IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WILLIAM C. SQUIRES, et al.,
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted on 04 January 2012.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WILLIAM C. SQUIRES, et al.,
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted on 17 March 2011.
Case No. 10 C 2033.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
March 10, 2011.
VIRGINIA M. KENDALL, District Judge.
On April 1, 2010, plaintiff Ellie Stewart (“Stewart”) filed the current complaint against Defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing (“BAC”), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) (together, “Defendants”) alleging violations of the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f) and its implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 226 (“Regulation Z”), and demanded rescission of the mortgage on her residence.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, asserting BAC and MERS are improper defendants under TILA, the Complaint is time-barred and the Complaint fails to state a claim. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court dismisses Stewart’s failure to disclose claim because it is untimely, but denies dismissal of Stewart’s rescission claim. The motion to dismiss is denied with regard to the failure to honor rescission claim against defendants Deutsche Bank and BAC.
Stewart owns her residence in Chicago, Illinois. (Compl., Doc. 1, ¶ 4.) On October 24, 2006, Stewart refinanced her mortgage on this residence through Home 123 Corporation (“Home 123″). (Compl. ¶¶ 5-8, 10.) Home 123 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2007 and Deutsche Bank is the current assignee of this loan. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8, 21.) BAC services this loan and MERS is the nominee. (Compl. ¶¶ 7-9; Ex. C.)
This case stems from a dispute concerning the documentation provided at the closing of Stewart’s refinance back in 2006. Stewart alleges that Home 123 violated TILA twice in regards to these documents. First, she claims that Home 123 did not provide her with a copy of the Notice of Right to Cancel (“NORTC”). (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.) Second, she claims that Home 123 provided a Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement (“TILDS”) that was incomplete because it did not include the timing of the required loan payments. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18.)
Due to these deficiencies, on October 14, 2009, Stewart’s attorneys sent a letter entitled “Notice of Rescission and Lien” to Home 123 and BAC. (Compl. ¶ 23.) The letter stated that “Ms. Stewart hereby elects to cancel the loan of October 24, 2006 for failure to comply with the Truth In Lending Act,” and specified that Home 123 failed to provide the NORTC and a complete TILDS. (See Doc. 23-1.) The letter also demanded the identity of the owner of the mortgage. (Id.) On January 26, 2010, BAC sent a letter to Stewart which denied her rescission claim. (See Doc. 23-2.) BAC asserted that Stewart’s right to rescind had expired and attached copies of the NORTC and TILDS purportedly signed by Stewart and dated October 24, 2006. (Id.)
On April 1, 2010, Stewart filed this suit and it was assigned to Judge Harry Leinenweber. Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss on August 11 and briefing was completed on October 5. On October 28, Judge Leinenweber requested that the parties provide a copy of Stewart’s rescission letter and submit a supplemental brief addressing whether Stewart’s election to rescind constituted proper notice to Deutsche Bank as assignee of Home 123. Supplemental briefing was completed on November 8. The case was transferred to this Court on December 8.
A motion to dismiss should be granted if the complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8’s pleading requirement of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 536 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding well-leaded allegation of the complaint must be accepted as true).
Although a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, it must provide the grounds of the claimant’s entitlement to relief, contain more than labels, conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action, and allege enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Legal conclusions can provide a complaint’s framework, but unless well-pleaded factual allegations move the claims from conceivable to plausible, they are insufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950-51.
The complaint has three core claims. First, Stewart claims that Home 123 violated TILA by failing to provide her with the NORTC and a complete TILDS. For this “failure to disclose” claim, Stewart seeks statutory damages of $4,000 from Deutsche Bank as Home 123’s assignee. (Doc. 1, Prayer for Relief.) Second, Stewart seeks recession of the loan based on this disclosure violation. For this “loan rescission” claim, Stewart seeks a judgment forcing Defendants to void the loan and return her to the position she occupied before entering into the mortgage. (Id.) Third, Stewart alleges that Defendants failed to honor her election to rescind, which is itself a violation of TILA. For this “failure to honor rescission” claim, Stewart seeks actual damages and statutory damages of $4,000 from Defendants. As an additional remedy for all three claims, Stewart seeks an order requiring Defendants to delete all adverse credit information relating to the loan. (Id.)
The present motion presents four legal issues that need to be resolved to determine which, if any, of these three claims may stand. First, Defendants seek to dismiss BAC and MERS, asserting that servicers and nominees are improper defendants in a TILA action. Turning to Stewart’s individual claims, Defendants argue that the failure to disclose claim is barred by a one year statute of limitations because the alleged violation occurred over three years ago. Next, Defendants assert that the rescission claim is barred by a three-year statute of repose because the loan closed on October 24, 2006 but this suit was not filed until April 1, 2010. Finally, Defendants argue that the failure to honor rescission claim fails because assignees are not liable for TILA violations which are not apparent on the face of the loan disclosures.
Only creditors and assignees are subject to liability under TILA. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1640, 1641(a). Stewart acknowledges that MERS is not a creditor or assignee. (See Doc. 15 at 4). Therefore, MERS is not subject to damages under TILA and Stewarts’ failure to disclose and failure to honor rescission damages claims against MERS are dismissed. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1640, 1641(a); see also Horton v. Country Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 07 C 6530, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan 4, 2010) (granting summary judgment to MERS because the plaintiff provided no evidence that MERS was a creditor or assignee). Stewart claims MERS is still a proper party based on the non-monetary relief requested in connection with the rescission. Stewart seeks an order “voiding” her mortgage, (see Doc. 1 at Prayer) and, according to her, “this Court may directly order MERS to record a release or take other actions in connection with the mortgage document that was recorded.” (Doc. 15 at 4.)
The Court notes that courts in this District are split on whether such a party, usually a servicer, may be kept in a case based on such contingent, or future, relief. Compare Miranda v. Universal Fin. Grp., Inc., 459 F. Supp. 2d 760, 765-66 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (denying dismissal of loan servicer as an indispensable party under Rule 19 because a rescission would require return of payments made on the loan and “could impair the borrower’s ability to fully protect his or her interest in rescinding the loan because the servicer could improperly report to credit bureaus”) with Bills v. BNC Mort., Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 773, 776 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (finding “a concern that [the servicer] might thereafter engage in improper reporting to the credit agencies or attempt to foreclose on a rescinded loan is purely speculative and does not warrant retaining [the servicer] as a defendant”). The Court agrees with Miranda and the cases it cites because they appear more consistent with the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Handy v. Anchor Mortgage Corporation, 464 F.3d 760, 765-66 (7th Cir. 2006). There, the Seventh Circuit held “more generally . . . the right to rescission `encompasses a right to return to the status quo that existed before the loan.'” Id. (internal citation omitted). Handy makes clear that rescission under TILA entirely unwinds the transaction. Because Stewart alleges, albeit generally, that MERS may be necessary to get her back to that status quo if her rescission is enforced by the Court, MERS cannot be dismissed entirely at this time. Rather, Stewart’s rescission claim stands as to MERS.
As to defendant BAC, TILA expressly disclaims liability for servicers “unless the servicer is or was the owner of the obligation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(1). Stewart alleges that BAC “has an interest” in the loan and, as a result, is subject to liability. (Compl. ¶ 7.) While Stewart does not provide any specifics on how a loan servicer gained an interest in the loan, on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept this allegation as true. See Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1081. Even if the Court could ignore this allegation, BAC must remain a defendant in any event. The pleadings reveal that the January 26 letter refusing Stewart’s rescission was sent by BAC, not Deutsche Bank. BAC is a necessary defendant on the failure to honor rescission claim because it is not clear whether BAC independently refused rescission, refused as an agent of Deutsche Bank, or merely communicated Deutsche Bank’s refusal. As such, BAC cannot be dismissed outright as it may be liable on this claim.
Stewart asserts that Home 123 committed two disclosure violations during the refinance closing: (1) it failed to provide two copies of the NORTC and (2) it failed to provide a complete TILDS. Although this claim alleges violations by Home 123, the claim is currently against Deutsche Bank based on its status as the assignee of Home 123. TILA permits an individual to assert a claim against a creditor for disclosure violations so long as such action is brought within one year from the occurrence of the violation. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1640(a), 1640(e); see also Garcia v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 09 C 1369, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114299, at *9-10 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2009) (finding the § 1635’s three year period for rescission does not extend the one-year period available under § 1640(e) to assert damages claims for disclosure violations and noting that the majority of courts in this District have found “affirmative damage claims for disclosure violations must be brought within one year of the closing of any credit transaction”). Stewart filed this claim on April 1, 2010, over three years after the October 24, 2006 loan closing and well past the one year statute of limitations. Stewart’s failure to disclose claim is time-barred and dismissed with prejudice against all defendants.
The next issue in this case is whether Stewart is time-barred from seeking rescission in court. “Under the Truth in Lending Act,  15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., when a loan made in a consumer credit transaction is secured by the borrower’s principal dwelling, the borrower may rescind the loan agreement” under certain conditions. Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 411 (1998). A borrower typically has three days to rescind following execution of the transaction or delivery of the required disclosures. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). However, under § 1635(f) of TILA, the right of rescission is extended to “three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first,” if any of the required disclosures are not delivered to the borrower. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f). Stewart alleges that she did not receive the required disclosures, so this case involves the extended three year period. Here, the loan transaction occurred on October 24, 2006; Stewart sent a letter electing to rescind the transaction on October 14, 2009, and then filed her complaint in court on April 1, 2010. This time line presents the legal question of whether a claim for rescission filed after the three-year time period is timely if a rescission letter is sent within the three-year time period.
Stewart argues that she exercised her right to rescind within the three years, as required by § 1635(f), because her letter actually rescinded the loan. According to Stewart, this suit is just the legal remedy to force Defendants to accept her rescission. Stewart argues that she is entitled to an additional year after Defendants’ failure to accept the rescission to file suit under § 1640(e). Defendants argue that the language of § 1635(f) creates a statute of repose that completely extinguishes the right to rescind after the three year-time period. As Stewart filed suit over three years after the closing, Defendants assert that Stewart’s recession claim under TILA is barred.
Both parties cite authority for their respective positions from many different jurisdictions. E.g., compare Falcocchia v. Saxon Mortg., Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 860, 868 (E.D. Cal. 2010), with Sherzer v. Homestar Mortg. Servs., No. 07-5040, 2010 WL 1947042, at *11 (E.D. Pa. July 1, 2010); see also Obi v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 10-C-5747, 2011 WL 529481, *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2011) (Kendall, J.) (noting “[t]here is a split of authority as to whether § 1635(f) requires a borrower to file a rescission claim within three years after the consummation of a transaction or whether the borrower need only assert his right to rescind to a creditor within that three year period” and collecting cases.) Stewart’s authority concludes that a borrower exercises her right of rescission when she mails a notice of rescission to the creditor, so rescission occurs at the time of the letter. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(2). Defendants’ authority, on the other hand, holds that a borrower cannot unilaterally rescind a loan, and therefore can only preserve her rights by filing a suit for rescission within the three-year time period. The Seventh Circuit has not yet addressed this issue so this Court has no binding guidance.
As the Court indicated in Obi (albeit in dicta), the Court is persuaded by the authority finding that a borrower may assert his rescission rights under § 1635(f) through notice to the creditor. See Obi, 2011 WL 529481 at *4; see also In re Hunter, 400 B.R. 651, 661-62 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (finding “[t]he three-year period limits only the consumer’s right to rescind, not the consumer’s right to seek judicial enforcement of the rescission” (internal citation omitted)). The approach in Hunter is more consistent with the language of § 1635 and Regulation Z than the approach advocated by Defendants. Section (a)(2) of Regulation Z provides explicit instructions to the consumer as to how to exercise her right to rescind: “[t]o exercise the right to rescind, the consumer shall notify the creditor of rescission by mail, telegram, or other means of written communication.” See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(2). The next provision of Regulation Z, § (a)(3), describes when a consumer may exercise that right: either within the three-day “cool off” period, if all proper disclosures are made, or within the three-year period, if they are not. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3). The more reasonable interpretation of Regulation Z is that § (2)(a)’s method of exercising the right to rescission applies to both scenarios under § (3)(a). Indeed, this approach is consistent with the wording of the statute. Even if a consumer received all necessary disclosures, § 1635(a) allows a consumer to rescind within the three-day “cool off” period after closing “by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the [Federal Reserve Board (“FSB”)], of his intention to do so.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). Though § 1635(f) has no comparable reference to the FSB regulations, it seems incongruous for the FSB to allow rescission via letter during the “cool off” period—in accordance with Regulation Z—but require a consumer to bring a suit to exercise that same right to rescind under § 1635(f).
The Court’s approach is not inconsistent with Beach. In that case, the Supreme Court found a defendant could not assert rescission as an affirmative defense under TILA beyond the three-year period. See Beach, 523 U.S. at 418. The Court noted that § 1635(f) “says nothing in terms of bringing an action but instead provides that the `right of rescission [under TILA] shall expire’ at the end of the time period . . . it talks not of a suit’s commencement but of a right’s duration . . . .” Id. at 417. Beach addresses when the right to rescind expires and whether it can be tolled. It leaves unresolved the question of how a consumer must exercise that right to rescind — suit, or notice via letter.
The Court turns to the question of when a consumer, having exercised her right to rescind by sending a letter to her creditor, must bring suit to enforce that exercise. In Hunter, the debtor, like Stewart, sent notice to the creditor before the three-year period expired, but his trustee filed suit after expiration. Hunter, 400 B.R. at 659. As Stewart did here, the trustee brought suit within a year after the creditor allegedly failed to respond to the rescission notice. Id. Hunter,Id.; seeHunter approach. Under this approach, the last day a borrower may send notice to rescind is the three-year anniversary of the transaction. If the borrower has not sent notice by that time, her right to rescind expires under § 1636(f). If the borrower sends timely notice, the creditor then would have 20 days to respond after receipt of that notice. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b). The borrower then has one year from the end of that 20-day period to bring a suit to enforce the rescission under § 1640(e)’s limitations period. citing the one-year limitations period in § 1640(e), found that the trustee’s action for rescission was timely, as it was brought within a year of the alleged violation of TILA, namely the refusal to respond to the rescission request. 15 U.S.C. 1635(b) (requiring a creditor to “take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction”). The Court adopts the Hunter, 400 B.R. at 660-61, see also Johnson v. Long Beach Mort. Loan Trust 2001-4, 451 F. Supp. 2d 16, 39-41 (D.D.C. 2006) (applying § 1640(e)’s one year period to enforce rescission claim after notice); Sherzer, 2010 WL 1947042, at *11 (following Hunter). This approach balances the creditor’s need for certainty (the borrower cannot indefinitely fail to bring suit to enforce the right to rescind she exercised) with the express language of Regulation Z (which states that a borrower may exercise the right to rescind through notice by mail). Because Stewart brought suit within five months of her recession notice, Stewart’s claim for recession is timely.
A claim for damages for failure to honor rescission is based on § 1635(b) of TILA, which requires a creditor to respond to a notice of rescission within twenty days of receipt. If a creditor does not respond within the statutorily-mandated period, TILA permits an individual to bring a claim for damages against the creditor. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a). An action for damages must be brought “within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). An assignee’s failure to honor a valid rescission notice made pursuant to § 1635 may subject the assignee to actual and statutory damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).
Stewart asserts that she did not receive a NORTC or a complete TILDS as required by TILA, so she had a right to rescind her loan. Specifically, the TILDS does not state the timing of payments, as Regulation Z requires. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.18. Defendants respond that they were not the original creditor, and as assignees (at best), they are only required to rescind if the violations were apparent on the face of the documentation and that they were not in this case. See 15 U.S.C. § 1641(a) (assignee is only liable if the violation “is apparent on the face of the disclosure statement”).
The Seventh Circuit has specifically addressed the requirements for the payment schedule in the TILDS. In Hamm, the TILDS listed the payment schedule as 359 payments of $541.92 beginning on March 1, 2002 and one payment of $536.01 on February 1, 2032. Hamm v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 506 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2007). The court found that this violated TILA because it did not list all payment dates or state that payments were to be made monthly, and TILA requires such specificity in the TILDS even though “many (or most) borrowers would understand that a mortgage with 360 payments due over approximately 30 years contemplates a payment by the borrower each month during those 30 years.” Id. This case is no different. Stewart alleges that her TILDS listed 359 payments at $3,103.53 but failed to mention that these payments would be made monthly. Exhibit A of Stewart’s complaint, her TILDS, shows the incomplete payment schedule on the face of the document. That schedule is almost exactly the same as the one the Seventh Circuit found insufficient in Hamm. Id. at 527. Consequently, Stewart alleges a disclosure violation apparent on the face of the documents which would grant Stewart the right to rescind against Defendants as assignees. Stewart’s NORTC claim does not need to be evaluated at this time because her failure to honor rescission claim could be based on either a NORTC or TILDS violation, and the TILDS allegations stand.
The final issue is whether Defendants are responsible for refusing to respond and for rejecting rescission. This turns on whether Stewart’s notice of rescission was properly sent to Defendants. In response to a request from Judge Leinenweber prior to reassignment of this case to this Court, the parties addressed whether Stewart properly noticed defendant Deutsche Bank of her election to rescind when she sent letters to only BAC and Home 123, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2007. Courts within the District have reached different conclusions under similar factual scenarios. Compare Harris v. OSI Fin. Servs. Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 885, 897-98 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (finding that notice of election to rescind sent to the original creditor did not suffice as notice to the assignee), with Hubbard v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 624 F. Supp. 2d 913, 921-22 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (concluding that an election to rescind sent to the original creditor is sufficient to seek rescission against an assignee) and Schmit v. Bank United FSB et al., No. 08 C 4575, 2009 WL 320490, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2009) (acknowledging disagreement between Harris and Hubbard and following Hubbard).
Stewart acknowledges that she did not send a notice of rescission to defendant Deutsche Bank. (See Doc. 23-1.) She alleges that she, like many borrowers, was unaware who owned her mortgage note. She did not know that Deutsche Bank was the assignee of her loan, and so she requested notice of the “identity of the owner of this note” from Home 123 and BAC in her rescission letter. (Id.) Stewart argues that she complied with TILA and Regulation Z by mailing notice to the original creditor, Home 123, and the loan servicer, BAC. Stewart distinguishes Harris from the current case because “there is no mention of whether the consumer in Harris mailed a notice to the loan servicer or another party who may be the agent of the holder of the note.” (Doc. 23 at 4). Deutsche Bank concurs that mortgage ownership changes make communication difficult, but suggests that this actually supports the approach of the Harris court. Harris noted that “adopting Stewart’s interpretation of the notice requirement . . . would have the absurd effect of subjecting to rescission and damages assignees that, in some case, have absolutely no means of discovering that a rescission demand has been made.” (Doc. 22 at 2 (quoting Harris).)
The split between Harris and Hubbard does not need to be resolved at this stage of litigation due to the particular facts of this case. Stewart alleges that she sent BAC the rescission notice on October 14, 2009, ten days before the three-year deadline. BAC denied the rescission in a letter sent to Stewart on January 26, 2010. While Harris was concerned that an innocent party with no notice could be subject to damages, this case involves clear notice to at least one party that Stewart seeks to hold responsible. BAC received notice, did not respond within 20 days, and then refused to rescind the transaction. Deutsche Bank’s involvement is less clear, but Stewart alleged sufficient facts to proceed with her case under the theory that BAC either forwarded the notice to Deutsche Bank or acted as its agent in the transaction. This is a reasonable inference given that BAC, the loan servicer, actually responded to the rescission notice and refused it without referring to whether the assignee, Deutsche Bank, assented to the decision. BAC, Deutsche Bank, or both refused to rescind the transaction and discovery is necessary to sort out who is responsible for the decision to deny the rescission.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is:
1. Granted as to Stewart’s failure to disclose claim against all Defendants;
2. Denied as to Stewart’s rescission claim against all Defendants; and
3. Denied as to Stewart’s failure to honor rescission claim against defendants Deutsche Bank and BAC, but granted as to defendant MERS.
 The Court also notes that the mortgage instrument attached to the complaint identifies MERS as “a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s assigns.” (See Doc. 1, Ex. C at 1.) Though Stewart alleges MERS has an interest in the loan (see Compl. ¶ 7), the exhibits contradict that pleading and the exhibits control. See N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of S. Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 454 (7th Cir. 1998).
Posted on 15 March 2011.
Posted on 14 February 2011.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, a
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., a foreign
corporation; and CAL-WESTERN
RECONVEYANCE, a foreign
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Case Dusterhoff LLP
9800 S.W. Beavterton-Hillsdale Hwy
Beaverton, OR 97005
Attorneys for Plaintiff
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion (#3) for a Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to FRCP 65. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and temporarily RESTRAINS Defendants from proceeding with the February 16, 2011, foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s property.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint:
On November 21, 2006, Plaintiff David Ekerson entered into a promissory note secured by property located at 622 S.E. 71st Street, Hillsboro, Oregon, pursuant to one or more deeds of trust recorded December 5, 2006. According to title records, Citibank was the original mortgagee.
At some point, it appears Defendant Mortgage Electronic Resolution System (MERS) became an assignee of the original lender under the Notes, and on October 12, 2010, MERS “grant[ed], assign[ed], and transfer[red]” to Defendant Citimortgage, Inc., “all beneficial interest under” the November 21, 2006, deed of trust. Decl. of Alex Golubitsky, Ex. D. Also on October 12, 2010, MERS evidently issued a Notice of Default to Plaintiff. MERS’s assignment to Citimortgage, however, was not recorded in Washington County’s records until two days later on October 14, 2010.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he believes Citimortgage is the “current servicer or owner of the loan, having been assigned the loan by Freddie Mac.” Plaintiff also believes Defendant Cal-Western Reconveyance (CWR) is the trustee in charge of the foreclosure sale.
Plaintiff’s property is scheduled to be sold at public auction on February 16, 2011, based on the Notice of Default that Plaintiff contends was improperly issued by MERS.
On February 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court alleging Defendants violated Oregon’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.608(1)(k) and 646.608(2)(n). Plaintiff seeks damages and a declaration as to (1) whether Defendants have standing to foreclose; (2) whether MERS “duly and appropriately recorded all assignments of the beneficial interest in the trust deeds” pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute § 86.735 and whether a nonjudicial foreclosure is allowed by statute; and (3) whether the right of the lender to impose a delinquency charge was properly disclosed in the initial loan agreement pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, Regulation Z, Part 266.18.
On February 10, 2011, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in which Plaintiff moves for the entry of an order preventing Defendants from proceeding with the proposed foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s property on February 16, 2011.
A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). “The elements of [this] test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another. For example, a stronger showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing of likelihood of success on the merits.” Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, No. 09-35756, 2011 WL 208360, at *4 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2011)(citing Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 392). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has held “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id., at *7.
“An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion” and is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 376, 381.
Plaintiff seeks an order preventing Defendants from proceeding with the proposed foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s property as scheduled because, among other things, Defendants “have not followed the appropriate procedures for recording all the deeds and assignments for this property, and therefore lack standing to foreclosure [sic] this property.” Specifically, Plaintiff contends MERS assigned its apparent beneficial interest in the property “to other parties who were not recorded in violation” of Oregon Revised Statute § 86.735.
In Burgett v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, District Judge Michael Hogan explained the mortgage practice engaged in by MERS as follows:
“In 1993, the Mortgage Bankers Association, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), the Federal Housing Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs created MERS. MERS provides ‘electronic processing and tracking of [mortgage] ownership and transfers.’ Mortgage lenders, banks, insurance companies, and title companies become members of MERS and pay an annual fee. They appoint MERS as their agent to act on all mortgages that they register on the system. A MERS mortgage is recorded with the particular county’s office of the recorder with ‘Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.’ named as the lender’s nominee or mortgagee of record’ on the mortgage. The MERS member who owns the beneficial interest may assign those beneficial ownership rights or servicing rights to another MERS member. These assignments are not part of the public record, but are tracked electronically on MERS’s private records. Mortgagors are notified of transfers of servicing rights, but not of transfers of beneficial ownership.”
2010 WL 4282105, at *2 (D. Or. Oct. 20, 2010)(quoting Gerald Korngold, Legal and Policy Choices in the Aftermath of the Subprime and Mortgage Financing Crisis, 60 S.C. L.Rev. 727, 741-42 (2009)). In Burgett, the plaintiff, a mortgagee, brought an action against MERS and the servicer of the plaintiff’s mortgage loan alleging, among other things, a claim for breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief to prevent a foreclosure sale of his property. The plaintiff contended the MERS practice set out above was not permitted under Oregon trust-deed law because it allowed assignment of beneficial interests without recording. Id. The defendants moved for summary judgment. Judge Hogan noted the plaintiff’s contention did not “necessarily mean that the arrangement violates the Oregon Trust Deed Act such that foreclosure proceedings could not be initiated by MERS or its substitute trustee.” Id. Judge Hogan, however, denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief and claim for breach of contract on the ground that the defendants failed to “record assignments necessary for the foreclosure.” Id., at *3. Judge Hogan reasoned:
Under ORS 86.705(1) a “‘Beneficiary’ means the person named or otherwise designated in a trust deed as the person for whose benefit a trust deed is given, or the person’s successor in interest, and who shall not be the trustee unless the beneficiary is qualified to be a trustee under ORS 86.790(1)(d).” Plaintiff contends that MERS cannot meet this definition because there is no evidence that the trust deed was made to benefit MERS. However, the trust deed specifically designates MERS as the beneficiary. Judge Henry C. Breithaupt provides a persuasive discussion related to this issue:
[T]he interest of MERS, and those for whom it was a nominee, in question here was recorded and known to Plaintiff when it received the litigation guarantee document prior to starting this action.
The Statutes do not prohibit liens to be recorded in the deed of records of counties under an agreement where an agent will appear as a lienholder for the benefit of the initial lender and subsequent assignees of that lender-even where the assignments of the beneficial interest in the record lien are not recorded. It is clear that such unrecorded assignments of rights are permissible under Oregon’s trust deed statute because ORS 86.735 provides if foreclosure by sale is pursued all prior unrecorded assignments must be filed in connection with the foreclosure. The trust deed statutes therefore clearly contemplate that assignments of the beneficial interests in obligations and security rights will occur and may, in fact, not have been recorded prior to foreclosure. The legislature was clearly aware such assignments occurred and nowhere provided that assignments needed to be recorded to maintain rights under the lien statutes except where foreclosure by sale was pursued.
Letter Decision in Parkin Electric, Inc. v. Saftencu, No. LV08040727, dated March 12, 2009 (attached as Exhibit C to the second declaration of David Weibel (# 60)).
The problem that defendants run into in this case is an apparent failure to record assignments necessary for the foreclosure. As Judge Breithaupt notes, ORS § 86.735 provides that if foreclosure by sale is pursued, all prior unrecorded assignments must be filed in connection with the foreclosure. ORS § 86.735(1) specifically provides The trustee may foreclose a trust deed by advertisement and sale in the manner provided in ORS 86.740 to 86.755 if:
(1) The trust deed, any assignments of the trust deed by the trustee or the beneficiary and any appointment of a successor trustee are recorded in the mortgage records in the counties in which the property described in the deed is situated.
Id., at *2-*3. Judge Hogan noted Oregon Revised Statute § 86.735 requires any assignments of the trust deed by the trustee or the beneficiary and any appointment of a successor trustee to be recorded. The record in Burgett, however, did not reflect all transfers to the subsequent lenders/servicers had been recorded.
Similarly, in Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, District Judge Garr M. King granted the plaintiff, a mortgagee, a temporary restraining order against the defendants, MERS and others, prohibiting the defendants from conducting a foreclosure sale of the plaintiff’s home because the plaintiff established “nothing [was] recorded with Multnomah County [that] demonstrates that LSI Title Company of Oregon, LLC is the successor trustee.“ No. 10-CV-1065-PK, 2010 WL 3655970, at *2 (D. Or. Sept. 15, 2010). Judge King reasoned:
Pursuant to ORS 86.790, the beneficiary may appoint a successor trustee. However, only “[i]f the appointment of the successor trustee is recorded in the mortgage records of the county or counties in which the trust deed is recorded” is the successor trustee “vested with all the powers of the original trustee.” ORS 86.790(3). Accordingly, unless the appointment of LSI Title Company of Oregon, LLC was recorded, the purported successor trustee has no “power of sale” authorizing it to foreclose Rinegard-Guirma’s property. See ORS 86.710 (describing trustee’s power of sale); ORS 86.735 (permitting foreclosure by advertisement and sale but only if “any appointment of a successor trustee [is] recorded in the mortgage records in the counties in which the property described in the deed is situated”).
Similarly, she is likely to experience irreparable harm if her home is foreclosed upon.
Plaintiff also contends this foreclosure proceeding is defective because there has not been established any basis in law for Defendants to have assessed a $77,000.00 delinquency charge which far exceeds the actual loan balance. Plaintiff contends this is a violation of TILA.
The Court finds persuasive the reasoning in Burgett and Rinegard-Guirma as to MERS status in the case on this record. The Court, therefore, concludes Plaintiff has established he is likely to succeed at least as to his request for declaratory judgment related to Defendants’ failure to comply with Oregon Revised Statute § 86.735. Plaintiff also has established MERS, who was the recorded beneficiary of the trust deed, assigned successor trustees to the trust deed but failed to record the appointment of any successor trustee as required before a nonjudicial foreclosure sale may be conducted under Oregon law.
The Court also finds there is a legitimate basis to be concerned that the alleged $77,000.00 delinquency has been assessed improperly. Plaintiff also has established he is likely to experience irreparable harm if the scheduled foreclosure proceeds unabated. The Court, therefore, concludes the balance of hardships tips sharply in Plaintiff’s favor, and there are at least serious questions as to the merits of Plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and hereby RESTRAINS
Defendants from proceeding with the February 16, 2011, foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s property.
II. Notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) provides in pertinent part:
(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or
oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Here the Court issues the order temporarily restraining Defendants from proceeding with the proposed foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s property without notice to Defendants because there is insufficient time before the scheduled foreclosure sale to compel Defendants to appear and to respond to the Motion. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel has made reasonable efforts to notify Defendants and has been unsuccessful in securing the presence of a responsive party.
Finally, the Court concludes the risk of irreparable harm to Plaintiff is significant when weighed against the temporary delay authorized by this Order.
Pursuant to Rule 65(c), the Court requires Plaintiff to post a $500.00 bond by 4 p.m., Monday, February 14, 2011, as a reasonable security for any costs or damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully restrained.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (#3) for a Temporary Restraining Order and hereby RESTRAINS Defendants from proceeding with the February 16, 2011, foreclosure sale of Plaintiff’s property. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to post a $500.00 bond by 4 p.m., Monday, February 14, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 11th day of February, 2011.
This order is issued on February 11, 2011, at 5:00 p.m., and expired on February 25, 2011, at 5:00 p.m., unless extended by order of the Court.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District
Posted on 01 February 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Ann LaBelle and Daniel LaBelle,
American Brokers Conduit; BAC
Home Loans Servicing, LP, a Texas
Limited Partnership as Successor in
Interest to Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing, LP; Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation; John and Jane Does 1-10,
Thus, the authenticity of BAC’s and MERS’ submitted documents is questioned by Plaintiffs. Consequently, at this motion to dismiss stage, the Court will not consider the signed documents which BAC and MERS have submitted. Therefore, holding the Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of TILA which would extend Plaintiffs’ right to rescind to three years. Plaintiffs’ notice of rescission was sent June 13, 2009, within three years of the transaction.
BAC contends that it is simply a servicer of the loan and has never owned a pecuniary interest, and that the true owner of the obligation is Freddie Mac. Once again however, Defendants rely on documents outside of the pleadings to prove their point. Defendants have submitted an affidavit stating that Freddie Mac is the true owner of the mortgage. This Court will not consider this affidavit for the purposes of this motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges that BAC maintains a pecuniary interest in the loan. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint references a letter from BAC’s counsel which states that BAC is the true owner of mortgage obligation. Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to establish that BAC is an assignee, against whom Plaintiffs may seek rescission.
Continue reading below…
Posted on 29 January 2011.
via: Brian Davies
ELIZABETH ANN KENTON, an Individual.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; WELLS FARGO
BANK N.A. F/K/A WELLS FARGO BANK
MINNESOTA, N. A., as Trustee of BANK OF
AMERICAN SECURITIES INC.
ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2003-2;
FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP, P.I
COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE THE
NATURE, EXTENT AND VALIDITY
OF LIEN AND TO DISALLOW
SECURED CLAIM, TILA VIOLATION,
FRAUD, LIBEL, QUIET TILE, AND
continue below…begin on page 4
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted on 10 January 2011.
The Ibanez foreclosure decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has gotten a lot of attention since it came down on Friday. The case is, not surprisingly being taken to heart by both bulls and bears. While I don’t think Ibanez is a death blow to the securitization industry, at the very least it should make investors question the party line that’s been coming out of the American Securitization Forum. At the very least it shows that the ASF’s claims in its White Paper and Congressional testimony are wrong on some points, as I’ve argued elsewhere, including on this blog. I would argue that at the very least, Ibanez shows that there is previously undisclosed material risk in all private-label MBS.
The Ibanez case itself is actually very simple. The issue before the court was whether the two securitization trusts could prove a chain of title for the mortgages they were attempting to foreclose on.
There’s broad agreement that absent such a chain of title, they don’t have the right to foreclose–they’d have as much standing as I do relative to the homeowners. The trusts claimed three alternative bases for chain of title:
(1) that the mortgages were transferred via the pooling and servicing agreement (PSA)–basically a contract of sale of the mortgages
(2) that the mortgages were transferred via assignments in blank.
(3) that the mortgages follow the note and transferred via the transfers of the notes.
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that arguments #2 and #3 simply don’t work in Massachusetts. The reasoning here was heavily derived from Massachusetts being a title theory state, but I think a court in a lien theory state could easily reach the same result. It’s hard to predict if other states will adopt the SJC’s reasoning, but it is a unanimous verdict (with an even sharper concurrence) by one of the most highly regarded state courts in the country. The opinion is quite lucid and persuasive, particularly the point that if the wrong plaintiff is named is the foreclosure notice, the homeowner hasn’t received proper notice of the foreclosure.
Regarding #1, the SJC held that a PSA might suffice as a valid assignment of the mortgages, if the PSA is executed and contains a schedule that sufficiently identifies the mortgage in question, and if there is proof that the assignor in the PSA itself held the mortgage. (This last point is nothing more than the old rule of nemo dat–you can’t give what you don’t have. It shows that there has to be a complete chain of title going back to origination.)
On the facts, both mortgages in Ibanez failed these requirements. In one case, the PSA couldn’t even be located(!) and in the other, there was a non-executed copy and the purported loan schedule (not the actual schedule–see Marie McDonnell’s amicus brief to the SJC) didn’t sufficiently identify the loan. Moreover, there was no proof that the mortgage chain of title even got to the depositor (the assignor), without which the PSA is meaningless:
Posted on 07 January 2011.
Today my friend’s history was made. The Massachusetts decision represents a major victory for consumers as well as for the handful of attorneys and advocates who dedicated their lives to protecting the defenseless. Perhaps the critical game-changing event in the Massachusetts litigation was the Amicus Brief submitted by Marie McDonnell setting forth and outlining the securitization paradigm and the defects in the chain of title.
Her analysis exposed both the material deficits contained and the subsequent fraudulent actions taken by the banks in foreclosing the properties. If you recall correctly it was Marie who first made the discovery in Antonio Ibanez’s loan in which it may have been securitized twice? Lets not forget who the robo-signer was that assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank but non other than Linda Green.
And after two and half very long years post-foreclosure who would have thought that Mark and Tammy LaRace would move back home!
I would like to personally thank all the attorney’s involved and a special thanks to my good friend Marie McDonnell for her brilliant work and who deserves a mighty high five from all of us…
Marie McDonnell is the President of McDonnell Property Analytics, Inc. (www.mcdonnellanalytics.com), a company dedicated to helping consumers, and training and supporting attorneys in defending foreclosures.© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted on 07 January 2011.
Posted at 12:26 PM ET, 01/ 7/2011
The Massachusetts Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower court ruling voiding two foreclosures because the banks failed to show the proper paperwork to prove they owned the loans-a decision that challenges the way mortgages were bundled and sold around the world.
Shares of Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp–the banks involved in the case–as well as those of other banks fell following the announcement of the decision. Wells Fargo was down 3.4 percent and US Bancorp 1.1 percent at midday.
The Massachusetts court is the highest to ruled on this issue and the decision has the potential to invalidate thousands of foreclosures across the state. It also provides more ammunition to borrowers in other states who could push the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the nation’s highest court rules that these transfers are not legal, the multi-trillion-dollar mortgage-backed securitization industry could face massive liability.
Posted on 07 January 2011.
By Thom Weidlich – Jan 7, 2011 2:56 PM ET
U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. lost a foreclosure case in Massachusetts’s highest court that will guide lower courts in that state and may influence others in the clash between bank practices and state real-estate law. The ruling drove down bank stocks.
The state Supreme Judicial Court today upheld a judge’s decision saying two foreclosures were invalid because the banks didn’t prove they owned the mortgages, which he said were transferred into two mortgage-backed trusts without the recipients’ being named.
Joshua Rosner, an analyst at the New York-based research firm Graham Fisher & Co., called the decision “a landmark ruling” showing that at least in Massachusetts a mortgage “must name the assignee to be valid.”
“This is likely to open the floodgates to more suits in Massachusetts and strengthens cases in other states,” Rosner said.
“We agree with the judge that the plaintiffs, who were not the original mortgagees, failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure,” Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote for a unanimous court.
Posted on 07 January 2011.
Via Marie McDonnell
read the decision below...
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 (617) 557-1030
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, trustee1 vs. ANTONIO IBANEZ (and a consolidated case2,3).
Suffolk. October 7, 2010. – January 7, 2011.
Present: Marshall, C.J., Ireland, Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Gants, JJ.4
Real Property, Mortgage, Ownership, Record title. Mortgage, Real estate, Foreclosure, Assignment. Notice, Foreclosure of mortgage.
Civil actions commenced in the Land Court Department on September 16 and October 30, 2008.
Motions for entry of default judgment and to vacate judgment were heard by Keith C. Long, J.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.
R. Bruce Allensworth (Phoebe S. Winder & Robert W. Sparkes, III, with him) for U.S. Bank National Association & another.
Paul R. Collier, III (Max W. Weinstein with him) for Antonio Ibanez.
Glenn F. Russell, Jr., for Mark A. LaRace & another.
The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:
Martha Coakley, Attorney General, & John M. Stephan, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
Kevin Costello, Gary Klein, Shennan Kavanagh & Stuart Rossman for National Consumer Law Center & others.
Ward P. Graham & Robert J. Moriarty, Jr., for Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc.
Marie McDonnell, pro se.
GANTS, J. After foreclosing on two properties and purchasing the properties back at the foreclosure sales, U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), as trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), as trustee for ABFC 2005-OPT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT 1 (plaintiffs) filed separate complaints in the Land Court asking a judge to declare that they held clear title to the properties in fee simple. We agree with the judge that the plaintiffs, who were not the original mortgagees, failed to make the required showing that they were the holders of the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. As a result, they did not demonstrate that the foreclosure sales were valid to convey title to the subject properties, and their requests for a declaration of clear title were properly denied.5
Procedural history. On July 5, 2007, U.S. Bank, as trustee, foreclosed on the mortgage of Antonio Ibanez, and purchased the Ibanez property at the foreclosure sale. On the same day, Wells Fargo, as trustee, foreclosed on the mortgage of Mark and Tammy LaRace, and purchased the LaRace property at that foreclosure sale.
In September and October of 2008, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo brought separate actions in the Land Court under G. L. c. 240, § 6, which authorizes actions “to quiet or establish the title to land situated in the commonwealth or to remove a cloud from the title thereto.” The two complaints sought identical relief: (1) a judgment that the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor (Ibanez or the LaRaces) in the property was extinguished by the foreclosure; (2) a declaration that there was no cloud on title arising from publication of the notice of sale in the Boston Globe; and (3) a declaration that title was vested in the plaintiff trustee in fee simple. U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo each asserted in its complaint that it had become the holder of the respective mortgage through an assignment made after the foreclosure sale.
In both cases, the mortgagors — Ibanez and the LaRaces — did not initially answer the complaints, and the plaintiffs moved for entry of default judgment. In their motions for entry of default judgment, the plaintiffs addressed two issues: (1) whether the Boston Globe, in which the required notices of the foreclosure sales were published, is a newspaper of “general circulation” in Springfield, the town where the foreclosed properties lay. See G. L. c. 244, § 14 (requiring publication every week for three weeks in newspaper published in town where foreclosed property lies, or of general circulation in that town); and (2) whether the plaintiffs were legally entitled to foreclose on the properties where the assignments of the mortgages to the plaintiffs were neither executed nor recorded in the registry of deeds until after the foreclosure sales.6 The two cases were heard together by the Land Court, along with a third case that raised the same issues.
On March 26, 2009, judgment was entered against the plaintiffs. The judge ruled that the foreclosure sales were invalid because, in violation of G. L. c. 244, § 14, the notices of the foreclosure sales named U.S. Bank (in the Ibanez foreclosure) and Wells Fargo (in the LaRace foreclosure) as the mortgage holders where they had not yet been assigned the mortgages.7 The judge found, based on each plaintiff’s assertions in its complaint, that the plaintiffs acquired the mortgages by assignment only after the foreclosure sales and thus had no interest in the mortgages being foreclosed at the time of the publication of the notices of sale or at the time of the foreclosure sales.8
The plaintiffs then moved to vacate the judgments. At a hearing on the motions on April 17, 2009, the plaintiffs conceded that each complaint alleged a postnotice, postforeclosure sale assignment of the mortgage at issue, but they now represented to the judge that documents might exist that could show a prenotice, preforeclosure sale assignment of the mortgages. The judge granted the plaintiffs leave to produce such documents, provided they were produced in the form they existed in at the time the foreclosure sale was noticed and conducted. In response, the plaintiffs submitted hundreds of pages of documents to the judge, which they claimed established that the mortgages had been assigned to them before the foreclosures. Many of these documents related to the creation of the securitized mortgage pools in which the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages were purportedly included.9
The judge denied the plaintiffs’ motions to vacate judgment on October 14, 2009, concluding that the newly submitted documents did not alter the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not the holders of the respective mortgages at the time of foreclosure. We granted the parties’ applications for direct appellate review.
Factual background. We discuss each mortgage separately, describing when appropriate what the plaintiffs allege to have happened and what the documents in the record demonstrate.10
The Ibanez mortgage. On December 1, 2005, Antonio Ibanez took out a $103,500 loan for the purchase of property at 20 Crosby Street in Springfield, secured by a mortgage to the lender, Rose Mortgage, Inc. (Rose Mortgage). The mortgage was recorded the following day. Several days later, Rose Mortgage executed an assignment of this mortgage in blank, that is, an assignment that did not specify the name of the assignee.11 The blank space in the assignment was at some point stamped with the name of Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One) as the assignee, and that assignment was recorded on June 7, 2006. Before the recording, on January 23, 2006, Option One executed an assignment of the Ibanez mortgage in blank.
According to U.S. Bank, Option One assigned the Ibanez mortgage to Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, which assigned it to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which then assigned it to the Structured Asset Securities Corporation,12 which then assigned the mortgage, pooled with approximately 1,220 other mortgage loans, to U.S. Bank, as trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z. With this last assignment, the Ibanez and other loans were pooled into a trust and converted into mortgage-backed securities that can be bought and sold by investors — a process known as securitization.
For ease of reference, the chain of entities through which the Ibanez mortgage allegedly passed before the foreclosure sale is:
Rose Mortgage, Inc. (originator)
Option One Mortgage Corporation (record holder)
Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (seller)
Structured Asset Securities Corporation (depositor)
U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z
According to U.S. Bank, the assignment of the Ibanez mortgage to U.S. Bank occurred pursuant to a December 1, 2006, trust agreement, which is not in the record. What is in the record is the private placement memorandum (PPM), dated December 26, 2006, a 273-page, unsigned offer of mortgage-backed securities to potential investors. The PPM describes the mortgage pools and the entities involved, and summarizes the provisions of the trust agreement, including the representation that mortgages “will be” assigned into the trust. According to the PPM, “[e]ach transfer of a Mortgage Loan from the Seller [Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.] to the Depositor [Structured Asset Securities Corporation] and from the Depositor to the Trustee [U.S. Bank] will be intended to be a sale of that Mortgage Loan and will be reflected as such in the Sale and Assignment Agreement and the Trust Agreement, respectively.” The PPM also specifies that “[e]ach Mortgage Loan will be identified in a schedule appearing as an exhibit to the Trust Agreement.” However, U.S. Bank did not provide the judge with any mortgage schedule identifying the Ibanez loan as among the mortgages that were assigned in the trust agreement.
On April 17, 2007, U.S. Bank filed a complaint to foreclose on the Ibanez mortgage in the Land Court under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (Servicemembers Act), which restricts foreclosures against active duty members of the uniformed services. See 50 U.S.C. Appendix §§ 501, 511, 533 (2006 & Supp. II 2008).13 In the complaint, U.S. Bank represented that it was the “owner (or assignee) and holder” of the mortgage given by Ibanez for the property. A judgment issued on behalf of U.S. Bank on June 26, 2007, declaring that the mortgagor was not entitled to protection from foreclosure under the Servicemembers Act. In June, 2007, U.S. Bank also caused to be published in the Boston Globe the notice of the foreclosure sale required by G. L. c. 244, § 14. The notice identified U.S. Bank as the “present holder” of the mortgage.
At the foreclosure sale on July 5, 2007, the Ibanez property was purchased by U.S. Bank, as trustee for the securitization trust, for $94,350, a value significantly less than the outstanding debt and the estimated market value of the property. The foreclosure deed (from U.S. Bank, trustee, as the purported holder of the mortgage, to U.S. Bank, trustee, as the purchaser) and the statutory foreclosure affidavit were recorded on May 23, 2008. On September 2, 2008, more than one year after the sale, and more than five months after recording of the sale, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., “as successor-in-interest” to Option One, which was until then the record holder of the Ibanez mortgage, executed a written assignment of that mortgage to U.S. Bank, as trustee for the securitization trust.14 This assignment was recorded on September 11, 2008.
The LaRace mortgage. On May 19, 2005, Mark and Tammy LaRace gave a mortgage for the property at 6 Brookburn Street in Springfield to Option One as security for a $103,200 loan; the mortgage was recorded that same day. On May 26, 2005, Option One executed an assignment of this mortgage in blank.
According to Wells Fargo, Option One later assigned the LaRace mortgage to Bank of America in a July 28, 2005, flow sale and servicing agreement. Bank of America then assigned it to Asset Backed Funding Corporation (ABFC) in an October 1, 2005, mortgage loan purchase agreement. Finally, ABFC pooled the mortgage with others and assigned it to Wells Fargo, as trustee for the ABFC 2005-OPT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT 1, pursuant to a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA).
For ease of reference, the chain of entities through which the LaRace mortgage allegedly passed before the foreclosure sale is:
Option One Mortgage Corporation (originator and record holder)
Bank of America
Asset Backed Funding Corporation (depositor)
Wells Fargo, as trustee for the ABFC 2005-OPT 1, ABFC Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT 1
Wells Fargo did not provide the judge with a copy of the flow sale and servicing agreement, so there is no document in the record reflecting an assignment of the LaRace mortgage by Option One to Bank of America. The plaintiff did produce an unexecuted copy of the mortgage loan purchase agreement, which was an exhibit to the PSA. The mortgage loan purchase agreement provides that Bank of America, as seller, “does hereby agree to and does hereby sell, assign, set over, and otherwise convey to the Purchaser [ABFC], without recourse, on the Closing Date . . . all of its right, title and interest in and to each Mortgage Loan.” The agreement makes reference to a schedule listing the assigned mortgage loans, but this schedule is not in the record, so there was no document before the judge showing that the LaRace mortgage was among the mortgage loans assigned to the ABFC.
Wells Fargo did provide the judge with a copy of the PSA, which is an agreement between the ABFC (as depositor), Option One (as servicer), and Wells Fargo (as trustee), but this copy was downloaded from the Securities and Exchange Commission website and was not signed. The PSA provides that the depositor “does hereby transfer, assign, set over and otherwise convey to the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust . . . all the right, title and interest of the Depositor . . . in and to . . . each Mortgage Loan identified on the Mortgage Loan Schedules,” and “does hereby deliver” to the trustee the original mortgage note, an original mortgage assignment “in form and substance acceptable for recording,” and other documents pertaining to each mortgage.
The copy of the PSA provided to the judge did not contain the loan schedules referenced in the agreement. Instead, Wells Fargo submitted a schedule that it represented identified the loans assigned in the PSA, which did not include property addresses, names of mortgagors, or any number that corresponds to the loan number or servicing number on the LaRace mortgage. Wells Fargo contends that a loan with the LaRace property’s zip code and city is the LaRace mortgage loan because the payment history and loan amount matches the LaRace loan.
On April 27, 2007, Wells Fargo filed a complaint under the Servicemembers Act in the Land Court to foreclose on the LaRace mortgage. The complaint represented Wells Fargo as the “owner (or assignee) and holder” of the mortgage given by the LaRaces for the property. A judgment issued on behalf of Wells Fargo on July 3, 2007, indicating that the LaRaces were not beneficiaries of the Servicemembers Act and that foreclosure could proceed in accordance with the terms of the power of sale. In June, 2007, Wells Fargo caused to be published in the Boston Globe the statutory notice of sale, identifying itself as the “present holder” of the mortgage.
At the foreclosure sale on July 5, 2007, Wells Fargo, as trustee, purchased the LaRace property for $120,397.03, a value significantly below its estimated market value. Wells Fargo did not execute a statutory foreclosure affidavit or foreclosure deed until May 7, 2008. That same day, Option One, which was still the record holder of the LaRace mortgage, executed an assignment of the mortgage to Wells Fargo as trustee; the assignment was recorded on May 12, 2008. Although executed ten months after the foreclosure sale, the assignment declared an effective date of April 18, 2007, a date that preceded the publication of the notice of sale and the foreclosure sale.
Discussion. The plaintiffs brought actions under G. L. c. 240, § 6, seeking declarations that the defendant mortgagors’ titles had been extinguished and that the plaintiffs were the fee simple owners of the foreclosed properties. As such, the plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing their entitlement to the relief sought. Sheriff’s Meadow Found., Inc. v. Bay-Courte Edgartown, Inc., 401 Mass. 267, 269 (1987). To meet this burden, they were required “not merely to demonstrate better title . . . than the defendants possess, but . . . to prove sufficient title to succeed in [the] action.” Id. See NationsBanc Mtge. Corp. v. Eisenhauer, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 727, 730 (2000). There is no question that the relief the plaintiffs sought required them to establish the validity of the foreclosure sales on which their claim to clear title rested.
Massachusetts does not require a mortgage holder to obtain judicial authorization to foreclose on a mortgaged property. See G. L. c. 183, § 21; G. L. c. 244, § 14. With the exception of the limited judicial procedure aimed at certifying that the mortgagor is not a beneficiary of the Servicemembers Act, a mortgage holder can foreclose on a property, as the plaintiffs did here, by exercise of the statutory power of sale, if such a power is granted by the mortgage itself. See Beaton v. Land Court, 367 Mass. 385, 390-391, 393, appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 806 (1975).
Where a mortgage grants a mortgage holder the power of sale, as did both the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages, it includes by reference the power of sale set out in G. L. c. 183, § 21, and further regulated by G. L. c. 244, §§ 11-17C. Under G. L. c. 183, § 21, after a mortgagor defaults in the performance of the underlying note, the mortgage holder may sell the property at a public auction and convey the property to the purchaser in fee simple, “and such sale shall forever bar the mortgagor and all persons claiming under him from all right and interest in the mortgaged premises, whether at law or in equity.” Even where there is a dispute as to whether the mortgagor was in default or whether the party claiming to be the mortgage holder is the true mortgage holder, the foreclosure goes forward unless the mortgagor files an action and obtains a court order enjoining the foreclosure.15 See Beaton v. Land Court, supra at 393.
Recognizing the substantial power that the statutory scheme affords to a mortgage holder to foreclose without immediate judicial oversight, we adhere to the familiar rule that “one who sells under a power [of sale] must follow strictly its terms. If he fails to do so there is no valid execution of the power, and the sale is wholly void.” Moore v. Dick, 187 Mass. 207, 211 (1905). See Roche v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 509, 513 (1871) (power of sale contained in mortgage “must be executed in strict compliance with its terms”). See also McGreevey v. Charlestown Five Cents Sav. Bank, 294 Mass. 480, 484 (1936).16
One of the terms of the power of sale that must be strictly adhered to is the restriction on who is entitled to foreclose. The “statutory power of sale” can be exercised by “the mortgagee or his executors, administrators, successors or assigns.” G. L. c. 183, § 21. Under G. L. c. 244, § 14, “[t]he mortgagee or person having his estate in the land mortgaged, or a person authorized by the power of sale, or the attorney duly authorized by a writing under seal, or the legal guardian or conservator of such mortgagee or person acting in the name of such mortgagee or person” is empowered to exercise the statutory power of sale. Any effort to foreclose by a party lacking “jurisdiction and authority” to carry out a foreclosure under these statutes is void. Chace v. Morse, 189 Mass. 559, 561 (1905), citing Moore v. Dick, supra. See Davenport v. HSBC Bank USA, 275 Mich. App. 344, 347-348 (2007) (attempt to foreclose by party that had not yet been assigned mortgage results in “structural defect that goes to the very heart of defendant’s ability to foreclose by advertisement,” and renders foreclosure sale void).
A related statutory requirement that must be strictly adhered to in a foreclosure by power of sale is the notice requirement articulated in G. L. c. 244, § 14. That statute provides that “no sale under such power shall be effectual to foreclose a mortgage, unless, previous to such sale,” advance notice of the foreclosure sale has been provided to the mortgagee, to other interested parties, and by publication in a newspaper published in the town where the mortgaged land lies or of general circulation in that town. Id. “The manner in which the notice of the proposed sale shall be given is one of the important terms of the power, and a strict compliance with it is essential to the valid exercise of the power.” Moore v. Dick, supra at 212. See Chace v. Morse, supra (“where a certain notice is prescribed, a sale without any notice, or upon a notice lacking the essential requirements of the written power, would be void as a proceeding for foreclosure”). See also McGreevey v. Charlestown Five Cents Sav. Bank, supra. Because only a present holder of the mortgage is authorized to foreclose on the mortgaged property, and because the mortgagor is entitled to know who is foreclosing and selling the property, the failure to identify the holder of the mortgage in the notice of sale may render the notice defective and the foreclosure sale void.17 See Roche v. Farnsworth, supra (mortgage sale void where notice of sale identified original mortgagee but not mortgage holder at time of notice and sale). See also Bottomly v. Kabachnick, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 480, 483-484 (1982) (foreclosure void where holder of mortgage not identified in notice of sale).
For the plaintiffs to obtain the judicial declaration of clear title that they seek, they had to prove their authority to foreclose under the power of sale and show their compliance with the requirements on which this authority rests. Here, the plaintiffs were not the original mortgagees to whom the power of sale was granted; rather, they claimed the authority to foreclose as the eventual assignees of the original mortgagees. Under the plain language of G. L. c. 183, § 21, and G. L. c. 244, § 14, the plaintiffs had the authority to exercise the power of sale contained in the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages only if they were the assignees of the mortgages at the time of the notice of sale and the subsequent foreclosure sale. See In re Schwartz, 366 B.R. 265, 269 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007) (“Acquiring the mortgage after the entry and foreclosure sale does not satisfy the Massachusetts statute”).18 See also Jeff-Ray Corp. v. Jacobson, 566 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (per curiam) (foreclosure action could not be based on assignment of mortgage dated four months after commencement of foreclosure proceeding).
The plaintiffs claim that the securitization documents they submitted establish valid assignments that made them the holders of the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages before the notice of sale and the foreclosure sale. We turn, then, to the documentation submitted by the plaintiffs to determine whether it met the requirements of a valid assignment.
Like a sale of land itself, the assignment of a mortgage is a conveyance of an interest in land that requires a writing signed by the grantor. See G. L. c. 183, § 3; Saint Patrick’s Religious, Educ. & Charitable Ass’n v. Hale, 227 Mass. 175, 177 (1917). In a “title theory state” like Massachusetts, a mortgage is a transfer of legal title in a property to secure a debt. See Faneuil Investors Group, Ltd. Partnership v. Selectmen of Dennis, 458 Mass. 1, 6 (2010). Therefore, when a person borrows money to purchase a home and gives the lender a mortgage, the homeowner-mortgagor retains only equitable title in the home; the legal title is held by the mortgagee. See Vee Jay Realty Trust Co. v. DiCroce, 360 Mass. 751, 753 (1972), quoting Dolliver v. St. Joseph Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 128 Mass. 315, 316 (1880) (although “as to all the world except the mortgagee, a mortgagor is the owner of the mortgaged lands,” mortgagee has legal title to property); Maglione v. BancBoston Mtge. Corp., 29 Mass. App. Ct. 88, 90 (1990). Where, as here, mortgage loans are pooled together in a trust and converted into mortgage-backed securities, the underlying promissory notes serve as financial instruments generating a potential income stream for investors, but the mortgages securing these notes are still legal title to someone’s home or farm and must be treated as such.
Focusing first on the Ibanez mortgage, U.S. Bank argues that it was assigned the mortgage under the trust agreement described in the PPM, but it did not submit a copy of this trust agreement to the judge. The PPM, however, described the trust agreement as an agreement to be executed in the future, so it only furnished evidence of an intent to assign mortgages to U.S. Bank, not proof of their actual assignment. Even if there were an executed trust agreement with language of present assignment, U.S. Bank did not produce the schedule of loans and mortgages that was an exhibit to that agreement, so it failed to show that the Ibanez mortgage was among the mortgages to be assigned by that agreement. Finally, even if there were an executed trust agreement with the required schedule, U.S. Bank failed to furnish any evidence that the entity assigning the mortgage — Structured Asset Securities Corporation — ever held the mortgage to be assigned. The last assignment of the mortgage on record was from Rose Mortgage to Option One; nothing was submitted to the judge indicating that Option One ever assigned the mortgage to anyone before the foreclosure sale.19 Thus, based on the documents submitted to the judge, Option One, not U.S. Bank, was the mortgage holder at the time of the foreclosure, and U.S. Bank did not have the authority to foreclose the mortgage.
Turning to the LaRace mortgage, Wells Fargo claims that, before it issued the foreclosure notice, it was assigned the LaRace mortgage under the PSA. The PSA, in contrast with U.S. Bank’s PPM, uses the language of a present assignment (“does hereby . . . assign” and “does hereby deliver”) rather than an intent to assign in the future. But the mortgage loan schedule Wells Fargo submitted failed to identify with adequate specificity the LaRace mortgage as one of the mortgages assigned in the PSA. Moreover, Wells Fargo provided the judge with no document that reflected that the ABFC (depositor) held the LaRace mortgage that it was purportedly assigning in the PSA. As with the Ibanez loan, the record holder of the LaRace loan was Option One, and nothing was submitted to the judge which demonstrated that the LaRace loan was ever assigned by Option One to another entity before the publication of the notice and the sale.
Where a plaintiff files a complaint asking for a declaration of clear title after a mortgage foreclosure, a judge is entitled to ask for proof that the foreclosing entity was the mortgage holder at the time of the notice of sale and foreclosure, or was one of the parties authorized to foreclose under G. L. c. 183, § 21, and G. L. c. 244, § 14. A plaintiff that cannot make this modest showing cannot justly proclaim that it was unfairly denied a declaration of clear title. See In re Schwartz, supra at 266 (“When HomEq [Servicing Corporation] was required to prove its authority to conduct the sale, and despite having been given ample opportunity to do so, what it produced instead was a jumble of documents and conclusory statements, some of which are not supported by the documents and indeed even contradicted by them”). See also Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Nelson, 382 Ill. App. 3d 1184, 1188 (2008) (reversing grant of summary judgment in favor of financial entity in foreclosure action, where there was “no evidence that [the entity] ever obtained any legal interest in the subject property”).
We do not suggest that an assignment must be in recordable form at the time of the notice of sale or the subsequent foreclosure sale, although recording is likely the better practice. Where a pool of mortgages is assigned to a securitized trust, the executed agreement that assigns the pool of mortgages, with a schedule of the pooled mortgage loans that clearly and specifically identifies the mortgage at issue as among those assigned, may suffice to establish the trustee as the mortgage holder. However, there must be proof that the assignment was made by a party that itself held the mortgage. See In re Samuels, 415 B.R. 8, 20 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2009). A foreclosing entity may provide a complete chain of assignments linking it to the record holder of the mortgage, or a single assignment from the record holder of the mortgage. See In re Parrish, 326 B.R. 708, 720 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005) (“If the claimant acquired the note and mortgage from the original lender or from another party who acquired it from the original lender, the claimant can meet its burden through evidence that traces the loan from the original lender to the claimant”). The key in either case is that the foreclosing entity must hold the mortgage at the time of the notice and sale in order accurately to identify itself as the present holder in the notice and in order to have the authority to foreclose under the power of sale (or the foreclosing entity must be one of the parties authorized to foreclose under G. L. c. 183, § 21, and G. L. c. 244, § 14).
The judge did not err in concluding that the securitization documents submitted by the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they were the holders of the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages, respectively, at the time of the publication of the notices and the sales. The judge, therefore, did not err in rendering judgments against the plaintiffs and in denying the plaintiffs’ motions to vacate the judgments.20
We now turn briefly to three other arguments raised by the plaintiffs on appeal. First, the plaintiffs initially contended that the assignments in blank executed by Option One, identifying the assignor but not the assignee, not only “evidence and confirm the assignments that occurred by virtue of the securitization agreements,” but “are effective assignments in their own right.” But in their reply briefs they conceded that the assignments in blank did not constitute a lawful assignment of the mortgages. Their concession is appropriate. We have long held that a conveyance of real property, such as a mortgage, that does not name the assignee conveys nothing and is void; we do not regard an assignment of land in blank as giving legal title in land to the bearer of the assignment. See Flavin v. Morrissey, 327 Mass. 217, 219 (1951); Macurda v. Fuller, 225 Mass. 341, 344 (1916). See also G. L. c. 183, § 3.
Second, the plaintiffs contend that, because they held the mortgage note, they had a sufficient financial interest in the mortgage to allow them to foreclose. In Massachusetts, where a note has been assigned but there is no written assignment of the mortgage underlying the note, the assignment of the note does not carry with it the assignment of the mortgage. Barnes v. Boardman, 149 Mass. 106, 114 (1889). Rather, the holder of the mortgage holds the mortgage in trust for the purchaser of the note, who has an equitable right to obtain an assignment of the mortgage, which may be accomplished by filing an action in court and obtaining an equitable order of assignment. Id. (“In some jurisdictions it is held that the mere transfer of the debt, without any assignment or even mention of the mortgage, carries the mortgage with it, so as to enable the assignee to assert his title in an action at law. . . . This doctrine has not prevailed in Massachusetts, and the tendency of the decisions here has been, that in such cases the mortgagee would hold the legal title in trust for the purchaser of the debt, and that the latter might obtain a conveyance by a bill in equity”). See Young v. Miller, 6 Gray 152, 154 (1856). In the absence of a valid written assignment of a mortgage or a court order of assignment, the mortgage holder remains unchanged. This common-law principle was later incorporated in the statute enacted in 1912 establishing the statutory power of sale, which grants such a power to “the mortgagee or his executors, administrators, successors or assigns,” but not to a party that is the equitable beneficiary of a mortgage held by another. G. L. c. 183, § 21, inserted by St. 1912, c. 502, § 6.
Third, the plaintiffs initially argued that postsale assignments were sufficient to establish their authority to foreclose, and now argue that these assignments are sufficient when taken in conjunction with the evidence of a presale assignment. They argue that the use of postsale assignments was customary in the industry, and point to Title Standard No. 58 (3) issued by the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, which declares: “A title is not defective by reason of . . . [t]he recording of an Assignment of Mortgage executed either prior, or subsequent, to foreclosure where said Mortgage has been foreclosed, of record, by the Assignee.”21 To the extent that the plaintiffs rely on this title standard for the proposition that an entity that does not hold a mortgage may foreclose on a property, and then cure the cloud on title by a later assignment of a mortgage, their reliance is misplaced because this proposition is contrary to G. L. c. 183, § 21, and G. L. c. 244, § 14. If the plaintiffs did not have their assignments to the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages at the time of the publication of the notices and the sales, they lacked authority to foreclose under G. L. c. 183, § 21, and G. L. c. 244, § 14, and their published claims to be the present holders of the mortgages were false. Nor may a postforeclosure assignment be treated as a pre-foreclosure assignment simply by declaring an “effective date” that precedes the notice of sale and foreclosure, as did Option One’s assignment of the LaRace mortgage to Wells Fargo. Because an assignment of a mortgage is a transfer of legal title, it becomes effective with respect to the power of sale only on the transfer; it cannot become effective before the transfer. See In re Schwartz, supra at 269.
However, we do not disagree with Title Standard No. 58 (3) that, where an assignment is confirmatory of an earlier, valid assignment made prior to the publication of notice and execution of the sale, that confirmatory assignment may be executed and recorded after the foreclosure, and doing so will not make the title defective. A valid assignment of a mortgage gives the holder of that mortgage the statutory power to sell after a default regardless whether the assignment has been recorded. See G. L. c. 183, § 21; MacFarlane v. Thompson, 241 Mass. 486, 489 (1922). Where the earlier assignment is not in recordable form or bears some defect, a written assignment executed after foreclosure that confirms the earlier assignment may be properly recorded. See Bon v. Graves, 216 Mass. 440, 444-445 (1914). A confirmatory assignment, however, cannot confirm an assignment that was not validly made earlier or backdate an assignment being made for the first time. See Scaplen v. Blanchard, 187 Mass. 73, 76 (1904) (confirmatory deed “creates no title” but “takes the place of the original deed, and is evidence of the making of the former conveyance as of the time when it was made”). Where there is no prior valid assignment, a subsequent assignment by the mortgage holder to the note holder is not a confirmatory assignment because there is no earlier written assignment to confirm. In this case, based on the record before the judge, the plaintiffs failed to prove that they obtained valid written assignments of the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages before their foreclosures, so the postforeclosure assignments were not confirmatory of earlier valid assignments.
Finally, we reject the plaintiffs’ request that our ruling be prospective in its application. A prospective ruling is only appropriate, in limited circumstances, when we make a significant change in the common law. See Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368, 384 (2010) (noting “normal rule of retroactivity”); Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540, 565 (1982). We have not done so here. The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes. All that has changed is the plaintiffs’ apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.
Conclusion. For the reasons stated, we agree with the judge that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they were the holders of the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages at the time that they foreclosed these properties, and therefore failed to demonstrate that they acquired fee simple title to these properties by purchasing them at the foreclosure sale.
CORDY, J. (concurring, with whom Botsford, J., joins). I concur fully in the opinion of the court, and write separately only to underscore that what is surprising about these cases is not the statement of principles articulated by the court regarding title law and the law of foreclosure in Massachusetts, but rather the utter carelessness with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets. There is no dispute that the mortgagors of the properties in question had defaulted on their obligations, and that the mortgaged properties were subject to foreclosure. Before commencing such an action, however, the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order. Although there was no apparent actual unfairness here to the mortgagors, that is not the point. Foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law has always required that it proceed strictly in accord with the statutes that govern it. As the opinion of the court notes, such strict compliance is necessary because Massachusetts is both a title theory State and allows for extrajudicial foreclosure.
The type of sophisticated transactions leading up to the accumulation of the notes and mortgages in question in these cases and their securitization, and, ultimately the sale of mortgaged-backed securities, are not barred nor even burdened by the requirements of Massachusetts law. The plaintiff banks, who brought these cases to clear the titles that they acquired at their own foreclosure sales, have simply failed to prove that the underlying assignments of the mortgages that they allege (and would have) entitled them to foreclose ever existed in any legally cognizable form before they exercised the power of sale that accompanies those assignments. The court’s opinion clearly states that such assignments do not need to be in recordable form or recorded before the foreclosure, but they do have to have been effectuated.
What is more complicated, and not addressed in this opinion, because the issue was not before us, is the effect of the conduct of banks such as the plaintiffs here, on a bona fide third-party purchaser who may have relied on the foreclosure title of the bank and the confirmative assignment and affidavit of foreclosure recorded by the bank subsequent to that foreclosure but prior to the purchase by the third party, especially where the party whose property was foreclosed was in fact in violation of the mortgage covenants, had notice of the foreclosure, and took no action to contest it.
1 For the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z.
2 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., trustee, vs. Mark A. LaRace
3 The Appeals Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate these cases.
4 Chief Justice Marshall participated in the deliberation on this case prior to her retirement.
5 We acknowledge the amicus briefs filed by the Attorney General; the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc.; Marie McDonnell; and the National Consumer Law Center, together with Darlene Manson, Germano DePina, Robert Lane, Ann Coiley, Roberto Szumik, and Geraldo Dosanjos.
6 The uncertainty surrounding the first issue was the reason the plaintiffs sought a declaration of clear title in order to obtain title insurance for these properties. The second issue was raised by the judge in the LaRace case at a January 5, 2009, case management conference.
7 The judge also concluded that the Boston Globe was a newspaper of general circulation in Springfield, so the foreclosures were not rendered invalid on that ground because notice was published in that newspaper.
8 In the third case, LaSalle Bank National Association, trustee for the certificate holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I, LLC Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-HE2 vs. Freddy Rosario, the judge concluded that the mortgage foreclosure “was not rendered invalid by its failure to record the assignment reflecting its status as holder of the mortgage prior to the foreclosure since it was, in fact, the holder by assignment at the time of the foreclosure, it truthfully claimed that status in the notice, and it could have produced proof of that status (the unrecorded assignment) if asked.”
9 On June 1, 2009, attorneys for the defendant mortgagors filed their appearance in the cases for the first time.
10 The LaRace defendants allege that the documents submitted to the judge following the plaintiffs’ motions to vacate judgment are not properly in the record before us. They also allege that several of these documents are not properly authenticated. Because we affirm the judgment on other grounds, we do not address these concerns, and assume that these documents are properly before us and were adequately authenticated.
11 This signed and notarized document states: “FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby grants, assigns and transfers to _______ all beneficial interest under that certain Mortgage dated December 1, 2005 executed by Antonio Ibanez . . . .”
12 The Structured Asset Securities Corporation is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., which is in turn a wholly owned, direct subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
13 As implemented in Massachusetts, a mortgage holder is required to go to court to obtain a judgment declaring that the mortgagor is not a beneficiary of the Servicemembers Act before proceeding to foreclosure. St. 1943, c. 57, as amended through St. 1998, c. 142.
14 The Land Court judge questioned whether American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., was in fact a successor in interest to Option One. Given our affirmance of the judgment on other grounds, we need not address this question.
15 An alternative to foreclosure through the right of statutory sale is foreclosure by entry, by which a mortgage holder who peaceably enters a property and remains for three years after recording a certificate or memorandum of entry forecloses the mortgagor’s right of redemption. See G. L. c. 244, §§ 1, 2; Joyner v. Lenox Sav. Bank, 322 Mass. 46, 52-53 (1947). A foreclosure by entry may provide a separate ground for a claim of clear title apart from the foreclosure by execution of the power of sale. See, e.g., Grabiel v. Michelson, 297 Mass. 227, 228-229 (1937). Because the plaintiffs do not claim clear title based on foreclosure by entry, we do not discuss it further.
16 We recognize that a mortgage holder must not only act in strict compliance with its power of sale but must also “act in good faith and . . . use reasonable diligence to protect the interests of the mortgagor,” and this responsibility is “more exacting” where the mortgage holder becomes the buyer at the foreclosure sale, as occurred here. See Williams v. Resolution GGF Oy, 417 Mass. 377, 382-383 (1994), quoting Seppala & Aho Constr. Co. v. Petersen, 373 Mass. 316, 320 (1977). Because the issue was not raised by the defendant mortgagors or the judge, we do not consider whether the plaintiffs breached this obligation.
17 The form of foreclosure notice provided in G. L. c. 244, § 14, calls for the present holder of the mortgage to identify itself and sign the notice. While the statute permits other forms to be used and allows the statutory form to be “altered as circumstances require,” G. L. c. 244, § 14, we do not interpret this flexibility to suggest that the present holder of the mortgage need not identify itself in the notice.
18 The plaintiffs were not authorized to foreclose by virtue of any of the other provisions of G. L. c. 244, § 14: they were not the guardian or conservator, or acting in the name of, a person so authorized; nor were they the attorney duly authorized by a writing under seal.
19 Ibanez challenges the validity of this assignment to Option One. Because of the failure of U.S. Bank to document any preforeclosure sale assignment or chain of assignments by which it obtained the Ibanez mortgage from Option One, it is unnecessary to address the validity of the assignment from Rose Mortgage to Option One.
20 The plaintiffs have not pressed the procedural question whether the judge exceeded his authority in rendering judgment against them on their motions for default judgment, and we do not address it here.
21 Title Standard No. 58 (3) issued by the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts continues: “However, if the Assignment is not dated prior, or stated to be effective prior, to the commencement of a foreclosure, then a foreclosure sale after April 19, 2007 may be subject to challenge in the Bankruptcy Court,” citing In re Schwartz, 366 B.R. 265 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007).
Posted on 28 December 2010.
TILA is designed to protect consumers who are not on an equal footing with lenders,
either in bargaining for credit terms or in knowledge of credit provisions. The proposed
amendments to Reg. Z, conditioning the voiding of the creditor’s security interest upon
the consumer’s tender, would be a large step backward from this purpose. In a time of
unprecedented numbers of foreclosures, it is unthinkable that the Federal Reserve would
weaken a critical provision of TILA and thus harm consumers.
Continue reading below…
Posted on 05 October 2010.
This is without question the most important decision so far in the war against the unlawful and fraudulent conduct of the originators, securitizers, out-source-providers, default servicers, and their so-called lawyers! The Judge articulates the business models we are dealing with better than anyone has done in any opinion, article or brief. I am sure your work contributed greatly to the education of the court and for that you should be highly commended. This Judge really and truly got it! It is the perfect outline of the transactional requirements and debunks every bogus argument that the other side has been advancing for year”.
O. MAX GARNDER III-
I have attached a sampling from my Amicus Brief filed on Friday, October 1, 2010 with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the landmark cases that are presently on appeal from the Massachusetts Land Court styled: U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and its companion case, Wells Fargo Bank v. LaRace.
My brief reveals groundbreaking evidence that Antonio Ibanez’s loan was most likely securitized twice – a hidden fact unknown until now.
Moreover, the Assignment of Mortgage allegedly conveying the Ibanez loan to U.S. Bank, executed by “robo-signer” Linda Green, violated the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and other Trust documents.
Finally I expose the fact that U.S. Bank, who bought the Ibanez property at foreclosure for $94,350, sold it on December 15, 2008 for $0.00. That’s right, they foreclosed on Ibanez’s property so that they could give it away!
With respect to Mark and Tammy LaRace, I am happy to report that through the efforts of Attorney Glenn F. Russell, Jr. and myself, the LaRaces moved back into their home in January of this year, two and a half years post-foreclosure!
My Amicus Brief reveals that Wells Fargo Bank’s own documents prove that they did not have the authority to foreclose on the LaRaces. Therefore, the Assignment of Mortgage, Power of Attorney, Affidavit, and Foreclosure Deed executed by “robo-signer” Cindi Ellis were all unauthorized.
Wells Fargo Bank’s recent statement that it does not have the same “document” problem that GMAC, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America have admitted to is simply not true. I have audited many, many foreclosure files where Wells Fargo Bank employees and their agents have manufactured false documents to prosecute wrongful foreclosures such as in the LaRaces’ case.
I would encourage everyone to go to my website and make a donation of $125.00 or more which will allow me to e-mail a complete copy of my Amicus Brief together with the Exhibits that document the fraud. Although I undertook this effort on a pro bono basis, I will have a printing bill that could amount to about $5,000. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate some assistance.
Marie McDonnell, CFE
Truth In Lending Audit & Recovery Services, LLC
Mortgage Fraud and Forensic Analyst
Certified Fraud Examiner
30 Main Street, Rear
P.O. Box 2760
Orleans, MA 02653
Tel. (508) 255-8829
Cell (508) 292-5555
Fax (508) 255-9626
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted on 24 June 2010.
Lea Krivinskas Shepard
Loyola University Chicago School of Law
This Article explores a significant market-based threat to the Truth in Lending Act’s right of rescission, a remedy that attempts to deter lender overreaching and fraud during one of the most complex financial transactions of a borrower’s lifetime. The depressed housing market has substantially impaired many borrowers’ ability to fulfill their responsibilities in rescission’s unwinding process: restoring the lender to the status quo ante by repaying the net loan proceeds of the mortgage transaction.
When a consumer is unable to finance her tender obligation, non-bankruptcy judges’ overwhelming response has been to protect the lender and deny rescission to the borrower. This Article argues that these courts, to fulfill TILA’s consumer-protective function, must take a different approach. Non-bankruptcy courts, which handle the vast majority of TILA rescission actions, should use their equitable authority under TILA to modify borrowers’ repayment obligations by allowing borrowers to tender in installments, over a period of years, and at reasonable interest rates. This approach both averts foreclosures that harm borrowers, lenders, and neighborhoods and ensures that TILA’s consumer-protective mandate will remain viable even in a depressed housing market.
This Article also considers an important aspect of TILA’s rescission remedy that, while tacitly acknowledged by courts and commentators, has been insufficiently explored in the academic literature. There exists an uneasy tension between the goal of the Truth in Lending Act – informing consumers of the financial consequences of their mortgage loan transactions – and borrowers’ frequent use of TILA rescission: defending their homes from foreclosure actions that the lender’s disclosure violation may or may not have precipitated. The Article concludes that TILA rescission actions, albeit a blunt instrument in the consumer protection setting, must be preserved, particularly during periods of economic calamity, since it remains a singular source of borrower leverage in a legal and economic climate that remains generally inhospitable to homeowners.
Accepted Paper Series
Posted on 28 April 2010.
Why were any of these NOT signed over by Universal American Mortgage Corp??
The ONLY “lender” he knew at the time of closing was Universal American Mortgage Corp!
For each transaction, the creditor shall disclose the following information as applicable:
(a) Creditor. The identity of the creditor making the disclosures.
Now this is at the bottom of each page…but I bet these are “not” the originals.
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted on 20 April 2010.
Editor’s Note: Judges are quick to jump on the TILA Statute of Limitations by imposing the one year rule for rescission and damages. But there is more to it than that.
First the statute does NOT cut off at one year except for items that are apparent on the face of the closing documentation; so for MOST claims arising under securitization where almost every real detail of the transaction was hidden and intentionally withheld, the one year rule does not apply.
Second, the statute of limitations does not BEGIN to run until the date that the violation is revealed. In most cases this will be when the homeowner knows or should have known that the loan was securitized. Since the pretender lenders are so strong on the point that securitization does not affect enforcement, the best point in time for the statute to run is when a forensic analyst or expert tells the homeowner that TILA violations exist.
And THEN, in those cases where the information was hidden, the statute of limitations is three years from the date the information was revealed.
So when you go after undisclosed fees, profits and other compensation of any kind, you are not cut off by one year because — by definition they were not disclosed. The only way the other side can get out of that is by admitting the existence of the fee, and then showing that it WAS disclosed — presumably through yet another fabricated document, signed by a non-existent person with non existent authroity with non- existent witnesses and notarized by someone three thousand miles away (whose notary stamp and forged signature was applied to hundreds of pages of blank documents for later use). [Brad Keiser was the one who discovered this tactic by doing what most forensic analysts don’t do — actually reading every piece of paper sent by the pretender lender and every piece of paper provided by the homeowner. Case law shows that where the notary was improperly applied — and there are many ways for it to be improperly applied, the notary is void. If the statute requires recording the document in the public records, then the document so notarized shall be considered as NOT being in the public records and is ordered expunged from those records].
This comment from Rob elaborates:
Regarding the TILA Statute of Limitations:
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
When a violation of TILA occurs, the one-year limitations period applicable to actions for statutory and actual damages begins to run. U.S.C. § 1641(e).
A TILA violation may occur at the consummation of the transaction between a creditor and its consumer if the transaction is made without the required disclosures.
A creditor may also violate TILA by engaging in fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive practices that conceal the TILA violation occurring at the time of closing. Often consumers do not discover any violation until after they have paid excessive charges imposed by their creditors. Consumers who later learn of the creditor’s TILA violations can allege an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. When the consumer has an extended right to rescind or
pursue other statutory remedies because a violation occurs, the statute of limitations for all the damages the consumers seek extends to three years from the date the violation is revealed.
McIntosh v. Irwin Union Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 26, 30 (D. Mass. 2003).