Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Successful Quiet Title claim against MERS

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Posts
  • May 2, 2011 at 11:47 AM #18771
    capeman
    Participant

    Successful Quiet Title claim against MERS.

    TX Quiet Title Appeal VICTORY Against MERS | Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems v. Nancy Groves

    [quote]Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 12, 2011.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-10-00090-CV
    Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for GreenSPoint Funding, Appellant
    V.
    Nancy Groves, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 334th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 2009-29112

    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Nancy Groves sued Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as nominee for Greenspoint Funding, to invalidate a deed of trust securing MERS’s alleged lien on Groves’s property. The trial court entered a default judgment against MERS, which then filed this restricted appeal. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Groves filed her original petition against MERS on May 8, 2009. She alleged that she owns a certain tract of land subject to a lien secured by a deed of trust “accepted and recorded” by MERS. She further alleged that the deed of trust is invalid and asked the trial court to remove it and quiet title in Groves. MERS was served with process but failed to file an answer, and Groves filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court signed a default judgment against MERS stating that (1) Groves owns the property in question; (2) the deed of trust is “void and of no force or effect;” and (3) the deed of trust be removed from the property title.
    MERS filed a timely notice of restricted appeal, arguing that (1) “Groves failed to properly state a cause of action and such failure is plain on the face of Groves’s petition;” and (2) “no justiciable controversy is alleged in Groves’s petition.”
    CONCLUSION
    Having overruled both of MERS’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /s/ William J. Boyce Justice[/quote]

    May 2, 2011 at 5:18 PM #691343
    njtosd
    Participant

    Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.

    May 2, 2011 at 5:18 PM #691413
    njtosd
    Participant

    Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.

    May 2, 2011 at 5:18 PM #692017
    njtosd
    Participant

    Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.

    May 2, 2011 at 5:18 PM #692161
    njtosd
    Participant

    Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.

    May 2, 2011 at 5:18 PM #692505
    njtosd
    Participant

    Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.

    May 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM #691358
    ucodegen
    Participant

    [quote=njtosd]Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.[/quote]

    I concur. Quoted:

    MERS was served with process but failed to file an answer, and Groves filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court signed a default judgment against MERS stating that (1) Groves owns the property in question; (2) the deed of trust is “void and of no force or effect;” and (3) the deed of trust be removed from the property title.

    The problem is that MERS tried to appeal making claim that her action was invalid. This should have been their first response instead of not responding and getting a default judgment. MERS had their chance and the door closed. You have to appeal based on new ground or invalidity of process. Problem is that if you don’t respond – you can get hit with a default judgment – which is normal process.

    It just means that MERS has to wake up when it gets served…

    May 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM #691428
    ucodegen
    Participant

    [quote=njtosd]Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.[/quote]

    I concur. Quoted:

    MERS was served with process but failed to file an answer, and Groves filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court signed a default judgment against MERS stating that (1) Groves owns the property in question; (2) the deed of trust is “void and of no force or effect;” and (3) the deed of trust be removed from the property title.

    The problem is that MERS tried to appeal making claim that her action was invalid. This should have been their first response instead of not responding and getting a default judgment. MERS had their chance and the door closed. You have to appeal based on new ground or invalidity of process. Problem is that if you don’t respond – you can get hit with a default judgment – which is normal process.

    It just means that MERS has to wake up when it gets served…

    May 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM #692032
    ucodegen
    Participant

    [quote=njtosd]Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.[/quote]

    I concur. Quoted:

    MERS was served with process but failed to file an answer, and Groves filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court signed a default judgment against MERS stating that (1) Groves owns the property in question; (2) the deed of trust is “void and of no force or effect;” and (3) the deed of trust be removed from the property title.

    The problem is that MERS tried to appeal making claim that her action was invalid. This should have been their first response instead of not responding and getting a default judgment. MERS had their chance and the door closed. You have to appeal based on new ground or invalidity of process. Problem is that if you don’t respond – you can get hit with a default judgment – which is normal process.

    It just means that MERS has to wake up when it gets served…

    May 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM #692175
    ucodegen
    Participant

    [quote=njtosd]Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.[/quote]

    I concur. Quoted:

    MERS was served with process but failed to file an answer, and Groves filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court signed a default judgment against MERS stating that (1) Groves owns the property in question; (2) the deed of trust is “void and of no force or effect;” and (3) the deed of trust be removed from the property title.

    The problem is that MERS tried to appeal making claim that her action was invalid. This should have been their first response instead of not responding and getting a default judgment. MERS had their chance and the door closed. You have to appeal based on new ground or invalidity of process. Problem is that if you don’t respond – you can get hit with a default judgment – which is normal process.

    It just means that MERS has to wake up when it gets served…

    May 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM #692520
    ucodegen
    Participant

    [quote=njtosd]Don’t really know how relevant this is to anything. MERS seems to have failed to file a timely answer – so the result was independent of the underlying facts of the case.[/quote]

    I concur. Quoted:

    MERS was served with process but failed to file an answer, and Groves filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court signed a default judgment against MERS stating that (1) Groves owns the property in question; (2) the deed of trust is “void and of no force or effect;” and (3) the deed of trust be removed from the property title.

    The problem is that MERS tried to appeal making claim that her action was invalid. This should have been their first response instead of not responding and getting a default judgment. MERS had their chance and the door closed. You have to appeal based on new ground or invalidity of process. Problem is that if you don’t respond – you can get hit with a default judgment – which is normal process.

    It just means that MERS has to wake up when it gets served…

    May 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM #691388
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    I also concur. Had this case been in CA, MERS would have/should have filed a demurrer as their “answer.”

    The only “holding” here is that the trial court’s decision is upheld because MERS failed to answer and thus the case went to default judgment.

    There is really no particular holding related to MERS being on the title of record.

    Groves appears to have “won” thru a “technicality.” Perhaps counsel for MERS was asleep at the switch on this one.

    May 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM #691458
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    I also concur. Had this case been in CA, MERS would have/should have filed a demurrer as their “answer.”

    The only “holding” here is that the trial court’s decision is upheld because MERS failed to answer and thus the case went to default judgment.

    There is really no particular holding related to MERS being on the title of record.

    Groves appears to have “won” thru a “technicality.” Perhaps counsel for MERS was asleep at the switch on this one.

    May 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM #692061
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    I also concur. Had this case been in CA, MERS would have/should have filed a demurrer as their “answer.”

    The only “holding” here is that the trial court’s decision is upheld because MERS failed to answer and thus the case went to default judgment.

    There is really no particular holding related to MERS being on the title of record.

    Groves appears to have “won” thru a “technicality.” Perhaps counsel for MERS was asleep at the switch on this one.

    May 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM #692204
    bearishgurl
    Participant

    I also concur. Had this case been in CA, MERS would have/should have filed a demurrer as their “answer.”

    The only “holding” here is that the trial court’s decision is upheld because MERS failed to answer and thus the case went to default judgment.

    There is really no particular holding related to MERS being on the title of record.

    Groves appears to have “won” thru a “technicality.” Perhaps counsel for MERS was asleep at the switch on this one.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.