ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> CL&P Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Consumer Law

: CL&P Blog

Massachusetts SJC Voids Foreclosure Sales with Bad Transfers

By Alan White

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today released its opinion in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez.  In two related mortgage cases, the SJC voided nonjudicial foreclosure sales because the securitized trust selling the homes did not have a valid chain of title to the mortgages.  The decision includes three key holdings that will have a broad impact on nonjudicial foreclosures.

The trustees in both cases claimed that the pooling and servicing agreement, taken together with the blank mortgage assignment prepared by the record mortgage holder, were sufficient.  The SJC explicity rejected the theory of "bearer mortgages":

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.

Of course, the foreclosing servicer could have avoided this problem by filling out the blank assignment and recording it BEFORE the foreclosure sale, but did not find it expedient to do so.

Second, the court held that in Massachusetts at least, the mortgage does not literally follow the Note.  In other words, the fact that the trusts claimed to hold the mortgage Notes in question did not mean that they could foreclose without having a valid mortgage assignment.  Owning the Note means only that the trusts were entitled to sue for an assignment of the mortgage from its current holder.

Finally, the SJC held that a mortgage assignment cannot be retroactive, i.e. cannot be executed and delivered after a foreclosure sale to validate the sale. 

The Court also declined the banks' unusual request to make the ruling prospective only:  "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."



Full post as published by CL&P Blog on January 07, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0144 secs (new cache)