreclosure sale and is the current title holder. This appeal must be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to join Deutsche Bank, an indispensable party, to this action. The plaintiff’s other arguments on appeal alleging questions of material fact, contesting the mortgage assignment, and challenging the ability of MERS to serve as mortgagee are without merit. See Ingram v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 94 A.3d 523, 528 (R.I.2014); Bucci v. Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, 68 A.3d 1069, 1085-89 (R.I. 2013).

*990 Accordingly, the plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anthony Bucci v. Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB
68 A.3d 1069 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2013)
Kenneth N. Ingram v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
94 A.3d 523 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2014)
Antonio P. Rosano v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
91 A.3d 336 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 A.3d 989, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 121, 2014 WL 4782862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-orlando-v-mortgage-electronic-registration-systems-inc-ri-2014.