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NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 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 […]
Santos v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-081-16)
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 15-P-334 Appeals Court MILTON R. SANTOS[1] vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, trustee,[2] & others.[3] No. 15-P-334. Suffolk. February 24, 2016. – July 8, 2016. Present: Katzmann, Milkey, & Blake, JJ. Bank. Loan. Mortgage, Real estate, Foreclosure. Real Property, Mortgage. Notice. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss, Summary judgment, Summary process. Summary Process. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 28, 2011. The case was heard by Heidi E. Brieger, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Michael J. Traft (Robert Graves with him) for the plaintiff. Sean R. Higgins (Michael Stanley with him) for the defendants. KATZMANN, J. The plaintiff mortgagor Milton R. Santos appeals from orders of a Superior Court judge dismissing his claim that the mortgagee and mortgage servicing defendants violated G. L. c. 244, § 35A, and granting summary judgment to the defendants on his claim that U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) negligently processed his loan modification applications made pursuant to the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). We affirm. Background. We recite the facts alleged in Santos’s complaint as supplemented by the undisputed facts in the summary judgment record and descriptions of HAMP from case law. HAMP.[4] “HAMP was part of Congress’s response to the financial and housing crisis that struck the country in the fall of 2008.” Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 714 F.3d 769, 772 (4th Cir. 2013). Acting under authority conferred by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq. (and specifically the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP], 12 U.S.C. §§ 5211–5241), and in conjunction with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) introduced the Making Home Affordable Program in February, 2009. HAMP, which is administered by Fannie Mae, is part of this initiative. Markle v. HSBC Mort. Corp. (USA), 844 F. Supp. 2d 172, 176 (D. Mass. 2011). “HAMP aims to provide relief to borrowers who have defaulted on their mortgage payments or who are likely to default by reducing mortgage payments to sustainable levels. . . . Under HAMP, loan servicers receive incentive payments for each permanent loan modification completed. . . . Mortgage lenders approved by Fannie Mae […]
National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-065-16)
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-1861 Appeals Court NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. No. 14-P-1861. Suffolk. December 11, 2015. – June 8, 2016. Present: Cypher, Carhart, & Blake, JJ. Taxation, Abatement, Corporate excise. Public Utilities. Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. John S. Brown (Donald-Bruce Abrams with him) for the taxpayer. Brett M. Goldberg for Commissioner of Revenue. CYPHER, J. National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. (NGUSA) appeals from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) denying its motion for summary judgment and allowing a motion to dismiss brought by the Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner) concerning the effect of a closing agreement between National Grid Holdings, Inc. (NGHI)[1] and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on interest deductions under G. L. c. 63, § 30(4). The board rejected National Grid’s position that the closing agreement, which allowed a Federal deduction for a portion of the disputed interest payments, is binding on deductions allowed for State tax purpose. Background. For background we refer to our decision in National Grid Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner of Rev., 89 Mass. App. Ct. (2016) (National Grid Holdings, Inc.). Briefly, that case dealt with the question whether certain deferred subscription arrangements (DSAs), among various entities related to National Grid plc, the parent company located in the United Kingdom, constituted true indebtedness, whereby payments made pursuant to the DSAs could be deducted as interest in calculating Massachusetts corporate excise tax. The commissioner disallowed the deductions for the 2002 tax year and National Grid appealed to the board. This separate action arose when the board, in hearing the first appeal, declined to admit the closing agreement in evidence. Relevant here, we add the following undisputed facts from the board’s September 19, 2014, findings of fact and report. National Grid’s tax returns for the 2002 tax year were audited by both the commissioner and the IRS. On May 1, 2007, National Grid entered into a closing agreement with the IRS, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7121 of the Internal Revenue Code (code), in connection with National Grid’s Federal tax return.[2] As part of that agreement, the IRS allowed a Federal deduction for a portion of the amount claimed by National Grid as interest on the DSAs. As to National Grid’s 2002 Massachusetts tax return, the commissioner determined that the DSAs were […]
National Grid Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of Revenue (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-064-16)
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-1662 Appeals Court NATIONAL GRID HOLDINGS, INC., & others[1] vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. No. 14-P-1662. Suffolk. December 11, 2015. – June 8, 2016. Present: Cypher, Carhart, & Blake, JJ. Taxation, Abatement, Corporate excise, Accounting principle. Public Utilities. Debt. Corporation, Stock. Evidence, Settlement offer. Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. John S. Brown (Donald-Bruce Abrams with him) for the taxpayers. Brett M. Goldberg for Commissioner of Revenue. CYPHER, J. The plaintiffs, National Grid Holdings, Inc. (NGHI), National Grid USA (NGUSA), and National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. (NG Service) (collectively, taxpayers), appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board (board) in favor of the defendant, Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner), on the taxpayers’ claims for an abatement of corporate excise for the tax year ended March 31, 2002. Primarily at issue is whether certain financing transactions, referred to as deferred subscription arrangements (DSAs), among various subsidiaries of National Grid plc (NGPLC), constituted true indebtedness so that the interest paid thereon qualified for the deduction allowed under the Massachusetts taxation of corporations statute, G. L. c. 63, § 30(4). NGPLC is a British electric and gas utility company that owns numerous entities in the United States (U.S.), the United Kingdom (U.K.), and beyond (collectively, National Grid). The DSAs were financing arrangements designed by National Grid to take advantage of the differences in the U.S. and U.K. tax codes.[2] National Grid attempted to cast the transactions as indebtedness under U.S. State and Federal tax laws, thereby reducing National Grid’s tax liability in the U.S., and as equity, under U.K. law, thereby reducing its taxable income in the U.K. Of overriding concern was the avoidance of any appearance of indebtedness in the U.K., where a debenture between a U.K. entity and its foreign subsidiary is strictly prohibited by statute, under threat of criminal sanctions.[3] To that end, National Grid drafted the DSAs as agreements among various related entities to sell and repurchase shares of stock, maintaining in these proceedings that the mandatory nature of the stock repurchase constituted debt under Massachusetts corporate tax law. “We will not modify or reverse a decision of the board if the decision is based on both substantial evidence and the correct application of the law.” Boston Professional Hockey Assn. v. Commissioner of Rev., 443 Mass. 276, 285 (2005). […]
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Rego, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-069-16)
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 SJC-11927 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION vs. EDWARD M. REGO & another.[1] Essex. November 3, 2015. – May 24, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Summary Process, Appeal. Mortgage, Foreclosure. Real Property, Mortgage. Practice, Civil, Summary process, Counterclaim and cross-claim. Consumer Protection Act, Unfair act or practice. Housing Court, Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, Housing Court. Summary Process. Complaint filed in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department on August 31, 2012. Motions for partial summary judgment were heard by Timothy F. Sullivan, J., and a motion to dismiss counterclaims was also heard by him. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Michael Weinhold for the defendants. Richard E. Briansky for the plaintiff. Thomas J. Santolucito & Danielle C. Gaudreau, for Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc., & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Daniel Bahls & Amanda Winalski, for Community Legal Aid, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. DUFFLY, J. The plaintiff, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), filed a complaint for summary process in the Housing Court to establish its right to possession of a house that had been owned by Edward M. Rego and Emanuela R. Rego (Regos) that Fannie Mae purchased at a foreclosure sale. In response, the Regos argued that the foreclosure sale conducted by the bank that held the mortgage on the property, GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC), was void because GMAC’s attorneys had not been authorized by a prior writing to undertake the actions set forth in G. L. c. 244, § 14 (§ 14). The Regos also asserted an equitable defense and counterclaims pursuant to G. L. c. 93A. A Housing Court judge allowed Fannie Mae’s motion for summary judgment “as to possession only,” and scheduled a bench trial on the Regos’ counterclaims under G. L. c. 93A. Thereafter, Fannie Mae moved to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; that motion was allowed. Final judgment for possession entered in favor of Fannie Mae, and the Regos appealed. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We are confronted with two issues in this appeal.[2] First, we consider the meaning of the language in § 14, authorizing “the attorney duly authorized by a writing under seal” to perform acts required by the statutory power of […]
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Fitchburg Capital, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-062-15)
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-11756 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, trustee,[1] vs. FITCHBURG CAPITAL, LLC, & others.[2] Suffolk. January 5, 2015. – April 15, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Mortgage, Real estate, Discharge, Foreclosure, Dragnet clause. Real Property, Mortgage. Limitations, Statute of. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Statute of limitations. Statute, Retroactive application, Construction. Due Process of Law, Retroactive application of statute, Statute of limitations. Constitutional Law, Contract clause. Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on July 2, 2012. A motion for partial summary judgment was heard by Robert B. Foster, J., and entry of separate and final judgment was ordered by him. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Jeffrey T. Angley (Robert K. Hopkins with him) for Fitchburg Capital, LLC. Jeffrey B. Loeb for the plaintiff. Thomas O. Moriarty, for Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc., & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Philip F. Coppinger, for Ry-Co International, Ltd., amicus curiae, submitted a brief. HINES, J. Under a 2006 amendment to the so-called “obsolete mortgage” statute, a mortgage becomes unenforceable after a certain number of years: a mortgage in which the term or maturity date is stated becomes unenforceable five years after the expiration of the term and a mortgage in which the term or maturity date is not stated becomes unenforceable thirty-five years after recording.[3] G. L. c. 260, § 33, as amended by St. 2006, c. 63, § 6. The defendant Fitchburg Capital, LLC (Fitchburg), foreclosed on two mortgages at a time when both mortgages would be unenforceable under the amended statute if the five-year statute of limitations was applicable. In this appeal, we interpret the amended statute to determine whether a mortgage stating only the term or maturity date of the underlying debt is a “mortgage in which the term or maturity date of the mortgage is stated” under G. L. c. 260, § 33, and whether the retroactive application of § 33 to mortgages recorded before the effective date of the amendment is constitutional. The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee of Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset-backed Pass-through Certificates, Series 2004-R11 under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2004 (Deutsche Bank), filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the mortgages are […]
Shea v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-012-15)
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 13-P-1630 Appeals Court PAUL SHEA vs. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION & others.[1] No. 13-P-1630. February 18, 2015. Real Property, Mortgage. Assignment. Mortgage, Real estate, Assignment, Foreclosure. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss. At issue is whether a judge properly dismissed[2] the plaintiff’s claims[3] attacking the validity of a mortgage foreclosure to which Eaton v. Federal Natl. Mort. Assn., 462 Mass. 569 (2012), does not apply.[4] The plaintiff contends that the foreclosure was void because the mortgage was not validly assigned to OneWest Bank FSB (OneWest), the foreclosing mortgagee. He argues that the assignment was invalid because (1) the assignor never held the underlying note, and (2) the assignment was not specifically authorized by the owner of the debt.[5] We affirm.[6] Background.[7] The plaintiff (and another person who is not a party to this case) purchased the property at issue in April 2005. In 2007, as part of a refinancing of the property, the plaintiff granted a mortgage to IndyMac Bank, FSB (IndyMac) to secure a loan in the amount of $ 281,600. In pertinent part, the 2007 mortgage contained the following provisions. The mortgage defines IndyMac, which is the owner of the debt, as the “Lender.” The mortgage defines Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS), as “a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the mortgagee under this Security Instrument” (emphasis in original). A section entitled “TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY” provides that the mortgage secures both the repayment of the loan and the borrower’s performance of covenants and agreements to the Lender. That section continues as follows: “Borrower does hereby mortgage, grant and convey to MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and to the successors and assigns of MERS, with power of sale . . . . . . . “Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing […]
Haskins v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-146-14)
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 13-P-506 Appeals Court JOHN E. HASKINS vs. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, trustee,[1] & others.[2] No. 13-P-506. Worcester. September 3, 2014. – November 10, 2014. Present: Green, Graham, & Katzmann, JJ. Mortgage, Foreclosure. Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage. Assignment. Consumer Protection Act, Investigative demand. Fraud. Practice, Civil, Complaint. Contract, Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 13, 2012. A motion to dismiss was heard by Janet Kenton-Walker, J. Adam T. Sherwin for the plaintiff. Christopher A. Cornetta for the defendants. GREEN, J. We are called upon to address a question raised but not resolved in U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Schumacher, 467 Mass. 421 (2014) (Schumacher): whether a notice of a mortgagor’s right to cure a mortgage loan default, sent pursuant to G. L. c. 244, § 35A, is deficient if it is sent by the mortgage servicing agent (rather than the record holder of the mortgage), or if it identifies the servicing agent as the mortgage holder. We conclude that the notice in the present case complied with the statute, and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.[3] Background. The plaintiff, John E. Haskins, purchased his residence at 98 Southville Road, Southborough, in 2002. In 2004, incident to a refinancing transaction, he granted a mortgage to defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as nominee for First Magnus Financial Corporation (First Magnus).[4] Haskins thereafter defaulted on his loan payment obligations and, by letter dated May 4, 2010, IndyMac Mortgage Services, the mortgage servicing division of defendant OneWest Bank, FSB (IndyMac), informed Haskins that he was in default, but that he had the right to cure the default within ninety days. The letter identified “IndyMac Mortgage Services, a Division of OneWest Bank” as the mortgage holder.[5] In fact, record title to the mortgage was held at the time by MERS, and the equitable or beneficial ownership of the loan secured by the mortgage was held by defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), as trustee of the Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2004-A2, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-B (securitization trust). By letter dated December 8, 2010, IndyMac again advised Haskins of the default, and of his right to cure the default (this time within 150 days); like the May […]
U.S. Bank National Association v. Schumacher (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-041-14)
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‑11490 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, trustee,[1] vs. JOHN SCHUMACHER & another.[2] Worcester. November 7, 2013. ‑ March 12, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Mortgage, Foreclosure, Real estate. Summary Process. Practice, Civil, Summary process. Jurisdiction, Summary process, Housing Court, Equitable. Notice. Housing Court, Jurisdiction. Summary process. Complaint filed in the Worcester County Division of the Housing Court Department on April 12, 2010. The case was heard by Timothy F. Sullivan, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Max Weinstein (Paul R. Collier, III, with him) for the defendants. Jeffrey S. Patterson (Morgan T. Nickerson with him) for the plaintiff. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Allen Acosta, Sora J. Kim, & Uri Y. Strauss for Community Legal Aid, Inc. Geoffry Walsh for National Consumer Law Center. Benjamin O. Adeyinka for Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc., & another. Martha Coakley, Attorney General, & M. Claire Masinton, Lisa R. Dyen, & Stephanie Kahn, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth. Grace C. Ross, pro se. SPINA, J. General Laws c. 244, § 35A, inserted by St. 2007, c. 206, § 11, gives a mortgagor of residential real property in the Commonwealth a ninety-day right to cure a payment default before foreclosure proceedings may be commenced. In this summary process action, we consider whether § 35A is part of the foreclosure process itself and, if so, whether a mortgagee’s failure to comply strictly with its provisions, particularly the notice requirements, renders a foreclosure sale void. The property at issue was owned by the defendant, John Schumacher, and is located partially in the town of Clinton and partially in the town of Lancaster, at 1204 Main Street (property). On April 12, 2010, U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2004-AC4 (bank), filed a summons and complaint in the Worcester County Division of the Housing Court Department against Schumacher, seeking to evict him from the property following its sale to the bank at a foreclosure auction. On May 25, 2012, a judge entered judgment in favor of the bank for possession, plus court costs. Schumacher appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We now conclude that G. L. c. 244, § 35A, is not part of […]
Categories: News Tags: 1004114, Association, Bank, Lawyers, National, Schumacher, U.S., Weekly
Pehoviak, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-024-14)
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 12‑P‑1485 Appeals Court PAUL PEHOVIAK & another[1] vs. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY. No. 12‑P‑1485. Worcester. November 5, 2013. ‑ March 11, 2014. Present: Cypher, Brown, & Fecteau, JJ. Mortgage, Foreclosure, Junior lien. Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage. Real Property, Mortgage. Taxation, Federal tax lien. Lien. Practice, Civil, Discovery, Findings by judge, Waiver. Damages, Mitigation. Waiver. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 10, 2006. The case was heard by John S. Ferrara, J. Marissa I. Delinks for the defendant. Howard B. D’Amico for the intervener. FECTEAU, J. The defendant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), appeals from a judgment in the amount of $ 141,784.20,[2] plus interest, entered in favor of the intervening plaintiff, Commerce Bank and Trust Company (Commerce), after a jury-waived trial. Deutsche Bank claims that the judge erred in (1) applying G. L. c. 244, § 14, under the facts presented, (2) finding that Deutsche Bank’s failure to act in good faith and to use reasonable diligence to complete and close the foreclosure sale with Pehoviak caused Commerce harm, and (3) failing to account for Commerce’s lack of mitigation efforts. We conclude that (1) Deutsche Bank breached its duty to exercise reasonable diligence by refusing the prospective buyer’s request to provide him with evidence that it had sent statutorily required notices of foreclosure to junior lienholders, (2) the judge’s finding on causation was not clearly erroneous, and (3) Deutsche Bank waived the affirmative defense of mitigation of damages by failing to raise it in its first responsive pleading. 1. Background. Deutsche Bank was the holder of a first mortgage on real property in Westborough, Massachusetts. The mortgagors defaulted on the mortgage loan, and Deutsche Bank foreclosed on the property. The mortgagors owed Deutsche approximately $ 500,000. Commerce was the holder of a mortgage on the same property securing a home equity loan, which was subordinate to Deutsche Bank’s mortgage. The mortgagors were also in default on Commerce’s loan and owed Commerce approximately $ 170,000. In addition, there were two other liens on the property that were subordinate to Commerce; one was a Federal tax lien, and the other was a writ of attachment by one Dennis Armstrong. At the foreclosure sale on March 6, 2006, Pehoviak was the highest bidder […]