Posts tagged "1111616"

U.S. Bank National Association v. Bolling (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-116-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   15-P-1259                                       Appeals Court   U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, trustee,[1]  vs.  WENDY BOLLING.     No. 15-P-1259.   Hampden.     June 9, 2016. – September 1, 2016.   Present:  Grainger, Meade, & Wolohojian, JJ.     Contract, Choice of law clause.  Mortgage, Assignment, Foreclosure.  Real Property, Mortgage.  Practice, Civil, Standing.  Conflict of Laws.       Summary process.  Complaint filed in the Western Division of the Housing Court Department on April 17, 2012.   The case was heard by Robert G. Fields, J., on motions for summary judgment; a motion to vacate judgment, filed on April 1, 2014, was heard by him; a motion for reconsideration, filed on May 22, 2014, was heard by him; and the entry of judgment was ordered by him.     Robert Bruce Allensworth (Robert W. Sparkes, III, with him) for the plaintiff. Glenn F. Russell, Jr., for the defendant. Daniel Bahls & Uri Strauss, for Luz Diaz, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.     WOLOHOJIAN, J.  At issue is whether the defendant, Wendy Bolling, has standing to challenge the assignment of a mortgage that was not made in accordance with the terms of a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) to which she was not a party.  Because the defect rendered the assignment merely voidable rather than void, we conclude that she does not. Bolling moved for summary judgment in the summary process eviction action below, arguing (among other things)[2] that the foreclosure sale through which the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, trustee for RASC 2006KS9 c/o GMAC Mortgage, LLC (trust), took title to a property at 114 Lamont Street, Springfield, was void because the assignment of the mortgage to the trust did not comply with the terms of a PSA between Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Residential Funding Company, LLC, and U.S. Bank National Association.[3]  Specifically, Bolling alleged that the assignment did not take place within the time period required under the PSA.  She further argued that this deficiency rendered the assignment void under New York law, which she contended governed because of the PSA’s choice-of-law provision.[4]  The judge agreed, ruled that Bolling had standing to challenge the assignment because it was void under New York law (and not merely voidable), and allowed her motion for summary judgment.  Judgment entered accordingly.  The trust appeals. We begin with the proposition, of long standing, that Massachusetts applies its own law […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 1, 2016 at 9:59 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,