Posts tagged "Darbouze"

Gold Star Homes, LLC v. Darbouze, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-049-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   14-P-1177                                       Appeals Court   GOLD STAR HOMES, LLC  vs.  MARCUS DARBOUZE & another.[1] No. 14-P-1177. Essex.     March 2, 2016. – May 11, 2016.   Present:  Hanlon, Sullivan, & Massing, JJ.     Summary Process, Appeal.  Housing Court.  Practice, Civil, Summary process, Pendency of prior action.  Mortgage, Foreclosure.  Real Property, Mortgage, Deed.       Summary Process.  Complaint filed in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department on September 16, 2013.   The case was heard by Timothy F. Sullivan, J.     John L. McGowan for the defendants. John P. Miller (Jennifer H. O’Brien with him) for the plaintiff.     MASSING, J.  The defendants, Marcus Darbouze (Marcus) and Marie R. Darbouze (Marie)[2] (together, the Darbouzes), appeal from a judgment, after a summary process trial in the Housing Court, awarding possession of their residence in Billerica (the property) to the plaintiff, Gold Star Homes, LLC (Gold Star).  The Darbouzes assert that the Housing Court judge should not have permitted the trial to go forward during the pendency in the Land Court of a related, prior action in which Marie sought a declaration invalidating the foreclosure sale.  On the merits, the Darbouzes contend that the judge erred by rejecting their defenses to summary process:  that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), the entity that conducted the foreclosure sale, was not the mortgage holder, and that MERS’s postforeclosure conveyance of the property to Gold Star by foreclosure deed was ineffective.  We affirm.[3] Background.  1.  The mortgage and foreclosure.  The evidence presented at the summary process trial established the following facts.[4]  On January 20, 2006, Marie purchased the property for $ 345,000, financed entirely by two loans.  She borrowed $ 276,000 of the purchase price from Fremont Investment & Loan (Fremont), granting a first mortgage to MERS, “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.”  (The details of the loan for the remainder of the purchase price, secured by a second mortgage, are immaterial to the subsequent events and proceedings.)  Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), as trustee for Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-1, purchased the loan later in 2006 as part of a pooling agreement. On January 7, 2008, Deutsche Bank initiated proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501 et seq. (2006) (servicemembers act) in the Land Court prior to commencing foreclosure on […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 11, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,