Lawrence R. O'Leary, Jr. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

99 A.3d 986, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 119, 2014 WL 4782458
CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island
DecidedSeptember 25, 2014
Docket2013-209-Appeal
StatusUnpublished

This text of 99 A.3d 986 (Lawrence R. O'Leary, Jr. 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
Lawrence R. O'Leary, Jr. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 99 A.3d 986, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 119, 2014 WL 4782458 (R.I. 2014).

Opinion

ORDER

The plaintiff, Lawrence R. O’Leary, Jr., appeals from an entry of summary judgment in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), Federal *987 National Mortgage Association, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. 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 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.

After careful review of the record in this ease, we are convinced that the plaintiff has failed to submit competent evidence demonstrating a question of material fact in this case or demonstrating that the assignment was not properly authorized. See Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527, 532 (R.I.2013) (party opposing summary judgment must submit evidence of substantial nature to dispute questions of material fact). The plaintiffs assertion that MERS could not hold the mortgage without the promissory note and had no authority to assign the mortgage in this case is also without merit. In Bucci v. Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, 68 A.3d 1069,1085-89 (R.I.2013), this Court established that MERS may serve as a mortgagee without holding the promissory note. It is well settled that MERS has the authority under the terms of the mortgage in this case to assign it. See Ingram v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 94 A.3d 523, 528 (R.I.2014).

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)
Walter J. Mruk, Jr. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
82 A.3d 527 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 A.3d 986, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 119, 2014 WL 4782458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-r-oleary-jr-v-mortgage-electronic-registration-systems-inc-ri-2014.