Posts tagged "1109317"

Strawbridge v. The Bank of New York Mellon (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-093-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   16-P-1244                                       Appeals Court   SANDRA M. STRAWBRIDGE  vs.  THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON.[1]     No. 16-P-1244.   Norfolk.     May 1, 2017. – July 20, 2017.   Present:  Agnes, Massing, & Lemire, JJ.     Mortgage, Foreclosure, Assignment.  Real Property, Mortgage.  Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage.  Assignment.  Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 11, 2015.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Jeffrey A. Locke, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him.     Glenn F. Russell, Jr., for the plaintiff. Anthony J. Coletti for the defendant.     AGNES, J.  The plaintiff, Sandra M. Strawbridge, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing her verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, which challenges the action of the defendant, Bank of New York Mellon (Bank), as trustee for the Certificateholders CWABS, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates Series 2007-10 (CWABS trust), to foreclose on her property.  She maintains that the judge erred in applying G. L. c. 244, § 14, and some of our recent case law.  As Strawbridge has failed to state a plausible claim that the Bank, at the time of foreclosure, did not hold both the mortgage and the note, see Eaton v. Federal Natl. Mort. Assn., 462 Mass. 569, 583-589 (2012), and based on the sound reasoning in the judge’s thorough memorandum of decision, we affirm. Background.  The verified complaint, viewed in a light most favorable to Strawbridge, contains the following facts.  In 2007, Strawbridge received a $ 370,000 loan as part of a home refinancing arrangement with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide).  In exchange for the loan, Strawbridge executed a promissory note payable to Countrywide, and granted a mortgage on the subject property to secure payment for the note.  The mortgage identified Countrywide as the “Lender” and Strawbridge as the “Borrower.”  The mortgage also designated Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)[2] as the mortgagee, “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.”  Although MERS held the mortgage solely as a nominee for Countrywide, the mortgage contained a provision authorizing MERS to act on behalf of Countrywide in the event of a default.[3] In 2009, Strawbridge defaulted on her note by failing to keep up with her mortgage payments.  In February, 2010, MERS assigned Strawbridge’s mortgage to the Bank.  A MERS […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 20, 2017 at 2:49 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,