French v. Bank of NY Mellon

2011 DNH 187

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: November 14, 2011
• Docket: CV-11-155-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

French v. Bank of NY Mellon CV-11-155-PB 11/14/11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harold French

v. Civil N o . 11-cv-00155-PB Opinion N o . 2011 DNH 187 The Bank of New York Mellon

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Harold French seeks to permanently enjoin the Bank of New

York Mellon (BONY) 1 from foreclosing upon property located at 74

Route 127, in Warner, New Hampshire. He argues that the

mortgage document is unenforceable because it does not

sufficiently describe the secured property, and alternatively,

that BONY cannot foreclose because it is not the holder of the

corresponding note. French also seeks monetary damages against

BONY for alleged violations of the New Hampshire Unfair,

Deceptive or Unreasonable Collection Practices Act and its

federal cognate. BONY moves to dismiss all counts for failure

to state a claim. For the reasons discussed below, I grant in

part and deny in part the motion to dismiss.

1 BONY is trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWALT 2005-34CB, a pool of securitized mortgages in a special purpose entity. I. BACKGROUND2

On July 7 , 2005, Harold French obtained a loan from

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”) that was to be

secured by an interest in real property. He executed a note

with Countrywide and a mortgage with The Mortgage Electronic

Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”), acting as nominee for

Countrywide. French alleges that the mortgage document he

signed is not valid because it did not include a legal

description of the secured property. He further alleges that

Countrywide subsequently, and without his knowledge or consent,

inserted a legal description into the copy of the mortgage that

it filed at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds.

In support of his claim that the mortgage document was

altered after he signed i t , French avers that each page of the

mortgage document he signed on July 7 , 2005 contained his

initials and was stamped with Countrywide’s bar code. The final

2 The facts are drawn from the complaint (Doc. N o . 1 6 ) , and from the documents provided by defendant that are central to the complaint’s factual allegations. See Beddall v . State S t . Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d 1 2 , 17 (1st Cir. 1998) (“When . . . a complaint’s factual allegations are expressly linked to –- and admittedly dependent upon –- a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged), that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”).

2 page of the document recorded in the registry, however, does not

contain French’s initials or a bar code. That page is titled

“Exhibit ‘ A ’ : Legal Description,” and contains three short

paragraphs describing the location and bounds of a tract of land

in Warner. See Doc. N o . 19-2. French has proffered a page that

he asserts to be the genuine final page of the original

document. That page is similarly titled “Legal Description

Exhibit A,” and unlike the other page, it contains his initials

and a bar code. See Doc. N o . 19-3. Also unlike the allegedly

altered page, it is blank and does not contain a description of

any property.

Another part of the mortgage, however, does provide some

description of the property to be used as security. On its

third page, the document states that the borrower agrees to

mortgage “the following described property located in the COUNTY

of MERRIMACK: SEE EXHIBIT ‘A’ ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART

HEREOF.” Underneath, the document continues: “Parcel ID Number:

[nothing is written in a blank space] which currently has the

address of 74 ROUTE 127, WARNER New Hampshire 03278 (‘Property

Address’).”

3 At some point after entering into the secured loan

transaction, French began missing payments on the note. In

response, BONY informed French that it would foreclose on the

Warner property. On December 1 7 , 2010, MERS assigned the

mortgage to BONY, and foreclosure proceedings commenced the

following day.

On December 2 0 , French contacted BONY to explain that the

mortgage document was not legally enforceable because it did not

contain a legal description of the property. Subsequent to that

communication, BONY continued to publicly advertise the

foreclosure auction of the property.

On March 1 , 2011, French brought suit in New Hampshire

Superior Court seeking to enjoin BONY from conducting a

foreclosure auction. A preliminary injunction was granted, and

BONY later agreed to a permanent injunction pending the outcome

of this litigation. On March 3 0 , BONY removed the action to

federal court.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), I “accept as true the well-pleaded

4 factual allegations of the complaint, draw all reasonable

inferences therefrom in the plaintiff's favor and determine

whether the complaint, so read, sets forth facts sufficient to

justify recovery on any cognizable theory.” Martin v . Applied

Cellular Tech., 284 F.3d 1 , 6 (1st Cir. 2002). To survive a

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the general

standard under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is

that the complaint must “state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v . Iqbal, 129 S . C t . 1937,

1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v . Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570 (2007)).

III. ANALYSIS

French contends that the mortgage is invalid and

unenforceable because it fails to sufficiently describe the

secured property. Because BONY continued to advertise the

foreclosure auction after being informed of the mortgage’s

invalidity, French contends that BONY violated both the New

Hampshire Unfair, Deceptive or Unreasonable Collection Practices

Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In the

alternative, French argues that even if BONY holds a valid

5 mortgage instrument, it is without legal authority to foreclose

because it is not, or may not b e , the holder of the note issued

with the mortgage. Compl. ¶¶ 49-51, Doc. N o . 1 6 .

A. Validity of Mortgage

I first address French’s claim that the mortgage is void

for lack of a legally sufficient description. Under New

Hampshire law, the statute of frauds requires that contracts

transferring interests in land must be made in a writing that

“identif[ies] the parties, state[s] the price, and describe[s]

the land involved.” Cunningham v . Singer, 111 N.H. 159, 160

(1971). “A memorandum is sufficiently definite to satisfy the

statute of frauds if it is ‘reasonably certain from the contract

itself and the acts of the parties in performance of it what

land was intended.’” Jesseman v . Aurelio, 106 N.H. 529, 532

(1965) (quoting White v . Poole, 74 N.H. 7 1 , 73 (1906)). Where

the document’s language is clear enough to “denot[e] a

particular lot of land, it is not essential that it should

contain a statement of its boundaries, its geographical location

or other designations frequently used in formal conveyances of

real estate.” Id. at 532.

6 At this stage of litigation, I must accept as true French’s

assertions that Countrywide altered the mortgage document after

its execution and prior to recording it in the Merrimack County

Registry of Deeds. I must further accept as true that the

document currently possessed by French, which contains a blank

final page, is a true and accurate copy of the mortgage

document.

BONY argues that even if the final page of the mortgage

document is excised, the inclusion of the property’s address on

the document’s third page is sufficient to satisfy the statute

of frauds. I agree. French has failed to allege facts that

would establish that the address, even if unaccompanied by

further description, is not “sufficiently definite” to make

“reasonably certain” what parcel of land the mortgage document

covered. See Jesseman, 106 N.H. at 532. French has not alleged

that the address given on the document’s third page is different

than the address of the property he understood to have been

mortgaged, nor has he alleged any dispute at all between the

parties about the location or bounds of the property subject to

7 the mortgage.3 I therefore grant BONY’s motion to dismiss on

this claim.

French raises a related claim for the first time in his

objection to the motion to dismiss, arguing that Countrywide’s

alteration of the mortgage renders the entire document

fraudulent, and that it is without legal effect unless BONY

seeks equitable reformation. Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of O b j . to

Mot. to Dismiss at 5-6, Doc. N o . 19-1. This argument is without

merit because even if the recorded document is a nullity, the

unrecorded document that French claims to be the true and

accurate mortgage can still be enforced against him. See N.H.

Rev. Stat. Ann. § 477:7 (unrecorded mortgage is not valid

“against any person but the grantor and his heirs only”

(emphasis added)); Ouellette v . Butler, 125 N.H. 184, 188 (1984)

(failing to record interest in land does not render it

unenforceable as against those who have notice); Brown v .

Manter, 22 N.H. 468, 471 (1851) (“So far as the parties are

3 In his objection to the motion to dismiss, French states that at one time he owned two separate parcels of land with the mailing address of 74 Route 127. Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of O b j . to Mot. to Dismiss at 7 , Doc. N o . 19-1. Assuming the veracity of French’s claim, he has still failed to allege any confusion or discrepancy about what property was intended to be mortgaged. 8 concerned or those who have notice of the existence of the deed,

the enrolment is not essential to its validity.”).

B. Claims

I grant BONY’s motion to dismiss on the claims arising

under the New Hampshire Fair Debt Collection Act and the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act. Both claims are predicated on

the invalidity of the mortgage. Because the mortgage is valid

and enforceable, both claims fail.

C. Claim That BONY Does Not Hold the Note

Based on the manner in which MERS operates,4 French asserts

that MERS could not have passed the note to BONY when it

assigned BONY the mortgage, and therefore argues that “BONY does

not, or may not, hold the Note.” French contends that BONY does

not have the power to foreclose on the mortgage unless it also

holds the note. BONY responds that even if it is not the note-

holder, by virtue of having been assigned MERS’s interest in the

mortgage, it has the authority to foreclose. In a footnote,

BONY also asserts that it i s , in fact, the current holder of

4 For more detailed discussions of the role and operation of MERS, see generally In re MERS Litig., 659 F.Supp.2d 1368, 1370 n.6 (J.P.M.L. 2009); MERS v . Neb. Dep’t of Banking and Fin., 704 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Neb. 2005); In re MERSCORP, Inc. v . Romaine, 861 N.E.2d 8 1 , 83 (N.Y. 2006). 9 both the mortgage and the note. Def.’s Mem. in Resp. to Pl.’s

O b j . at 3 n.3, Doc. N o . 2 1 .

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has not recently addressed

the legal question of whether a mortgagee can foreclose on a

property even if it does not hold the note that was issued with

the mortgage. Moreover, New Hampshire Superior Court judges

have reached contradictory conclusions on the issue. Compare

Powers v . Aurora Loan Servs., N o . 213-2010-CV-00181, slip op. at

*16 (N.H. Super. Feb. 1 4 , 2011) (“The Court finds that the

assignment [of the mortgage] from MERS, as nominee for

GreenPoint, to Aurora is valid and that Aurora does have

standing to foreclose.”), with Zecevic v . U.S. Bank Nat’l

Assoc., N o . 10-E-196, slip op. at *5 (N.H. Super. Jan. 2 0 , 2011)

(“[T]o have jurisdiction and authority to foreclose, a party

must show that it is also the assignee of the underlying

promissory note because foreclosure of a mortgage may not be

brought by one who has no title to it and absent a transfer of

the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.”

(quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Because BONY claims to be the holder of the note, I see no

reason to delve into a complex, and apparently unresolved,

10 question of state law. Accordingly, I deny BONY’s motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to

addressing the issue in a properly supported motion for summary

judgment.

Lastly, in his objection to the motion to dismiss, French

raises a new argument pertaining to the legality of MERS’s

assignment of the property to BONY. French asserts that New

Hampshire law prohibits a corporation’s agent from transferring

real estate held by the corporation unless the agent was

“appointed by vote for that purpose.” See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 477:2. From this proposition, French deduces that BONY must

produce proof that Countrywide’s board of directors voted to

authorize MERS, and that MERS’s board of directors voted to

authorize Mark Lamper –- the assistant secretary whose signature

appears on the assignment document –- to assign the mortgage.

Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of O b j . to Mot. to Dismiss at 8 , Doc. N o .

19-1. In reply, BONY argues that French cannot introduce a new

theory of liability for the first time in an objection, and that

French has not even alleged that the agents who carried out the

transaction were not authorized.

11 I conclude that French has failed to sufficiently plead

this claim. First, his complaint is bereft of any factual

allegation that would support the claim. Second, even in his

objection, he does not allege that the actions taken were not

properly authorized; rather, he alleges that BONY has a duty to

produce specific votes of boards’ of directors. In the absence

of an allegation of unauthorized action, however, to force BONY

to produce proof of authorized action would flip the traditional

burden. At the pleading stage, the plaintiff must show that he

is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ; the burden is not on

the defendant to affirmatively show that his actions were in

concert with the law before plaintiff has even alleged a

violation.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, BONY’s motion to dismiss (Doc.

No. 17) is granted in part and denied in part. I deny the

motion to dismiss in regard to French’s claim for injunctive

relief on the basis that BONY does not hold the note. I grant

the motion in all other respects.

12 SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

November 1 4 , 2011

cc: Eugene F. Sullivan, III, Esq. Jennifer Turco Beaudet, Esq. Thomas J. Pappas, Esq.