Maria J. Casimiro v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ( 2014 )

Supreme Court
No. 2013-210-Appeal.
Maria J. Casimiro et al. :
v. :
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, :
Inc., et al. :
ORDER
The plaintiffs appeal from a Superior Court summary judgment, in favor of the
defendants, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) and Federal National
Mortgage Association (FNMA). This case came before the Supreme Court at a session in
conference pursuant to Article I, Rule 12A(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate
Procedure. The plaintiffs raise several issues challenging the validity of the foreclosure sale of
their property. At this time, we proceed to decide this case without further briefing and
argument.
We review the granting of a motion for summary judgment de novo, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Moura v. Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., 90 A.3d 852, 855 (R.I. 2014). We will affirm the judgment if there
are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Id. “[T]he burden is on the nonmoving party to produce competent evidence that ‘prove[s]
the existence of a disputed issue of material fact[.]’” Id. at 856 (quoting Sullo v. Greenberg, 68
A.3d 404, 407 (R.I. 2013)). “[T]he nonmoving party * * * cannot rest upon mere allegations or
1
denials in the pleadings, mere conclusions or mere legal opinions.” Id. (quoting Mruk v.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527, 532 (R.I. 2013)).
In this matter, the plaintiffs have failed to submit competent evidence demonstrating
issues of material fact. Further, we disagree with the plaintiffs’ contention that the trial justice
engaged in fact finding as to several issues. What the trial justice did find was an absence of
genuine issues with respect to each of the appellants’ claims.
The plaintiffs further contend that MERS’s status as nominee of the lender is not a
recognized estate under Rhode Island Law, that the assignments were void because the mortgage
and note were not united, and that the foreclosure was void for the same reason. We rejected
similar arguments in Bucci v. Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, 68 A.3d 1069 (R.I. 2013) and Mruk
v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527 (R.I. 2013), and find these cases
to be controlling here.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ appeal is denied and dismissed.
Entered as an Order of this Court on this 25th day of September, 2014.
By Order,
/s/
Clerk
2
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet
TITLE OF CASE: Maria J. Casimiro et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. et al.
CASE NO: No. 2013-210-Appeal.
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE ORDER FILED: September 25, 2014
JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
WRITTEN BY: N/A – Court Order
SOURCE OF APPEAL: Providence County Superior Court
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT:
Associate Justice Bennett R. Gallo
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For Plaintiffs: George E. Babcock, Esq.
For Defendants: Dean J. Wagner, Esq.