## Facts

- Trevor and Melissa Erlandson obtained a home loan from Homecomings Financial, LLC in exchange for signing a promissory note.
- The Erlandsons also executed a mortgage on their property to secure repayment of the note.
- Legal title to the mortgage was later assigned to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase).
- The promissory note was not formally assigned to Chase (at least not in a way reflected in the materials relied on by the Erlandsons).
- After the Erlandsons defaulted, Chase filed a Minnesota judicial foreclosure action.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Chase, authorizing foreclosure.
- A sheriff’s sale occurred, and Chase purchased the property.
- Chase waived any right to a deficiency judgment against the Erlandsons.
- The district court confirmed the sheriff’s sale.
- The Erlandsons appealed, arguing Chase could not foreclose because it did not possess the underlying promissory note.

## Issues

1. Under Minnesota law, may a plaintiff that holds legal title to a mortgage foreclose judicially without proving it possesses or owns the promissory note secured by the mortgage?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that Chase’s legal title to the mortgage was sufficient to support a judicial foreclosure action even though the promissory note was not formally assigned to Chase.
- The court rejected the Erlandsons’ argument that the foreclosing party must possess the note as a prerequisite to judicial foreclosure.
- Because the foreclosure judgment was proper, the district court also properly confirmed the sheriff’s sale.

## Legal Principles

- Minnesota’s judicial foreclosure framework does not impose a general requirement that the foreclosing mortgagee prove it possesses or owns the promissory note, absent a statute or other showing that would make note possession dispositive.
- A mortgage and the debt it secures are distinct instruments; the fact that the note and mortgage are not shown to be held by the same entity does not, by itself, bar judicial foreclosure.
- Where the mortgage assignee’s status as mortgagee and the borrower’s default are not genuinely disputed, the borrower’s “produce the note” contention is a legal argument that does not prevent summary judgment.
- When a foreclosure judgment is valid and statutory sale procedures are followed, confirmation of the sheriff’s sale should not be denied solely because the purchaser did not prove note possession.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment and sale confirmation, holding that Chase, as holder of legal title to the mortgage, could proceed with Minnesota judicial foreclosure without proving it possessed or owned the promissory note, and the Erlandsons’ contrary argument did not invalidate the foreclosure or the sheriff’s sale.


JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Erlandson, 821 N.W.2d 600 (2012)