Posts tagged "Moronta"

Moronta v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-190-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12042   ELNEDIS A. MORONTA  vs.  NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, & another.[1]     December 22, 2016.     Consumer Protection Act, Demand letter.     Elnedis A. Moronta commenced this action in the Superior Court, alleging that the defendants, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (Nationstar), and Fremont Investment and Loan, among other things, violated his rights under G. L. c. 93A.  Summary judgment was entered against Moronta on all his claims.  On Moronta’s appeal, the Appeals Court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to Moronta’s c. 93A claim and reversed the grant of summary judgment.  Moronta v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 621, 622 (2015).  In doing so, the Appeals Court rejected the defendants’ argument that Moronta’s c. 93A claim was barred due to his failure to serve a demand letter, on the ground that no demand letter is required under G. L. c. 93A, § 9 (3), where “the prospective respondent does not maintain a place of business . . . within the commonwealth,” regardless of whether it “keep[s] assets” here.  Moronta, supra at 626 n.11.  We granted Nationstar’s application for further appellate review, and we subsequently limited the scope of review to issues concerning the demand letter.[2]   The underlying facts of the case are set forth in the Appeals Court’s opinion and need not be repeated here.  Moronta, 88 Mass. App. Ct. at 622-625.  Before us is a purely legal question concerning the correct interpretation of G. L. c. 93A, § 9 (3).  The question is whether, as Moronta argues, a plaintiff is excused from serving a demand letter if the defendant lacks either a place of business or assets in the Commonwealth, or whether, as Nationstar argues, a plaintiff must serve a demand letter unless the defendant has neither a place of business nor assets in the Commonwealth.  Put another way, the question is this:  if the defendant keeps assets in the Commonwealth, but does not maintain a place of business here, must the plaintiff serve a demand letter?  We conclude, as did the Appeals Court, that the plaintiff need not do so.   We begin with the “general and familiar rule . . . that a statute must be interpreted according to the intent of the Legislature ascertained from all its words construed by the ordinary and approved usage of the language, considered in connection with the cause of […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 22, 2016 at 8:53 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,

Moronta v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-175-15)

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-1805                                       Appeals Court   ELNEDIS A. MORONTA  vs.  NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC & another.[1] No. 13-P-1805. Norfolk.     December 10, 2014. – November 5, 2015.   Present:  Katzmann, Hanlon, & Maldonado, JJ. Mortgage, Foreclosure.  Real Property, Mortgage.  Consumer Protection Act, Mortgage of real estate, Unfair act or practice.  Practice, Civil, Consumer protection case, Summary judgment.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 23, 2010.   A motion for summary judgment was heard by John P. Connor, Jr., J., and a motion for reconsideration was heard by him; a motion for summary judgment was heard by Thomas A. Connors, J.; and judgment was entered by John P. Connor, Jr., J.     Irene H. Bagdoian for the plaintiff. Dean J. Wagner for Signature Group Holdings, Inc. Jennifer J. Normand for Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.      MALDONADO, J.  Elnedis Moronta (the borrower) appeals from final judgments entered following the decisions of judges of the Superior Court granting motions for summary judgment for the defendants on the borrower’s claims that Fremont Investment & Loan (Fremont) and its assignee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (Nationstar), (i) violated an injunction imposed on Fremont and later extended to Fremont’s assignees foreclosing on his mortgage without the approval of the Attorney General, (ii) violated G. L. c. 93A by structuring a mortgage consisting of high-cost loans which Fremont had no reasonable expectation the borrower could repay, and misleading the borrower as to the viability of the transaction; (iii) violated c. 93A by using unfair and deceptive loan modification practices; and (iv) should be enjoined from evicting the borrower from his home.  Because we conclude that the borrower has at least raised a question of fact on his c. 93A claim, we reverse. Background.  On July 9, 2004, the borrower purchased the home located at 152 Independence Avenue in Quincy for $ 348,000 financed with a mortgage loan of $ 330,600 from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo).  The Wells Fargo loan was an adjustable rate loan with an initial rate of 5.25 percent and an initial monthly payment of $ 2,137.32, including taxes and insurance.  The maximum interest rate was 11.25 percent.  After the rate increased to approximately eight percent and his monthly payments increased to $ 2,884, the borrower had difficulty making his monthly mortgage payments along with his credit card debt of approximately $ 630 per month.  […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 5, 2015 at 6:53 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,