By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,Legislation,TitleThe Massachusetts Legislature and Governor Baker have taken a much needed step to limit further problems resulting from the Ibanez decision and its progeny. Those cases made clear that a foreclosure by a party that did not yet hold an assignment of the mortgage failed to convey good title. As a result, many third party… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleIn its recent decision (pdf) in Abate v. Fremont Investment & Loan, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed a Land Court judgment dismissing a foreclosed borrower’s “try title” action. “Try title” is a nineteenth century cause of action that allows an owner of land to force someone with an adverse claim to the land to either bring an action and prove his “better title” or forever hold his peace. … Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleIn its decision earlier this year in U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Schumacher (pdf), the Supreme Judicial Court addressed the impact of a failure to comply with requirements for providing notice of the mortgagor’s right to cure a default pursuant to M.G.L. c. 244, § 35A (our post on Schumacher is here). The recent Appeals Court case of Haskins v. Deutsche Bank… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,Miscellaneous,TitleIn the last few weeks the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decided two more cases dealing with the effects of botched foreclosure sales. The more important decision is U.S. Bank National Association v. Schumacher (pdf). Schumacher arises from M.G.L. c. 244, §35A, which the Legislature enacted in 2007 in response to the foreclosure crisis. This statute requires foreclosing banks to notify… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in ForeclosureAs a result of the First Circuit’s recent decision in Lemelson v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n., 721 F.3d 18 (2013), U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young was forced to reconsider his prior ruling in a “try title” case filed by a homeowner who claimed that the bank seeking to foreclose was not, in fact,… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleEducational opportunities abound this spring! Next Tuesday, April 2, 2013, at the Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) headquarters in Downtown Crossing, my current Rackemann colleague and fellow MLUM contributor Gordie Orloff, and my former Rackemann colleague, Land Court Justice Robert B. Foster, will be among the panelists in a program entitled, “Resolving Common & Complex Title Issues.” Among other topics, this program will cover how to spot and… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in Foreclosure,StandingThe Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is soliciting amicus briefs in Galiastro v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., an appeal that presents the issue of whether the defendant, MERS, has standing to foreclose in its own right as the named mortgagee in a mortgage, when it does not have any ownership interest or rights in the underlying promissory note. The SJC will also… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,Landlord-TenantThis morning the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its decision in Fannie Mae v. Hendricks (pdf), a summary process case that raised the issue of whether the Massachusetts statutory form of foreclosure affidavit – which has been in use for 100 years – is sufficient to show compliance with a power of sale, thereby entitling a foreclosing mortgagee to possession of the premises. The SJC held that,… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,Landlord-TenantJust when we thought the Supreme Judicial Court’s Eaton decision (see our post here) had resolved the last big question regarding foreclosure requirements, another case is providing new foreclosure fodder. Recently, the SJC requested amicus briefs in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Hendricks, SJC-11234. In this case a mortgagor, Hendricks, was evicted after his home was foreclosed. He appealed, arguing that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleLast Friday the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its anxiously-anticipated decision (pdf) in Eaton v. Fannie Mae. The decision is written by Justice Margot Botsford. As foreshadowed in our previous posts here and here, Eaton resolves the debate among lower Massachusetts courts and federal judges over whether Massachusetts law requires a foreclosing mortgage holder to also hold the promissory note secured… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in Foreclosure,Miscellaneous,TitleHere is the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Eaton v. Fannie Mae, released moments ago. It appears to require a foreclosing mortgagee to either have physical possession of the underlying promissory note or be acting as the authorized agent of the noteholder. Crucially for real estate practitioners, the decision applies only prospectively. More to follow shortly.… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleRumor has it that the Supreme Judicial Court will issue its long-awaited decision in the case of Eaton v. Fannie Mae later this morning. One crucial issue presented is whether a foreclosing mortgagee must hold both the mortgage and the note. For some background, see my colleague Gordie Orloff’s prior post here. We will bring you this potentially explosive decision… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in Foreclosure,MiscellaneousA couple of interesting foreclosure-related orders from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, as reported in this week’s Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (subscription required). In Morse v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., Judge Rya W. Zobel denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to the Massachusetts Land Court. Judge Zobel ruled that, although the plaintiff’s complaint sought only… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in ForeclosureIn a ruling that may presage the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s eagerly awaited decision in Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association (see our related posts here and here), a divided Supreme Court of Michigan has reversed a Court of Appeals decision that required Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to hold both the promissory note and the mortgage it was foreclosing. The… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in ForeclosureThe Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) apparently is concerned about the potential consequences of ruling in Eaton v. Fannie Mae (see our prior post here) that a foreclosing mortgagee must hold both the mortgage and the underlying promissory note (see our discussion of this issue, and Land Court Judge Gordon H. Piper’s recent message to the SJC, here). On January 6, the SJC entered the following order in… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in ForeclosureIn two decisions issued this fall and published this week in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts rejected all claims of plaintiffs challenging the foreclosure of their properties. In Archambault v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC (pdf), the plaintiffs tried to stop the foreclosure of their home by filing suit claiming that the defendant lacked authority to foreclose because (1) an assignment of… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in ForeclosureJudge Gordon H. Piper of the Land Court has added his voice to the chorus of opinions on the important issue presented in the case of Eaton v. Fannie Mae, which is awaiting decision by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). The issue is whether, under Massachusetts law, a foreclosing mortgagee must hold both the mortgage and the promissory note… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleAs discussed in previous posts (here, here and here), a hot topic in foreclosure law is whether a foreclosing mortgagee must also hold the promissory note secured by its mortgage. The latest contribution to this area of the law is U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young’s decision in Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, a 59-page… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in ForeclosureThis week, Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an exhaustive 59-page decision addressing two key issues that recur in countless foreclosure cases: the need for the foreclosing mortgagee to hold both the mortgage and the note, and the validity of a foreclosure of a mortgage once held… Continue Reading
By Donald Pinto on Posted in ForeclosureMassachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley today filed a wide-ranging lawsuit in Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston against Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, GMAC, Wells Fargo and MERS, alleging that the defendants’ conduct in foreclosing “hundreds, if not thousands” of mortgages in Massachusetts was fraudulent, unfair, deceptive and in violation of numerous provisions of Massachusetts… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleIn previous posts (here and here) we’ve discussed the question of whether ownership of the mortgage and the note must be unified in the same person. Superior Court Judge Cornelius Moriarty has now weighed in, with his split decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Mack v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 29 Mass. L. Rptr. No. 1, 14… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleIn the Superior Court case Adamson v. MERS, the plaintiff foreclosed-on borrower is challenging the foreclosure on several grounds. The defendant mortgage lender and its loan servicer recently moved to dismiss the case, and in an interesting decision (pdf), Rackemann alum Judge Raymond Brassard allowed the motion to dismiss in part. Most interestingly, Judge Brassard addressed the plaintiff’s claim that the… Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,Landlord-Tenant,LegislationLast month the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decided Federal National Mortgage Association v. Nunez (pdf). We discussed the oral argument of that appeal in this earlier post. Nunez concerned a summary process (i.e. eviction) action filed by Fannie Mae against a tenant living in a foreclosed residential property. That action was pending, but not completed, before the effective date of M.G.L. c. 186A. … Continue Reading
By Gordon Orloff on Posted in Foreclosure,TitleToday the Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez (pdf). We have discussed this case in prior posts (see comments here and here). The decision was authored by Justice Spina and, in our view, demonstrates a good grasp of the legal principles at issue. The SJC affirmed the Land Court’s dismissal of an “action to… Continue Reading
