U.S. Bank, National Association, v. Milan, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-149-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 16-P-1011 Appeals Court U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, trustee,[1] vs. STEVEN L. MILAN & another.[2] No. 16-P-1011. Essex. March 1, 2017. – December 4, 2017. Present: Green, Wolohojian, & Sullivan, JJ. Mortgage, Foreclosure, Real estate. Summary Process. Real Property, Mortgage, Sale. Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage. Sale, Real estate. Practice, Civil, Summary process, Retroactivity of judicial holding. Retroactivity of Judicial Holding. Summary process. Complaint filed in the Northeast Division of the Housing Court Department on July 23, 2012. The case was heard by David D. Kerman, J., on motions for summary judgment. Michael R. Murphy (Michael R. Stanley also present) for the plaintiff. Carl D. Goodman for the defendants. GREEN, J. The plaintiff (U.S. Bank) appeals from a judgment of a Housing Court judge, dismissing its complaint for summary process. The Housing Court judge based his order of dismissal on the failure of U.S. Bank’s notice of default to comply strictly with the requirements of paragraph 22 of the mortgage it foreclosed against the defendants, Steven and Karen Milan (Milans), incident to U.S. Bank’s acquisition of title to the property. In so doing, the judge applied the holding of Pinti v. Emigrant Mort. Co., 472 Mass. 226, 241-242 (2015) (Pinti), to invalidate U.S. Bank’s claim of title. We conclude that was error, and reverse. Background. The Milans are the former owners and current occupants of residential property located at 56 Jasper Road in Saugus. On May 16, 2005, incident to a loan refinance, the Milans granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), a mortgage on the property to secure a note made to Saugus Federal Credit Union.[3] In 2007, the Milans defaulted on the mortgage loan, and on June 18, 2007, U.S. Bank’s servicing agent (which had succeeded MERS as mortgagee by assignment) sent to the Milans the first of several notices of default.[4] The Milans assert, and the Housing Court judge concluded, that the notices did not comply strictly with the requirements specified for such notices in paragraph 22 of the mortgage.[5] Thereafter, U.S. Bank conducted a foreclosure auction, pursuant to the statutory power of sale contained in the mortgage, and (as U.S. Bank was the successful bidder at the auction) a foreclosure deed in favor of U.S. Bank was recorded on June 21, 2012. The Milans […]
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 […]
Golrick v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-126-14)
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-11632 JEANNE A. GOLRICK vs. U.S. BANK, N.A. July 17, 2014. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. The petitioner filed a petition in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging a Superior Court order denying her request that the respondent’s attorney be disqualified from representing the respondent in the underlying litigation between the parties. A single justice of this court denied the petition without a hearing, and the petitioner appealed. We affirm. The case is before us on a memorandum and appendix filed by the petitioner pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). That rule requires the petitioner to “set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” She has failed to carry her burden. The alternative remedy in this case is clear: the petitioner can adequately obtain review of the order denying disqualification of the respondent’s counsel in an appeal from the adverse final judgment.[1] Masiello v. Perini Corp., 394 Mass. 842, 850 (1985) (citation omitted). Borman v. Borman, 378 Mass. 775, 779 (1979). General Laws c. 211, § 3, is not a substitute for the normal process of trial and appeal, and the petitioner has not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances rendering the ordinary remedy inadequate. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Jeanne A. Golrick, pro se. David W. Merritt for the respondent. [1] The Superior Court docket indicates that judgment now has entered for the respondent and that the petitioner has in fact filed a notice of appeal. Full-text Opinions
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
Storrow Drive Tunnel Named Most Dangerous U.S. Bridge
A magazine gave the Storrow Drive tunnel the dubious honor. Find out why. South End Patch News
Drakopoulos, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-126-13)
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‑11271 SUSANNE DRAKOPOULOS & another[1] vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, trustee,[2] & another.[3],[4] Essex. March 4, 2013. ‑ July 12, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act. Consumer Protection Act, Mortgage of real estate. Real Property, Mortgage. Mortgage, Assignment. Assignment. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 28, 2009. The case was heard by Robert A. Cornetta, J., on motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Paul R. Collier, III (Pamela A. Lebowitz & Max Weinstein with him) for the plaintiffs. Peter F. Carr, II, for the defendants. Martha Coakley, Attorney General, Glenn Kaplan, Aaron Lamb, & Gabriel O’Malley, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Commonwealth, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. In 2006, the plaintiffs, Susanne and Peter Drakopoulos,[5] refinanced their family home in Haverhill through Aegis Lending Corporation (lender), entering into a stated income home mortgage loan secured by a first mortgage on the home.[6] The total monthly payment on this loan proved to be approximately $ 600 greater than the plaintiffs’ total monthly income. Less than six months after the mortgage was funded, it was sold and assigned to the defendant U.S. Bank National Association (bank) as trustee of the Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., Home Equity Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1 (trust). The loan was serviced by the defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (servicer). The plaintiffs fell behind in their payments and defaulted on the loan; in November, 2008, the bank foreclosed on the mortgage. The plaintiffs thereafter brought this action, asserting, inter alia, violations of the Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, G. L. c. 183C (act); the Consumer Protection Act, G. L. c. 93A; and the Borrower’s Interest Act, G. L. c. 183, § 28C, The plaintiffs also asserted that the loan was unenforceable because it was unconscionable, and they sought damages and rescission for predatory lending practices. A Superior Court judge granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on all claims, based in large part on the ground that the defendants, as assignees, had no liability for the acts of the lender. The plaintiffs appealed. Because we conclude that the bank is not shielded from liability as a matter of law by virtue of its […]
Categories: News Tags: 1012613, Association, Bank, Drakopoulos, Lawyers, National, U.S., Weekly
U.S. Senate Election: Where to Vote in the South End
For all South End residents planning to vote in the June 25, 2013 election, here is what you need to know. Polling Places: Polls are open Tuesday from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Click here to enter your address to see your polling place. If you have any questions, call the Boston Election Department at 617-635-3767. Ward 3, Pct 7: Cathedral High School Gymnasium – 1336 Washington St. Ward 4, Pct 1: William McKinley South End Academy – 90 Warren Ave. Ward 4, Pct 2: Tent City Community Room – 130 Dartmouth St. Ward 4, Pct 3: William McKinley South End Academy – 90 Warren Ave. Ward 4, Pct 4: Frederick Douglass Apartments – 755 Tremont St. Ward 5, Pct 1: Franklin Institute of Boston – 41 Berkeley St. Ward 8, Pct 1: Cathedral High School Gymnasium – 1336 Washington St. Ward 9, Pct: 1: Cathederal High School Gymnasium – 1336 Washington St. Ward 9, Pct 2: Washington Manor Apartments – 1701 Washington St. Click here to see the full list of polling locations in Boston by Ward and Precinct. Contested Races: Senator in Congress: Gabriel Gomez, Republican; Edward Markey, Democrat, Richard A. Heos, 12 Visions Party. More information: Previous U.S. Senate Special Election Coverage: Gomez, Markey Grapple in Final Senate Debate Gomez, Markey Set For Final Senate Debate Markey or Gomez: Who Gets Your Vote? Gomez, Markey Spar in First Senate Debate Obama to Stump For Markey Next Week Gomez, Markey to Square Off in First Debate Obama Endorses Markey; First Lady in Boston Wednesday Menino Endorses Markey as ‘There When We Need Him’ Markey or Gomez: Who Would You Vote for Today? South End Patch Election Day CoverageCheck back to the site throughout the day for updates on voter turnout, photo galleries of supporters and voters at the polls, and up-to-the-minute election results, which will be posted as soon as they are available. You can follow us on Facebook and Twitter to be notified of results. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch
U.S. Senate Primary: Where Do You Vote?
Today’s U.S. Senate Special State Primary Election will result with a Democratic and Republican nominee who will vie for the seat vacated by now Secretary of State John Kerry. Voters registered as Democrat, Republican or unenrolled can vote for their party’s candidate today. Polls are open between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. The candidates: Democrats Stephen Lynch Edward Markey Brett Rhyne (write-in candidate) Republicans Gabriel Gomez Michael Sullivan Daniel Winslow Voters in Boston can use this search tool to find their polling location or contact the Boston Election Department at 617-635-3767. This is a list of polling locations in Boston. Some precincts’ ballots will carry a vote to fill a vacancy in the First Suffolk Senate District. South End Patch
Patch Interviews U.S. Senate Candidates
South End Patch
Categories: Arrests Tags: Candidates, Interviews, Patch, Senate, U.S.