CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 
Appellant-Intervenor/Cross-Claimaint, 

vs. 

SHANNON S. BARABAS A/K/A SHANNON  )
SHEETS BARABAS,

  Cross-Claim Defendant, 

RECASA FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,
  Appellee-Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Defendant, 
    and 
RICK A. SANDERS, 
  Appellee/Third-Party Defendant. 

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Fredrick R. Spencer, Judge
Cause No. 48C01-0806-CC-593

May 17, 2011

OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION

MERS loses once again.  In this case, MERS assigned a property from Irwin Mortgage to Citi after a different lender (2 other mortgages) foreclosed on the property.  Citi filed a motion to intervene more than a year later and have the foreclosure set aside because ReCasa failed to notify MERS of the foreclosure.    The court, citing Landmark v. Kesler, opined s follows:

We choose to follow the persuasive reasoning of the Landmark case because it is factually similar to the present case. Like Landmark, Citi seeks to have the default judgment set aside based on the fact that it received its interest from MERS, which served as the mortgagee “solely as nominee” for Irwin Mortgage. (Appellant’s App. p. 88). Thus, when Irwin Mortgage filed a petition and disclaimed its interest in the foreclosure, MERS, as mere nominee and holder of nothing more than bare legal title to the mortgage, did not have an enforceable right under the mortgage separate from the interest held by Irwin Mortgage. With respect to notice, just as the mortgage in Landmark referenced all notice to be sent to the lender, here, too, the mortgage states that notice to the lender should be sent to the lender’s address, or “10500 Kincaid Drive, Fishers, IN 46038,” which is the address of Irwin Mortgage. (Appellant’s App. p. 88). Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to set aside ReCasa’s amended default judgment.

Full opinion below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Citibank (Mers) v Barabas Court of Appeals Indiana