Homeowner has standing to challenge mortgage assignments.

In a case of first impression, mortgagor has standing to challenge assignment of mortgage if to do so renders the assignment void, rather than voidable:

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, No. 12-1285 (1st Cir. 2/15/13).

In a case of first impression, the court held that the mortgagor possesses standing to challenge the assignment of its mortgage to another entity.  "Withal, a mortgagor does not have standing to challenge shortcomings in an assignment that render it merely voidable at the election of one party but otherwise effective to pass legal title." - thus, making the distinction that the challenge must be that the assignment is "void", rather than "voidable". Thus, here, the mortgagor (namely the borrower or home owner at issue) has standing to contest the validity of the mortgage assignment made by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), to defendant, the foreclosing entity; however, the MERS framework and defendant's foreclosure of plaintiff's property complied with the requirements of Massachusetts mortgage law, and thus the foreclosure was lawful. Applying Massachusetts law, the court noted that in Massachusetts, the note and mortgage may be held by separate entities. Further, the terms of the mortgage (contract) authorized the transfer at issue. 

"[I]n Massachusetts, a mortgagor has a legally cognizable right to challenge a foreclosing entity's status qua mortgagee. This may, in certain instances, require challenging the validity of an assignment that purports to transfer the mortgage to a successor mortgagee.  Standing doctrine is meant to be a shield to protect the court from any role in the adjudication of disputes that do not measure up to a minimum set of adversarial requirements.  There is no principled basis for employing standing doctrine as a sword to deprive mortgagors of legal protection conferred up them under state law.  We hold, therefore, that a mortgagor has standing to challenge the assignment of a mortgage on her home to the extent tat such a challenge is necessary to context a foreclosing entity's status qua mortgagee.  We caution that our hold, narrow to begin with, is further circumscribed.  We hold only that a mortgagor has standing to challenge a mortgage assignment as invalid, ineffective, or void (if, say, the assignor had nothing to assign or had not authority to make an assignment to a particular assignee).  If successful, a challenge of this sort would be sufficient to refute an assignee's status qua mortgagee . . . Withal, a mortgagor doe not have standing to challenge shortcomings in an assignment that render it merely voidable at the election of one party but otherwise effective to pass legal title."

Click here: USCA1 Opinion