Posts tagged "Marroquin"

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Marroquin, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-074-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   SJC-12139   FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION  vs.  ELVITRIA M. MARROQUIN & others.[1]       Essex.     January 9, 2017. – May 11, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.     Mortgage, Foreclosure, Real estate.  Real Property, Mortgage, Sale.  Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage.       Summary process.  Complaint filed in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department on June 18, 2012.   The case was heard by David D. Kerman, J., on motions for summary judgment.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Cody J. Cocanig for the plaintiff. Dayne Lee (Eloise P. Lawrence also present) for Elvitria M. Marroquin. Joshua T. Gutierrez, Daniel D. Bahls, & Andrew S. Webman, for Lewis R. Fleischner & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.     GANTS, C.J.  In Pinti v. Emigrant Mtge. Co., 472 Mass. 226, 227, 232 (2015), we held that a foreclosure by statutory power of sale pursuant to G. L. c. 183, § 21, and G. L. c. 244, §§ 11-17C, is invalid unless the notice of default strictly complies with paragraph 22 of the standard mortgage, which informs the mortgagor of, among other things, the action required to cure the default, and the right of the mortgagor to bring a court action to challenge the existence of a default or to present any defense to acceleration and foreclosure.  We applied this holding to the parties in Pinti but concluded that our decision “should be given prospective effect only.”  Id. at 243.  We therefore declared that the decision “will apply to mortgage foreclosure sales of properties that are the subject of a mortgage containing paragraph 22 or its equivalent and for which the notice of default required by paragraph 22 is sent after the date of this opinion,” which was issued on July 17, 2015.  Id.  We did not reach the question whether our holding should be applied to any case pending in the trial court or on appeal.  Id. at 243 n.25.  We reach that question here, and conclude that the Pinti decision applies in any case where the issue was timely and fairly asserted in the trial court or on appeal before July 17, 2015.  Because we conclude that the defendants timely and fairly raised this issue in the Housing Court before that date, and because the notice of default did not strictly […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 12, 2017 at 12:00 am

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