Just 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
Last 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
Here 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.
Rumor 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
A 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
In 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
The 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
In 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
Judge 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
As 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