MERSCORP, Inc.: Case Summary

18889 Words76 Pages
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v...., 2012 WL 811507 (2012) 2012 WL 811507 (N.D.Tex.) (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERSCORP, INC. et al., Defendants. No. 3:11-CV-02733-O. March 9, 2012. Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss David J. Levy, State Bar No. 12264850, dlevy@morganlewis.com, Shannon A. Lang, State Bar No. 24070103, slang@morganlewis.com, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000, Houston, Texas 77002, 713.890.5000 Telephone, 713.890.5001 Facsimile, Robert M. Brochin (pro hac vice), rbrochin@morganlewis.com, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300,…show more content…
Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc., 2010 WL 3359541 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2010) ........................................................ Midwest Employers Cas. Co. v. Harpole, 293 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. -- San Antonio 2009, no pet.) ................................. NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. LHC Comm'cns, LLC, 537 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... Nevada ex rel. Bates v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 2011 WL 1582945 (D. Nev. Apr. 25, 2011) ............................. Nicholson v. OneWest Bank, 2010 WL 2732325 (N.D. Ga. April 20, 2010) ......................................................................... Ojeda De Toca v. Wise, 748 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1988) .............. Omaha Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Johnson, 344 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2011) ................................................................................ Oxford v. Williams Cos., 137 F. Supp. 2d 756 (E.D. Tex. 2001) .......................................................................................... © 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 16 2, 10 32 3, 15 5, 6, 7, 17 13 13, 40 14, 36, 37, 38, 39 31 28 21 36 34 2, 9, 12,…show more content…
Dallas County District Attorney Watkins agreed in the deed of trust he executed (which is a uniform instrument) that “MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.” FAC ¶ 101. He also agreed (as other borrowers do) that MERS can take actions on behalf of the lender and subsequent lenders: Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument. Exhibit B, App. 10; FAC ¶ 102. Texas courts have repeatedly enforced these provisions, holding that MERS may serve as mortgagee or beneficiary, with

More about MERSCORP, Inc.: Case Summary

Open Document