## Facts

- Nelson and Brenda Witt took out a loan from CIT Group/Consumer Finance Inc. (CIT).
- The Witts executed a promissory note and a deed of trust that used certain real property as security for the loan.
- CIT later assigned all of its beneficial rights, title, and interest under the note and deed of trust to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).
- The Witts defaulted under the note and deed of trust.
- Foreclosure proceedings were initiated against the property.
- The Witts sued CIT, MERS, and Aurora Loan Services LLC, raising claims tied to the assignment and the defendants’ roles in the foreclosure process.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether the Witts stated a plausible claim for relief challenging the defendants’ ability to proceed with foreclosure after CIT assigned its beneficial interest under the note and deed of trust to MERS.
2. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts—beyond conclusory objections to the assignment structure and the defendants’ roles as lender, assignee, and servicer—to support relief against CIT, MERS, or Aurora.
3. Whether dismissal was warranted at the pleading stage based on the complaint and the loan documents and recorded instruments referenced in (or central to) the allegations.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- The court concluded the complaint did not plead enough well-pleaded facts to state legally viable claims arising from CIT’s assignment to MERS and the defendants’ involvement in the foreclosure process.
- The court dismissed the Witts’ foreclosure-related claims at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint must contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief; labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitations are not enough.
- When claims turn on the content and legal effect of the note, deed of trust, or recorded assignment documents, the court may consider those documents in evaluating a motion to dismiss when they are referenced in the complaint or central to the claims.
- An assignment of the lender’s beneficial interest under a deed of trust (including to MERS) does not, by itself, invalidate the loan documents or establish that no defendant has authority to act; a borrower must allege a concrete legal defect tied to recognized rights and duties.
- Borrowers challenging foreclosure activity must identify specific contractual or legal violations connected to the foreclosure process, not simply dispute the identity or role of parties involved.

## Conclusion

In *Witt v. CIT Group/Consumer Finance Inc.*, the District of Utah dismissed borrowers’ claims arising from a default and ensuing foreclosure proceedings, holding that the complaint did not plead sufficient facts to support relief based on CIT’s assignment of the loan’s beneficial interest to MERS and the related conduct of the lender, assignee, and servicer.


Witt v. CIT Group/Consumer Finance Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117915 (2010)