Dugan also cited previous cases in denyingrnthe right of the plaintiffs to even bring the suit on the grounds that “arnlitigant who is not a party to an assignment lacks standing to challenge thatrnassignment.”  The standing of arnplaintiff, usually either the party who was foreclosed or a local governmentrnofficial claiming a usurpation of authority by MERS, has been an issue in whichrnMERS has prevailed in several other states.</p

In the second suit, McLaughlin v. ChasernHome Finance, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff rejected the plaintiffs’ claims ofrnfraud, wrongful foreclosure, and violations of the Fair Debt CollectionrnPractices Act (FDCPA) by MERS and Chase Home Finance.   Zatkoff also cited the Saurman</idecision, writing that "MERS is</istatutorily authorized to foreclose by Advertisement…[t]hus, to the extent thatrn[plaintiffs] rely on the Court of Appeals' ruling in Saurman, Plaintiffs’ arguments fail as a matter of law.” Thernjudge also rejected the plaintiffs’ allegations that MERS could not be arnmortgagee, writing that “the Mortgage clearly declares MERS the mortgagee.rnPlaintiffs granted the Property and power of sale to MERS and its successorsrnand assigns. The Mortgage also grants MERS the right to foreclose. MERS in turnrnexecuted an unambiguous document assigning its rights under the Mortgage. rnThus, a record chain of title clearly exists, providing Chase the right tornforeclose.'”