For interested legal observers of the foreclosure crisis, it really doesn’t get any better than this.

Supplemental and amicus curie legal briefs have been filed in much awaited case of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, and they make for great reading. The briefs were filed in response to the SJC’s concern, mid-appeal, over whether an adverse ruling against foreclosing lenders will have a disastrous impact on foreclosure titles and, if so, whether its ruling should be applied prospectively rather than retroactively. Click here for our past posts on the case.

Notably, the Federal Housing Finance Association, the congressional conservator of the bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, filed a rare amicus brief and laid a shot across the SJC’s bow. It suggested that the congressional bailout law would trump an adverse decision by the SJC to the extent that it interfered with Fannie and Freddie’s mission to secure the health of U.S. secondary mortgage market. This is the first time that I’m aware of the federal agency intervening in a particular foreclosure case.

Not surprisingly, Fannie Mae, FHFA, and REBA (Real Estate Bar Ass’n) and the other industry groups argue against a retroactive application of an adverse ruling, claiming that it would have a disastrous effect on homeowners with foreclosures in their titles.

Eaton (which cited thid Blog), the legal services groups and foreclosure defense groups say that the sky will not fall down if the unity rule is applied retroactively; indeed, foreclosures in Mass. have increased post-Ibanez. They also argue that the law is the law, and it’s the lenders fault for creating a securitization scheme in violation of the law, so they should have to deal with the repercussions.

I have also attached REBA’s and Attorney Glenn Russell’s (lead counsel in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez) submissions on the recent Land Court ruling in Wells Fargo v. McKenna where the Land Court Judge Gordon Piper held that Massachusetts does not require the unity rule.

A final decision is expected in February or March.

Click here for the particular brief:

Real Estate Bar Ass’n (REBA) Brief      REBA Letter re. McKenna case

Land Title Ass’n Brief

WilmerHale Legal Services Brief

Appellee Henrietta Eaton Brief (citing this Blog)

Fannie Mae Brief

Federal Housing Finance Ass’n Brief

Ablitt Schofield PC Foreclosure Law Firm Brief

McDonnell Property Analytics Brief

Professor Adam Levitin Brief

National Foreclosure Defense Group Brief

Attorney Glenn Russell Foreclosure Defense Brief (Part 1 and Part 2)

______________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate litigator and attorney. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

The Supreme Judicial Court has just issued an unusual order in the very important Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association case, indicating its deep concern over whether an adverse ruling against foreclosing lenders will have a disastrous impact on foreclosure titles and, if so, whether its ruling should be applied prospectively rather than retroactively. The Court is seeking supplemental briefing and friend-of-the-court briefs on these decisive issues. A final decision is expected in February or March.

As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court is considering the controversial question of whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. This is the essence of the “produce the note” defense. In a securitized mortgage pool, in which over 60% of all U.S. mortgage are part, the note and mortgage are separated between securitized trusts, mortgage services or Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS).

If the SJC rules against lenders, it could render the vast majority of securitized mortgage foreclosures defective, thereby creating mass chaos in the Massachusetts land recording and title community. If you thought U.S. Bank v. Ibanez was bad, Eaton v. FNMA could be the Nuclear Option.

The text of the order is as follows:

ORDER :Having heard oral argument and considered the written submissions of the parties and the various amici curiae, the court hereby invites supplemental briefing on the points described below. Supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages and shall be filed on or before January 23, 2012. 1. It has been claimed that requiring a unity of the mortgage and the underlying promissory note, in order for there to be a valid foreclosure, would cloud any title that has a foreclosure in the chain of title, regardless of how long ago the foreclosure occurred. The parties are invited to address whether they believe that such a requirement would have such an effect, and if so, what legal or practical measures exist that might limit the consequences of such a requirement. 2. It also has been suggested that, if the court were to hold that unity of the mortgage and note is required under existing law, the court’s holding should be applied prospectively only. The parties are invited to indicate on what authority they believe (or do not believe) the court could make such a holding prospective only.

Reading into this order, perhaps a majority of the justices are already leaning towards ruling against the lenders and want to limit the potentially disastrous effect it could have on existing titles and pending and future foreclosures. Interestingly, lenders in the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case asked the SJC to apply its ruling prospectively, but it declined, thereby leaving hundreds to thousands of property owners and title insurers to clean up toxic foreclosure titles.

In my opinion, an adverse ruling against lenders in Eaton could be the apocalyptic scenario, rendering open to challenge any title with a previous foreclosure in it and inserting a fatal wedge into the current securitized mortgage system. Hopefully this time around the Court is more sensitive to how its ruling will impact the real estate community. It will be interesting to see how this case continues to develop. We will continue to monitor it.

_______________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate litigator and attorney. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.

Tireless Determination The Key To Massachusetts Short Sale Success

What Is A Short Sale?

A short sale is special type of real estate transaction between a homeowner, his mortgage holder(s), and a third party buyer where the property owner’s mortgage balance exceeds the market value of the property — known as being “under water.” In a short sale, the homeowner’s mortgage lender agrees to accept less than what is owed on the outstanding mortgage, thereby being left “short.” Ideally, the lender will agree to release out the entire debt including any deficiency between the sales price and mortgage balance. This is called a deficiency waiver and most skilled short sale negotiators will insist on this.

The entire process can be extremely time consuming and typically requires a lengthy negotiation with the lender by a skilled Massachusetts short sale attorney or lawyer. Banks and loan servicers now realize that short sales are a preferred method to dispose of distressed properties as they are far less expensive than foreclosure. Short sales are generally reserved for homeowners who do not qualify for a loan modification.

Do I Qualify For A Short Sale?

Homeowners can qualify for short sale approval by proving a recognized involuntary financial hardship. An involuntary financial hardship is some event, beyond the homeowner’s control, that caused the mortgage payments to become unaffordable, even if only temporarily. Acceptable hardships typically include:

• Loss of a employment
• Curtailment of income
• Increased mortgage payment or liabilities
• Loss of tenant(s)
• Divorce or Separation
• Catastrophic medical event
• Job relocation
• Military service; or
• Death in the family

Most lenders distinguish between someone who lost their job and someone who voluntarily quit their job. Thus, unless you are able to prove that you were forced to leave your job, or asked by your employer to take a significant pay cut, a change of employment status may not automatically qualify you for a short sale. Furthermore, many homeowners have suffered multiple hardships, and it can be difficult deciding which hardship you should present to your lender when requesting a short sale. 

The Hardship Letter

As a part of the short sale application process, a skilled Massachusetts short sale lawyer will draft a hardship letter detailing why you are no longer able to make mortgage payments on your home and why you qualify for a short sale. The hardship letter can be one of the most important aspects of the short sale process and should be as detailed as possible, telling a compelling story about the applicant’s individual circumstances.

As part of the short sale hardship package, the short sale applicant will also submit the following:

• Third party authorization (allowing your lawyer and/or realtor to communicate with your lender)
• Financial worksheet (breakdown of monthly expenses and income)
• Hardship letter (why you could pay your mortgage before and why you cannot now)
• Recent pay-stubs
• Recent Bank statements
• Offer to Purchase
  
• MLS listing showing the market history of your property
• Last 2 Years Federal Tax Returns

How Long Does Short Sale Approval Take?

Depending on who your lender is and how many loans you have, short sale approve can take on average between 60 – 120 days, depending on the particular lender and complexity of the case. If the lender makes a counter offer on the purchase price or if there are multiple mortgages and liens against the property, the process will take longer. One of the keys is to submit requested documentation as fast as possible, and to stay on the lender, with frequent requests for status updates. That’s what separates a skilled short sale attorney from the run-of-the-mill negotiators who’ll let your file languish.

Credit and Legal Ramifications

A short sale is far less damaging to your credit and ability to secure a mortgage down the road than a foreclosure or bankruptcy, although it does have some impact.

Do I Need A Short Sale Attorney?

Only if you want to maximize your chances of getting short sale approved, obtain approval in the fastest manner possible, and protect your legal rights and future credit history at the same time! There are real estate agents and short sale firms advertising themselves as short sale negotiators — and some are really good — however, they are not licensed to provide legal or tax advice, and you must seek that advice elsewhere at additional cost. With an experienced Massachusetts short sale attorney, the applicant can “kill two birds with one stone,” by having the attorney take over the entire short sale approval process. While negotiating with your lender, the short sale attorney can simultaneously perform all necessary short sale legal work, including reviewing and drafting the offer to purchase, short sale approval letter and purchase and sale agreement with short sale addendum/riders. The cost is relatively the same across the board, and some of the fees may be paid by the lender, depending on who it is.

We highly recommend Andrew Coppo at Greater Boston Short Sales LLC, an experienced and successful short sale negotiator. Andrew writes all about Massachusetts short sales on his fantastic blog, The Closing Table.

______________________________________________________________

Richard Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts short sale attorney. For more information, please contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup or 508-620-5352.

FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHA Tighten Capital Reserve Requirements For Condominium Mortgage Lending

Since the condominium market meltdown, both Fannie Mae and FHA have passed increasingly stricter and tighter lending guidelines on condominium financing. Of particular concern to the agencies and potential buyers is the capital reserve account. For those who don’t know, a condominium capital reserve account is an emergency fund set aside for major capital common area repairs and expenses, such as a leaky roof, a new boiler system, or other major structural issues. In a new condominium, the developer will establish a capital reserve account through mandatory contributions by new buyers, then a certain percentage will be allocated towards that capital reserve account every month through condo fees. In established condominiums, some have already set up a healthy capital reserve fund, while others have little, if any, money set aside. That’s where the problem starts as far as Fannie Mae and FHA are concerned.

10% Of Operating Budget Goal

FHA is now the strictest lending program for condominiums. Ironically, FHA is typically the loan of choice for first time condo buyers. FHA rules now require that condominiums set aside at least 10% of their operating income towards their capital reserve accounts. So if the annual budget is for $200,000, then $20,000 must be set aside in the capital reserve fund.

The lender may also require a review of the annual budget, and where the budget is inadequate, require a capital reserve study.

With regard to Fannie Mae, the 10% rule is often required by lenders although it’s not technically part of the Fannie Mae condominium guidelines. However, arguing with Fannie Mae and lenders about this issue is tough because a healthy capital reserve account is critical for the financial stability of any condominium project, and hence, vital to the underwriting of the condo mortgage loan.

Accordingly, for all FHA and some FNMA loans (i.e, the vast majority of conventional loans), the 10% capital reserve account rule will come into play.

What If My Condo Doesn’t Have 10% Reserve?

Well, you will have a problem selling your unit, and you may have unintentionally picked a fight with the condo trustees. The Massachusetts Condominium Act requires the establishment of an “adequate” capital reserve account but does not specify how much money needs to be in it. Arguably, 10% of operating budget is now “adequate” under the law, but there is no court precedent yet.

I will say this. Condominium trustees, boards and managers who do not keep the condominium’s finances in compliance with current Fannie Mae/FHA secondary mortgage lending requirements run the risk of violating their fiduciary duties towards unit owners. If unit owners are hindered in selling their units to buyers seeking FHA/Fannie Mae loans because capital reserve accounts are insufficient, that’s a huge problem.

Bottom line, I would advise all Massachusetts condominiums to get their capital reserve accounts beefed up to the 10% mark. It’s a win-win for everyone.

If you are in need of comprehensive condo compliance services, I would recommend my friends at National Condo Advisors.

More information:

FHA Tightens Condo Rules

New Fannie Mae Condo Rules

____________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Condominium Real Estate Attorney. For further information you can contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

Brian Cavanaugh of SmarterBorrowing.com is back with his Massachusetts Weekly Mortgage Rate Update. Scroll to the bottom for Brian’s valuable Massachusetts Mortgage Rate Lock Advice!

Inquire within for current Mortgage Rates or Guidelines   bc@SmarterBorrowing.com  617.771.5021

Overall, I am expecting to see a much more active week in the financial markets and mortgage pricing than last week. The most important day of the week is either Tuesday or Friday due to the reports being posted those days and the FOMC meeting scheduled. Please maintain contact with your mortgage professional if you have not locked an interest rate yet because we may see sizable changes to mortgage pricing more than one day this week.

If I were considering financing/refinancing a home, I would….

LOCK if my closing was taking place within 7 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 8 and 20 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 21 and 60 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place over 60 days from now…

Busy Week Ahead

This week is fairly busy in terms of the number of economic releases and other events scheduled that may influence mortgage rates. There are only four pieces of economic data for us to watch, but three of them are highly important to the markets. In addition to the economic reports, we also have the last FOMC meeting of the year and two important Treasury auctions that are likely to impact bond trading and mortgage pricing. Those events, coupled with the likelihood of further overseas developments from Europe and possibly others, make it highly likely that we will see plenty of movement in the markets and mortgage rates this week.

There is nothing of relevance scheduled for tomorrow. This means we can expect the stock markets to drive bond trading and mortgage rates again. If the major stock indexes open the week with gains tomorrow morning, bonds may move lower, pushing mortgage rates higher. But a weak open in stocks could lead to slightly lower mortgage rates tomorrow. We could also see traders position themselves ahead of the week’s agenda, so even though there is nothing concerning on the calendar, we could see mortgage rates change.

Consumer Price Index Out

The week’s most important economic data comes Friday morning when November’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) is posted. It is similar to Thursday’s Producer Price Index, except it tracks inflationary pressures at the more important consumer level of the economy. Current forecasts call for an increase of 0.1% in the overall index and a 0.1% rise in the core data reading. The core data is watched more closely because it excludes more volatile food and energy prices, giving a more stable reading for analysts to consider. This data is one of the most watched inflation indexes, which is extremely important to long-term securities such as mortgage related bonds. Rising inflation erodes the value of a bond’s future fixed interest payments, making them less appealing to investors. That translates into falling bond prices and rising mortgage rates.

Retail Sales Report

Tuesday has two important events, starting with November’s Retail Sales report. This 8:30 AM ET release will give us a key measurement of consumer spending by tracking sales at retail level establishments. This data is highly important to the markets because consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the U.S. economy. Rapidly rising consumer spending raises the possibility of seeing solid economic growth. Since long-term securities such as mortgage bonds are usually more appealing to investors during weaker economic conditions, a large increase in retail sales will likely drive bond prices lower and mortgage rates higher Tuesday. Current forecasts are calling for an increase of 0.6% in November’s sales.

Last Fed Meeting

The last FOMC meeting of the year will also be held Tuesday, adjourning at 2:15 PM ET. There is not much debate about what the Fed will do at this meeting with no chance of them raising key short-term interest rates. Therefore, the post meeting statement will likely be the sole source of a market reaction. This statement has the potential to have a significant influence on the markets and mortgage rates as investors look for any indication of what and when the Fed may do next. One potential move would be more debt purchases by the Fed. An announcement of another round of quantitative easing (QE3) could help boost bond prices and improve mortgage rates Tuesday afternoon. Besides that, it is believed that there isn’t much more the Fed can do to help boost economic activity.

Treasury Auctions

There are Treasury auctions scheduled for several days this week, but the two important ones are the 10-year Note sale Tuesday and the 30-year Bond sale Wednesday. Tuesday’s auction is the more important of the two and will likely influence mortgage rates more. Results of each sale will be posted at 1:00 PM ET. If they were met with a strong demand from investors, particularly international buyers, we should see afternoon strength in bonds and improvements to mortgage pricing those days. On the other hand, a weak interest in the auctions could lead to upward revisions to mortgage rates during afternoon hours.

Wednesday has little to be concerned with, except for the 30-year Bond auction. November’s Producer Price Index (PPI) will be posted early Thursday morning. It measures inflationary pressures at the producer level of the economy. There are two portions of the index that are used- the overall reading and the core data reading. The core data is the more important of the two because it excludes more volatile food and energy prices. If Thursday’s release reveals stronger than expected readings, indicating that inflationary pressures are rising, the bond market will probably react negatively and drive mortgage rates higher. If we see in-line or weaker than expected numbers, the bond market should respond well and mortgage rates should fall. Current forecasts are showing a 0.2% increase in the overall index and a 0.1% rise in the core data.

Nov. Industrial Production Report

November’s Industrial Production data is also scheduled to be posted Thursday morning, but a little later than the PPI. This report gives us a measurement of manufacturing sector strength by tracking output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities. Analysts are expecting it to show a 0.2% increase in output, indicating modest manufacturing growth. A smaller than expected rise would be good news for bonds, while a stronger reading may result in slightly higher mortgage pricing. However, the PPI release is more important to the markets than this data is.

• Are you a possible Massachusetts First Time Homebuyer?
• Do you have a Real Estate client inquiring about current Mortgage Rates?
• Do you have any Refinancing questions?
• Should you be thinking about Refinancing out of your ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage)?
• Have your Real Estate clients been Pre Approved?

bc@smarterborrowing.com  617.771.5021

This is only my opinion of what I would do if I were financing a home. It is only an opinion and cannot be guaranteed to be in the best interest of all/any other borrowers.

Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) Revamped

Homeowners who have not been able to refinance because they are “underwater” — their loans are more than the value of their home due to depressed real estate values — are being thrown a lifeline by the Obama Administration’s latest housing market rescue plan, announced yesterday.

Regulators are revamping a program rolled out in 2009, the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, which lets borrowers with homes whose values have dropped to refinance. So far, only 894,000 borrowers have used it, of which just 70,000 are significantly underwater. The refinancing program is open to homeowners whose mortgages are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae (FNMA) or Freddie Mac (FMCC), the two government-controlled mortgage giants whose rescue three years ago has cost taxpayers $141 billion to date.

The FHFA said the changes could at least double the number of homeowners enrolled. Analysts at Barclays Capital, however, estimated that between 1.9 million and 3.1 million homeowners could be eligible for help.

But underwater homeowners, as long as they have made all their mortgage payments on time in the past six months and meet a few other basic criteria, such as being gainfully employed, would be eligible for a new refinance product just rolled out by the Obama Administration.

According to Scott Van Voorhis at Boston.com, an estimated 230,000 homeowners across Massachusetts are underwater on their mortgages, owing an average of $120,000 more than what their properties are actually worth now. The savings could prove substantial, with $3,000 in savings each year on a $200,000 mortgage that is refinanced from 6 percent down to 4.5 percent, according to this explanatory piece put out by the Associated Press.

Given higher home prices here in Greater Boston, that could amount to $6,000 in savings a year for a homeowner with a $400,000 mortgage — nothing to sneeze at.

If this HARP finally sings a tune, it will be cause for joy among borrowers, mortgage bankers, and closing attorneys across the state. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate closing attorney. Please contact him if you need a mortgage referral or assistance with a refinance or purchase transaction.

I just finished watching the oral arguments in the SJC case of Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, The webcast should be up soon on the SJC Website. You can read the briefs in the case here.

As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court is considering the very important question of whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. If the SJC rules against lenders, it will be another national headline story — potentially bigger than U.S. Bank v. Ibanez.

Quick Recap: Ultimately, the SJC will have to decide how old common law decided in the late 1800′s now applies to mortgages in the 21st century with securitization, servicers and MERS. Does the law need to be modernized? I think it’s time. Unlike the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, this one is much harder to handicap. So I’m not even going to try!

For those unfamiliar with the facts of the case, I’ll state them again.

Borrower Able To Stop Foreclosure

As with many sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Henrietta Eaton had defaulted on her mortgage to Green Tree Mortgage. This was a MERS mortgage (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) originally granted to BankUnited then assigned to Green Tree. Green Tree foreclosed in 1999 and assigned its winning bid to Fannie Mae who attempted to evict Eaton in January 2010.

Eaton was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting the eviction on the grounds that Green Tree did not possess the promissory note underlying the mortgage when the foreclosure occurred. This has been coined the “produce the note” defense and has been gaining steam across across the country. This is the first Massachusetts appellate case that I’m aware of to consider the defense and surrounding legal issues.

The Superior Court judge, Francis McIntyre, wrote a 10 page opinion, explaining that Massachusetts has long recognized that although the promissory note and the mortgage can travel different paths after the borrower signs them, both instruments must be “reunited” to foreclose. “The mortgage note has a parasitic quality, in that its vitality depends on the promissory note,” the judge ruled. As is becoming increasingly prevalent, neither Green Tree nor Fannie Mae could located the original signed promissory note; they were only able to produce a copy endorsed in blank without an amendment, or allonge, indicating when it was endorsed or who held it at the time of the foreclosure. Without the note properly endorsed and assigned to Green Tree, the foreclosure was a nullity, the judge held.

Pointed Questions During Oral Argument

The oral argument was pretty interesting with the majority of the justices’ questions centered around questions of the mortgage servicer’s authority to foreclose or enter into a loan modification, Fannie Mae’s role and the role of MERS. Here’s my running diary of the argument.

Fannie Mae Arguments

• Attorney Richard Briansky, who did a solid job, represented the Fannie Mae side, and started first. Judge Gants asked whether there was any evidence that Ms. Eaton, the borrower, failed to pay insurance or real estate taxes to justify foreclosure  on other grounds? There was no evidence; purely breach of note, replied Briansky.
• The justices raised a question of the authority of the signer of the mortgage assignment. The signer was a “Monica” who worked for Green Tree Servicing and had signatory authority for MERS. Of course, this is the robo-signing question which is being raised across the county. (Read our post on the high percentage of robo-signed documents found at the Essex Registry of Deeds here). The justices asked was she employee or MERS or Green Tree?  Dual roles. However, they agreed that this issue is not properly raised in this case.
• Justice Cordy asked whether Green Tree, the servicer, was in a position to extinguish the debt? The answer was no. The loan proceeds are held in trust for note holder.
• Justice Botsford was worried about the possibility of double liability where the note holder sues Eaton on note. Never been an issue, says Briansky.
• Justice Lenk asked who determines whether or not to foreclose? Attorney Briansky said Green Tree, because it has been collecting payments and acts as servicer. Now the justices started exploring the contractual relationship between servicer and note holder. The discussed turned to the servicer’s authority for loan mods, etc.
• Justice Botsford had questions over who could make important decisions under mortgage.
• Justice Duffly asked about the status of MERS as nominee. It’s a “tripartite relationship,” explained Briansky. The justices seemed very skeptical of the MERS relationship.
• Justice Ireland, citing the friend of the court brief, asked Briansky point blank whether Massachusetts law required unity of the note and mortgage holder at foreclosure. Briansky countered with argument that times have changed and current complex mortgage securitization requires a modernization of the law.
• Justice Duffly pointed out that the proliferation of servicers and MERS has created a unique situation and is bad for consumers. She thinks that there is a disincentive for servicers to modify loans; that they make more money for foreclosure. An interesting point.
• Justice Lenk asked a very good question: What would preclude Fannie Mae from holding the mortgage? I can tell you that as a matter of policy, Fannie Mae prefers not to hold mortgages themselves, instead letting the servicers do the “dirty work” of defaults and foreclosures.

That concluded the Fannie Mae side.

Eaton Arguments

Now for the Eaton side, Sam Levine, a Harvard Law student, argued under a SJC Rule permitting third year law students to argue in court. What a thrill it must have been for a law student who hasn’t even passed the Bar, to be arguing a major case in front of the SJC. However, his inexperienced showed at times, as he often slipped into prepared remarks when the justices where looking for an answer far more specific. But all in all, the kid did OK for not even being a real lawyer yet.

• The justices ask about all the lower court and bankruptcy court decisions holding that you don’t need pure unity of note holder and mortgage holder to foreclose. Levine stood his ground on the older cases holding that this isn’t the law. The justices will have to grapple with whether the law needs to be modernized.
• Justice Gants asked what’s wrong with an agent acting as servicer? Levine said for servicing it’s fine, but for foreclosure, the principal must foreclose.
• There was an extended discussion over the standard MERS mortgage form as to MERS’ authority to invoke power of sale and foreclose. The justices appeared confused as to who has the right to invoke the power of sale and foreclose. Does MERS or does the lender, or both? And who is MERS’ successors and assigns?
• Justice Cordy asked hasn’t borrower agreed in the mortgage that MERS can foreclose? Didn’t she waive any common law right that the note holder and mortgage holder be united for foreclosure. Good question.
• Justice Lenk asked that if Fannie Mae had foreclosed, everything would have been fine. That’s ultimately true.
• Justices Cordy and Spina were definitely getting frustrated with the simple fact that Eaton simply didn’t pay mortgage. Look for them to vote to reverse the lower court opinion in this case.

What’s Next?

The SJC will release a final opinion within 120 days or so. A lot of the questioning centered on side issues not squarely relevant in the case. The question in the case is simply whether a foreclosing lender must hold both the note and mortgage at foreclosure. Clearly, the justices have been reading the press reports about the foreclosure crisis and are trying to be responsive to it. But they have to decide cases based on the facts before them. Again, I’m not going to try to handicap this one, but I have a feeling it will be a close decision with concurring and dissenting opinions. If the SJC rules against lenders, it will be another national headline story, rest assured.

_______________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure defense and title defect cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure and title dispute.