Image copyright Catherine Lane 2015

The 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

In 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 

two (A1074067).jpgIn 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

This 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

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

This 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

Massachusetts 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

In 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.

In 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