Idaho Supreme Court Affirms MERS’ Role as Beneficiary

The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed a plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure complaint against ""Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc."":http://www.mersinc.org/ (MERS) and defendants, affirming a district court ruling.

[IMAGE]

The plaintiff in _Edwards v. MERS et. al_ brought action against the defendants to stop a non-judicial foreclosure and argued MERS, the named beneficiary, could not legally act as the beneficiary.

[COLUMN_BREAK]

The plaintiff also claimed that listing MERS as the beneficiary does not give MERS the authority to take actions as a beneficiary, including appointing co-defendant Pioneer Lender Trustee Services as successor trustee. The plaintiff further contended MERS must have an interest in the note secured by the deed of trust to act as the beneficiary.

The deed of trust showed Lehman Brothers as the lender, while MERS, as nominee for the lender, was named the beneficiary, and Alliance Title was the trustee.

However, MERS signed a document stating the ""original trustee had ceased acting as trustee"" and Pioneer was the trustee in place of Alliance Title, according to the opinion.

Justice Daniel T. Eismann wrote on behalf of the five-justice panel and stated, ""MERS, as agent for the lender, had the authority to direct that such action be taken.""

In the opinion, Eismann further explained the trustee, not the beneficiary, is the one who forecloses the deed of trust, and the beneficiary, which was MERS in the case, has the authority to appoint a successor trustee.

Furthermore, MERS, acting as nominee of Lehman, could also appoint Pioneer as successor trustee, which gave Pioneer ""the authority to institute foreclosure proceedings,"" the opinion stated.