Borrowers' forgery claim fails—what servicers should check now
North Dakota's high court upheld MidFirst Bank's foreclosure after rejecting a borrower challenge to a mortgage assignment.
On December 4, 2025, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a win for MidFirst Bank in a Fargo foreclosure dispute centered on whether borrowers can attack a mortgage assignment they didn't sign. The answer was no, and the foreclosure stood.
Here are the basics. In April 2016, James and Tahnee Young took out a $275,793 loan secured by a mortgage on their Fargo home. The Mortgage Company, Inc. originated the loan, and MERS was named as nominee on the mortgage. MidFirst Bank acquired ownership of the note in July 2022. The Youngs made their last payment in February 2023. MidFirst served a foreclosure notice in December 2023 and filed a foreclosure complaint in February 2024.
The Youngs fought back with counterclaims, including fraudulent misrepresentation, FDCPA and FCRA violations, RESPA violations, unjust enrichment, coercive collection practices, and constructive fraud. Their main claim was that the mortgage assignment's signature was defective – allegedly robo-signed or forged – supported by affidavits from three purported handwriting experts. In July 2024, the trial court denied the Youngs' motion for summary judgment, granted MidFirst's cross-motion, and denied their request for audio recordings of two hearings. The Youngs appealed.
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed across the board. The core ruling will ring familiar for servicing and foreclosure teams: the borrowers lacked standing to challenge the mortgage assignment because they were not parties to that contract. Because of that, the dispute over whether the signature was authentic did not change the outcome. The court also reiterated a straightforward state-law principle: the mortgage follows the note. If a party holds the note, it can foreclose under the mortgage. The record showed MidFirst held the note and did not violate the mortgage terms or any law in foreclosing, so summary judgment for MidFirst was proper.
On the federal claims, the court agreed with the trial judge that the FDCPA and FCRA claims were barred by res judicata based on prior federal litigation between the parties. The RESPA claim failed because the borrowers did not show actual damages. The court also rejected arguments that the judge was biased. One procedural wrinkle drew a mild rebuke: the trial court should not have denied access to audio recordings merely because the transcript is the official record. That was an abuse of discretion. But it didn't affect the outcome, so the error was harmless. The justices also declined to revisit a separate briefing-schedule dispute already decided by the Chief Justice when the borrowers did not seek full-court reconsideration.
The bottom line: the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed MidFirst Bank's foreclosure on December 4, 2025, holding the borrowers could not challenge a third-party assignment and confirming that the note holder can proceed with foreclosure when the record supports it.
