Posts tagged "Rego"

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NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 24, 2016 at 5:43 pm

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