gave the (…eviction post foreclosure) process only to a `person entitled to the premises,’ which required him to prove that he was entitled to this possession, and which said that the defendant should have judgment if the plaintiff failed to prove his right to possession.” Id. at 37. In 1879, legislation was enacted specifically directed at those attempting to gain possession who had acquired property pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage by sale. See id., citing St. 1879, c. 237.
That came from a case from the Massachusetts State Supreme Court and it really brought home the magnitude of the chaos upon which we are on the precipice. The case was on appeal from the land court springing out of an unlawful detainer action. The bank was trying to tell the homeowner to get out and the homeowner appealed saying the bank didn’t have a lawful foreclosure and hence, not the true landlord.
The court agreed and sent the case back to district for further proceedings.
If this is the case, then it calls into question every land relationship we have. If title turns out to be irretrievably broken (as in – proven in court by a preponderance of evidence – even though we all know it to be true), then why does a renter pay the landlord? At all? The landlord doesn’t own the building; his title has been blown to smithereens. The guy just says he owns it, the record which he says makes it his is totally blown. He ain’t the landlord. He ain’t nobody. He’s just a schmoe. Right now there are people being arrested and thrown in jail for renting foreclosed and empty houses just by saying they are the landlord. It’s crazy.
Recent Comments