Posts tagged "Pinti"

Pinti, et al. v. Emigrant Mortgage Company, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-122-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11742   LINDA PINTI & another[1]  vs.  EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., & another.[2] Middlesex.     January 8, 2015. – July 17, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Mortgage, Foreclosure, Real estate.  Real Property, Mortgage, Sale.  Sale, Real estate.  Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage.  Declaratory Relief.  Practice, Civil, Declaratory proceeding, Summary judgment.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 31, 2013.   The case was heard by Maureen B. Hogan, J., on motions for summary judgment.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Richard M.W. Bauer (Stefanie A. Balandis, Amanda B. Loring, & Geoffry Walsh with him) for the plaintiffs. Howard M. Brown (Sarah Ann Smegal, Tom Looney, & Lauren Solar with him) for Harold Wilion. Michael P. Robinson for Emigrant Mortgage Company, Inc.   The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: James P. Long, pro se. Daniel D. Bahls & Courtney Clemente for Community Legal Aid. Grace C. Ross, pro se.     BOTSFORD, J.  In 2012, the defendant Emigrant Mortgage Company, Inc. (Emigrant), foreclosed on the mortgage of the plaintiffs Lesley Phillips and Linda Pinti by exercise of the power of sale contained in the mortgage.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court against Emigrant and the defendant Harold Wilion, the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale, seeking a declaratory judgment that the sale was void because Emigrant failed to comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage, which concerns the mortgagee’s provision of notice to the mortgagor of default and the right to cure, and also the remedies available to the mortgagee upon the mortgagor’s failure to cure the default, including the power of sale (notice of default provisions).  We agree with the plaintiffs that strict compliance with the notice of default provisions in paragraph 22 of the mortgage was required as a condition of a valid foreclosure sale, and that Emigrant failed to meet the strict compliance requirement.  Accordingly, we reverse the allowance of the defendant Emigrant’s motion to dismiss and of the defendant Wilion’s motion for summary judgment.[3] Background.[4]  Phillips purchased a condominium unit (property) in Cambridge in 1982.  In 2005, she transferred title to the property by quitclaim deed to herself and her spouse, Pinti, as tenants by […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 19, 2015 at 5:50 pm

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