Posts tagged "trustee"

Turra v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, trustee, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-020-17)

  NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12075   SANDRO TURRA  vs.  DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, trustee,[1] & another.[2]     January 30, 2017.     Mortgage, Foreclosure.  Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage.  Real Property, Mortgage.     The plaintiff, Sandro Turra, commenced this action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee for RALI 2007QS7, care of GMAC Mortgage, LLC (Deutsche Bank), seeking a declaration that Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure of the mortgage on his home was invalid and seeking to quiet title to the property.  A judge in the Superior Court allowed Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and Turra appealed.[3]  The appeal raises a single issue:  whether a foreclosing mortgagee’s failure to comply with G. L. c. 244, § 15A, by failing to send the postforeclosure notices required by the statute, renders the foreclosure void.  We conclude, as did the trial court judge, that it does not, and we therefore affirm.   Background.  On April 3, 2007, Turra executed a mortgage on the property in question to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as mortgagee.[4]  The lender was Homecomings Financial, LLC.  On August 12, 2010, MERS assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank.  Then, on November 8, 2010, Deutsche Bank, through its servicing agent GMAC Mortgage, LLC, notified Turra that he was in default under the terms of the mortgage.  Deutsche Bank subsequently foreclosed on the home on January 15, 2013.  In April, 2013, Deutsche Bank commenced a summary process action against Turra in the District Court.  Turra then commenced this action in the Superior Court, where his motion to transfer the summary process action and consolidate it with this case was allowed.   In response to Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss his complaint, Turra argued, among other things, that the foreclosure was void because Deutsche Bank failed to strictly comply with the power of sale as set forth in G. L. c. 183, § 21, and further regulated by G. L. c. 244, §§ 11-17C.  See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 646 (2011) (Ibanez).  In particular, Turra argued that Deutsche Bank failed to comply with G. L. c. 244, § 15A, which provides that   “a mortgagee conveying title to mortgaged premises pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall, within thirty days of taking possession or conveying title, notify . . . the office of the assessor or collector of taxes of the municipality in which the premises are located and […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 30, 2017 at 6:41 pm

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

Morse, trustee v. Kraft, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-140-13)

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‑11233     RICHARD MORSE, trustee,[1]  vs.  JONATHAN A. KRAFT & others.[2]       Suffolk.     April 1, 2013.  ‑  July 29, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Trust, Irrevocable trust, Distribution.  Minor, Guardian ad litem.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on April 23, 2012.   The case was reported by Cordy, J.     Daniel L. Goldberg (Charles L. Solomont with him) for the plaintiff.       SPINA, J.  Richard Morse, the trustee of The Kraft Irrevocable Family Trust (1982 Trust), commenced this action before a single justice of this court pursuant to G. L. c. 231A, § 1, and G. L. c. 215, § 6, and the single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court.[3]  See Hillman v. Hillman, 433 Mass. 590, 590 (2001), and cases cited; Walker v. Walker, 433 Mass. 581, 581-582 (2001), and cases cited.  “We have regularly recognized the appropriateness of granting declaratory relief to fiduciaries seeking instructions concerning the manner in which an instrument . . . should be construed in connection with the possible application of Federal estate tax provisions.”  First Agric. Bank v. Coxe, 406 Mass. 879, 882 (1990).  See Walker v. Walker, supra at 582 & n.5, 583.  All of the parties have stipulated to the relevant facts, and each of the defendants, with the exception of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[4] has assented to the relief sought.   1.  Background.  By declaration of trust dated January 4, 1982, the plaintiff established the 1982 Trust, and each of four separate subtrusts created therein, for the benefit of the four sons of Robert and Myra Kraft (the Krafts).[5]  Each of the four sons is an income beneficiary of his subtrust, and also is a potential object of the powers of appointment held by each son as the income beneficiary of his respective subtrust.  The sons’ children (the Krafts’ grandchildren) are the contingent remainder beneficiaries of the subtrusts, and also are the potential objects of the sons’ powers of appointment.  The 1982 Trust permits only “Disinterested Trustee[s]” — defined in the 1982 Trust as “all those trustees who are not transferors of property to [the] trust and who are not eligible, and who are not legally obligated to support any person who is eligible, to […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 29, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,