Galiastro, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-023-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11299 ANNE-MARIE GALIASTRO & another[1] vs. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., & another.[2] Worcester. October 7, 2013. ‑ February 13, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss, Retroactivity of judicial holding. Retroactivity of Judicial Holding. Mortgage, Foreclosure, Real estate. Real Property, Mortgage. Consumer Protection Act, Unfair act or practice. Conspiracy. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 29, 2010. A motion to dismiss was heard by John S. McCann, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Glenn F. Russell, Jr., for the plaintiffs. Robert M. Brochin (Todd S. Holbrook with him) for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Nathalie K. Salomon for Harmon Law Offices, P.C. Grace C. Ross, pro se, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Geoffry Walsh, for National Consumer Law Center, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. DUFFLY, J. We address in this case whether the plaintiffs and others who had appeals pending in the Appeals Court when we decided Eaton v. Federal Nat’l Mtge. Ass’n, 462 Mass. 569, 569 (2012) (Eaton), may pursue claims seeking to invalidate foreclosure proceedings based on our decision in that case.[3] We held in Eaton that a foreclosure by power of sale pursuant to G. L. c. 183, § 21, and G. L. c. 244, §§ 11-17C, is invalid unless a foreclosing party holds the mortgage and also either holds the underlying mortgage note or acts on behalf of the note holder. Id. at 571. We concluded also that the interpretation of “mortgagee” in statutes governing foreclosures under statutory power of sale provisions would have only prospective effect, although we applied our newly announced interpretation to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in that case. Id. We now extend application of the holding in Eaton to cases such as this one, in which the issue was preserved and an appeal was pending in the Appeals Court on June 22, 2012, the date of the rescript in Eaton. Background.[4] The plaintiffs, Anne-Marie and Joseph Galiastro (Galiastros), obtained a home mortgage loan on July 26, 2006, from Fremont Investment & Loan (Fremont).[5] To secure the obligation, the Galiastros contemporaneously granted a mortgage on the home to defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), which was described in the mortgage as “a separate corporation that […]
Categories: News Tags: 1002314, Electronic, Galiastro, Inc., Lawyers, Mortgage, Registration, Systems, Weekly
How I Paid Off My Mortgage In 4 Years
Ingrid Schwarz devised a strategy to pay off her mortgage faster than its term. Could you do the same? South End Patch News
How I Paid Off My Mortgage In 4 Years
Ingrid Schwarz devised a strategy to pay off her mortgage faster than its term. Could you do the same? South End Patch News
GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-056-13)
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‑11161 GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC vs. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY. December 4, 2012. ‑ April 4, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Insurance, Title insurance, Coverage, Insurer’s obligation to defend. Real Property, Title insurance. Contract, Insurance. Mortgage, Insurance of mortgagee’s interest. Land Court, Jurisdiction. Practice, Civil, Complaint, Transfer of action to Superior Court, Removal of case to federal court. Supreme Judicial Court, Certification of questions of law. Certification of questions of law to the Supreme Judicial Court by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Richard E. Briansky for the plaintiff. Jason A. Manekas for the defendant. SPINA, J. This case involves multiple litigations among three parties — First American Title Insurance Company (First American), the insurer; GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC), the insured mortgagee; and Elizabeth Moore (Mrs. Moore), the homeowner — arising out of a defect in the title to Mrs. Moore’s home. First American brought suit on behalf of GMAC in the Land Court, seeking to reform the deed to Mrs. Moore’s property or to equitably subrogate her interest in the property behind GMAC’s mortgage. Because of the Land Court’s jurisdictional restrictions, Mrs. Moore then initiated suit in the Superior Court against GMAC, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of G. L. c. 93A for GMAC’s unfair and deceptive conduct in pursuing foreclosure, and “money had and received” for mortgage payments alleged to have been made to GMAC in error. Because the two actions were closely related, the Chief Justice for Administration and Management ordered, pursuant to his power under G. L. c. 211B, § 9 (xix), that the Land Court action be transferred to the Superior Court and consolidated with Mrs. Moore’s action. However, after the order of transfer, but before the Land Court action was docketed in the Superior Court, counsel for GMAC removed Mrs. Moore’s litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Therefore, the Land Court action never formally was consolidated with Mrs. Moore’s action in the Superior Court. However, GMAC raised counterclaims in Mrs. Moore’s action, now in the United States District Court, that duplicated the reformation and equitable subrogation claims asserted in the Land Court, and an attorney for First American appeared on behalf of GMAC in […]