Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2011, in response to an increased number of foreclosures, the City of Springfield enacted two ordinances addressing properties left vacant during or after the foreclosure process. The mediation ordinance established a program requiring mandatory mediation between mortgagors and mortgagees. The foreclosure ordinance required owners of buildings that are vacant or undergoing foreclosure to register with the City. Six banks holding mortgage notes on properties in the City (Plaintiffs) filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the enforcement of the ordinances. The federal district court allowed the City’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed, and the First Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Court answered (1) the foreclosure statute preempts the mediation ordinance in whole but does not preempt the foreclosure ordinance; (2) the foreclosure ordinance is preempted by the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act and the state sanitary code; and (3) the foreclosure ordinance does not impose an unlawful tax in violation of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. View "Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

On April 12, 2010, U.S. Bank National Association initiated a summary process action against Defendant, seeking to evict him from property he owned following the property’s sale to the Bank at a foreclosure auction. On May 25, 2012, a judge entered judgment in favor of the Bank for possession. Defendant appealed, arguing that the foreclosure sale was void because the notice of his right to cure a default did not satisfy the provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, 35A, which gives a mortgagor of residential real property a ninety-day right to cure a payment of default before foreclosure proceedings may be commenced. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) section 35A is not one of the statutes relating to the foreclosure of mortgages by the exercise of a power of sale, and (2) that being the case, and given the deficiencies in the steps Defendant took to obtain relief, Defendant was precluded from challenging the Bank’s compliance with section 35A in this summary process action. View "U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was Eaton v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, which held that a foreclosure by power of sale is invalid unless a foreclosing party holds the mortgage and also holds either the underlying mortgage note or acts on behalf of the note holder. In the instant case, Plaintiffs defaulted on their mortgage payments, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) sought to foreclose on the property. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against MERS claiming that MERS did not have standing to initiate foreclosure proceedings because it was not the holder of the promissory note or an authorized agent of any note holder. The superior court dismissed the complaint. Before Plaintiffs’ appeal was heard, the Supreme Court decided Eaton. The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim alleging a lack of authority to foreclose, holding (1) Eaton applies to cases, such as the instant case, that preserved the issue presented in Eaton and that were pending on appeal as of June 22, 2012; and (2) therefore, Plaintiffs’ complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim on the grounds that MERS lacked the authority to foreclose. Remanded. View "Galiastro v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In each of these three consolidated cases plaintiff banks brought summary process actions against defendants, former homeowners-mortgagors, after foreclosure. Each defendant raised several defenses and counterclaims in his or her answer to the complaint, including challenges to the bank's right to possession and title as derived through foreclosure sale. Each bank filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses and to dismiss the counterclaims, arguing that the only defenses and counterclaims available in summary process are those related to landlord-tenant relationships between the parties and those challenging title based on a failure to strictly comply with the power of sale provided in the mortgage. The housing court judge (1) granted the defendants' motions as to landlord-tenant-related defenses and counterclaims, and (2) denied the defendants' motions as to the other defenses and counterclaims, including those challenging title. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the housing court has jurisdiction to hear defenses and counterclaims challenging the title of a plaintiff in a post-foreclosure summary process action and has the authority to award damages in conjunction with such counterclaims. View "Bank of Am., N.A. v. Rosa" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs refinanced their home through Lender. The monthly payment on the loan was $600 greater than Plaintiffs' total monthly income. After the mortgage was funded, it was sold and assigned to Bank. Servicer serviced the loan. After Plaintiffs defaulted on the loan, Bank foreclosed on the mortgage. Plaintiffs subsequently brought this action asserting violations of the Consumer Protection Act, the Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, and the Borrower's Interest Act, and asserting that the loan was unenforceable because it was unconscionable. A superior court judge granted summary judgment to Defendants, Bank and Servicer, on all claims based on the ground that Defendants, as assignees, had no liability for the acts of Lender. The Supreme Court (1) reversed summary judgment in favor of Bank, holding that Bank was not shielded from liability as a matter of law by virtue of its status as an assignee and that Bank failed to establish the absence of material issues of disputed fact entitling it to judgment on any individual claim; and (2) affirmed summary judgment in favor of Servicer because Servicer was not shown to be an assignee and Plaintiffs offered no alternative basis on which Servicer might be held liable. Remanded. View "Drakopoulos v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

Karla Brown brought a lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and others seeking rescission of a note and first mortgage securing that note, alleging that she was the victim of a predatory lending scheme. The mortgage was originated by Deutsche Bank's predecessor in interest in connection with the purchase of Brown's home. Deutsche Bank requested that First American Title Insurance Company defend Deutsche Bank's mortgage interest pursuant to the terms of its title insurance policy. First American refused coverage, claiming the lawsuit did not trigger its duty to defend because Brown was claiming she was misinformed as to the terms of the note rather than challenging that she granted the mortgage. Deutsche Bank subsequently brought this action seeking a judgment declaring First American had a duty to defend it in Brown's lawsuit. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of First American. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the allegations in Brown's complaint did not trigger First American's duty to defend because the complaint's claims were not specifically envisioned by the terms of the title insurance policy. View "Deutsche Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case involved multiple litigations among three parties - Insurer, insured Mortgagee, and Homeowner - arising out of a defect in the title to Homeowner's home. Insurer brought suit in the land court on behalf of Mortgagee seeking to reform the deed to the property or to equitably subrogate Homeowner's interest in the property behind Mortgagee's mortgage. Homeowner initiated suit in the superior court against Mortgagee. Eventually, all claims in both actions became part of a federal court case, which settled. Thereafter, Mortgagee filed a complaint against Insurer in the U.S. district court seeking to recover from Insurer for the costs Mortgagee incurred in defending against Homeowner's claims. The judge determined Insurer had no obligation under its title insurance policy to pay Mortgagee's defense costs but certified two questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Court answered by holding that, under Massachusetts law (1) a title insurer does not have a duty to defend the insured in the entire lawsuit where one claim is within the scope of the title insurance coverage and other claims are not; and (2) a title insurer that initiates litigation similarly does not have a duty to defend the insured against all reasonably foreseeable counterclaims. View "GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Construction Company contracted with Subcontractor for construction of elements of an HVAC system. As partial collateral for a revolving line of credit, Subcontractor assigned to Bank its right to receive payment under the contract with Construction Company. Construction Company instead made twelve payments to Subcontractor. Subcontractor subsequently ceased business operations, leaving an outstanding debt to Bank on its line of credit. Bank filed an action against Construction Company for breach of contract and violation of the UCC. A jury found (1) Construction Company liable on both counts for ten of the twelve checks that it had delivered to Subcontractor, and (2) Bank was estopped from recovering with respect to the final two checks. The judge entered judgment on the statutory claim in the amount of $3,015,000, the full face value of the ten checks. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial judge (1) properly entered judgment on Bank's statutory claim in the amount of the wrongfully midirected payments; but (2) erred in denying the bank's motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to the final two checks, as there was insufficient evidence to support Construction Company's defense of estoppel. View "Reading Coop. Bank v. Constr. Co." on Justia Law

Premier Capital, LLC was in the business of debt acquisition, management, and collection. On July 3, 2007, Premier filed an action in the superior court alleging that it was the current holder of a sealed promissory note from Max Zeller Furs, Inc., executed on September 10, 1987, and that KMZ, Inc. was liable on the note as the successor in interest. The superior court granted summary judgment for KMZ on the ground that Premier's complaint was not timely filed under the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, 3-118. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) although the statute does apply to actions on a sealed promissory note, it only applies to causes of action accruing after its enactment in 1998; and (2) because Premier's cause of action accrued before the statute was enacted, and the note upon which Premier filed suit was executed under seal, Premier timely commenced its action against KMZ under the twenty-year statute of limitations governing actions on contracts under seal set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, 1. Remanded. View "Premier Capital, LLC v. KMZ, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff bank (Bank) claimed to be the holder of a mortgage given by Defendant. Bank filed a complaint in equity in the land court under the Massachusetts Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act to determine if Defendant was entitled to foreclosure protections under the Federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Defendant conceded she was not entitled to protection under the SCRA but moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Bank lacked standing to bring a servicemember proceeding because it was not the clear holder of her note or mortgage. The land court denied Defendant's motion, determining that Bank had standing based on its right to purchase Defendant's mortgage. The court then authorized Bank to make an entry and to sell the property covered by the mortgage. The Supreme Court vacated the land court's judgment, holding (1) because Defendant was not entitled to appear or be heard at the servicemember proceeding, the land court should not have accepted or entertained Defendant's filings; (2) only mortgagees or those acting on behalf of mortgagees having standing to bring servicemember proceedings; and (3) in the present case, the judge used the incorrect standard in making the determination that Bank had standing. Remanded. View "HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Matt" on Justia Law