holding that even if the assignment from MERS to BAC was flawed becausejt was not executed by the party alleged, “the proper party to bring a claim against MERS would be the other party to the assignment, BAC”
How later courts described this case
- holding that even if the assignment from MERS to BAC was flawed becausejt was not executed by the party alleged, “the proper party to bring a claim against MERS would be the other party to the assignment, BAC”
- holding that the borrower plaintiff lacked standing to contest the assignment of his security deed between two banks because he was not a party to that contractual assignment
- stating that plaintiff-borrower, who was not a party to the assignment, “ha[d] no basis to contest the validity of the assignment”
- holding that a borrower could not challenge an assignment to which he was not a party, even if the assignment was forged
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DOYLE, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur fully with the majority. I write separately only to note that while I concurred in the opinion in U. S. Bank, N.A. v. Phillips, 9 in which we vacated the trial court’s order regarding the appellee’s wrongful foreclosure claim and remanded the case with instruction that the case be stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in You v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:12-cv-202-JEC-AJB, 2012 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 127461, at *12 (III) (C) (N.D. Ga. Sept. *348 7, 2012), 10 for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion and in the interest of judicial economy, I agree that this case should be affirmed.
Decided March 29, 2013
Reconsideration denied April ll, 2013
Douglas R. Daum, for appellant.
McCalla Raymer, Jimmy T. Howell, Jr., Steven J. Flynn, Hunton & Williams, Brooke F. Voelzke, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Judge Boggs joins in this special concurrence.
318 Ga. App. 819 ( 734 SE2d 799 ) (2012).
You was docketed in the Supreme Court of Georgia on Sept. 13, 2012.