Massachusetts foreclosure defense

A Tale Of Two Opinions: Mass. AG Sues Major Banks and MERS Over Foreclosure Mess While Federal Judge Upholds MERS System

by Rich Vetstein on December 1, 2011 · 6 comments

in Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgage Crisis,Mortgages,Title Defects

Mass. AG Martha Coakley Credit: Reuters

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” — Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

AG Martha Coakley Files Major Civil Action Against Big Banks

First, the big news. Attorney General Martha Coakley has filed a huge consumer protection lawsuit over wrongful foreclosures against the top 5 U.S. lenders, Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial. Coakley also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, the electronic mortgage registration system which proliferated during the securitization boom of the last decade. The lawsuit said it sought “to hold multiple banks accountable for their rampant violations of Massachusetts law and associated unfair and deceptive conduct amidst the foreclosure crisis that has gripped Massachusetts and the nation since 2007.” Specifically, Coakley blames the banks for not complying with the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision in foreclosing mortgages without evidence of legal ownership of the underlying debt, improper statutory foreclosure notices and illegal “robo-signing.”

I’m sure Coakley will be able to extract a sizable settlement from the banks, but the question remains, what about the foreclosure mess and toxic titles left in its wake? I hope Coakley seriously considers setting up a toxic title monetary fund to assist homeowners who lack title insurance with clearing their titles due to bungled foreclosures in their chain of title.

Here is a link to the AG’s Complaint.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servicers: Federal Judge William Young Grapples With Legality Of MERS System

While AG Coakley was putting the finishing touches on her lawsuit, across the way at the Moakley Courthouse at Fan Pier, U.S. District Judge William G. Young and his cadre of law clerks were attempting to work their way through the legal maze which is the MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) system. The case is Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska. We’ve written about MERS quite a bit here on the blog.

I can say with confidence that Judge Young is one of the smartest jurists on the federal bench and in the Commonwealth. I know this first-hand because I clerked for him in law school.

It took him 59 pages to sort though the myriad of legal issues implicated by the complex MERS system, and he had some very choice (and funny) remarks about the system:

“MERS is the Wikipedia of Land Registration Systems.” . . . “A MERS certifying officer is more akin to an Admiral in the Georgia navy or a Kentucky Colonel with benefits than he is to any genuine financial officer.”

Judge William G. Young

But ultimately, Judge Young concluded that MERS did not run afoul of Massachusetts law, by the “thinnest of venires.” So there you have it. MERS is kosher in Massachusetts, at least according to Judge Young.

However, Judge Young’s ruling came with some important caveats. First, he held that MERS does not have the power to foreclose in its own name. This is no longer an issue as MERS new policy is not to foreclosure in its name. But what about prior foreclosures in MERS’ name? Are those still considered valid?

Second, in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, sec. 54B, he ruled that assignments from MERS’ vice presidents to loan servicers or holders are valid despite the signer’s lack of personal knowledge or proof of actual authority. This is a direct contradiction with AG Coakley’s claim that the MERS assignments are invalid.

Lastly, the most important aspect of Judge Young’s ruling was his agreement that foreclosing lenders must hold both the loan (promissory note) and the mortgage together in unity, to foreclose, following the controversial Superior Court opinion in Eaton v. FNMA which is now on appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court. However, Judge Young added an important distinction to this rule, saying that that loan servicers could foreclose in their names where the loan is held in a pooled securitized trust, provided they otherwise comply with Massachusetts foreclosure law. This is a very important distinction as a fair amount of foreclosures are brought in the name of the loan servicer. I’m not so sure Judge Young got this one right as a loan servicer rarely if ever holds the note as assignee, as Professor Adam Levitin notes, but the ruling certainly assists the industry.

So all eyes are back on the SJC awaiting its ruling in the Eaton case which could have even far more impact than the Ibanez decision. Of course, these two events underscore that foreclosures are still a mess crying out for legislative help (which hasn’t come at all), and the crucial importance of title insurance, which all buyers should elect at their closings.

I’ve done a quick video analysis and embedded Judge Young’s opinion below.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services



Related Posts:

{ 6 comments }

Massachusetts Superior Court Again Endorses “Produce The Note” Foreclosure Defense

by Rich Vetstein on November 8, 2011 · 0 comments

in Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgage Crisis,Mortgages

Post image for Massachusetts Superior Court Again Endorses “Produce The Note” Foreclosure Defense

Final Say Will Come Soon At SJC In Eaton v. FNMA

In Adamson v. MERS (embedded below), Superior Court Judge Raymond Brassard became the second Massachusetts trial judge to endorse the so-called “produce the note” defense in a foreclosure defense case. The question of whether a foreclosing lender must hold both the promissory note and the mortgage at the same time is now before the Supreme Judicial Court in the eagerly awaited case of Eaton v. Fannie Mae.

In Adamson, Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) claimed to be the holder of the mortgage at the behest of Deutsche Bank. America’s Servicing acted as the servicer. This was a classic sub-prime mortgage with $440,000 in principal at 8.5% interest, with a balloon payment of $370,000 at the end of 30 years. (No wonder the borrower couldn’t keep up with the payments).

The kicker in this case was when America’s Servicing sent the borrower a denial letter for a loan modification stating that it would not foreclose in the next 30 days under the federal HAMP program to give the borrower a chance to explore other modification option. It foreclosed the next day. Ouch.

Unification Theory

Relying on the Judge McIntyre’s earlier decision in the Eaton case, Judge Brassard was persuaded that Massachusetts still holds on to the unification theory where a foreclosing lender must hold both the note and the mortgage at the time of foreclosure. Judge Brassard expressed concern that separating the mortgage from the note could lead to double liability for the borrower (first, a foreclosure, then an attempt to collect the note).

In a ruling which will make foreclosure defense attorneys salivate, Judge Brassard found merit to the borrower’s claim that the lender and the servicer violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 93A, for foreclosing the day after the denial letter was issued, in violation of the 30 day safe harbor period.

Impact & What’s Next?

With two Superior Court judges endorsing this theory and several bankruptcy court judges rejecting it, all eyes are now on the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in the Eaton v. Fannie Mae case which will be the final say in the matter. If the SJC accepts the unification theory, it will be a bigger bombshell than the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case last year.

Until the SJC decides the Eaton case, this ruling will continue to slow down the pace of foreclosures in Massachusetts. This will, in turn, keep the inventory of REO properties high, causing further drag on the troubled housing market.

Thank you to the blogging attorneys at the Massachusetts Land Use Monitor for bringing this case to my attention.

Adamson v. MERS Decision



Related Posts:

{ 0 comments }

Mass. Bankruptcy Judge Voids Foreclosure Of MERS Mortgage

by Rich Vetstein on August 23, 2011 · 18 comments

in Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgage Crisis,Mortgages,Title Defects

Post image for Mass. Bankruptcy Judge Voids Foreclosure Of MERS Mortgage

Judge Tells Lenders You Can’t Have Your MERS Cake & Eat It Too

“The sophisticated financial minds who wrought the MERS regime sought to simplify the process of repeatedly transferring mortgage loans by obviating the need and expense of recording mortgage assignments with each transfer. No doubt they failed to consider the possibility of a collapse of the residential real estate market, the ensuing flood of foreclosures and the intervention of state and federal courts.”

–Judge Melvin S. Hoffman, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge for Massachusetts, In Re. Schwartz, Aug. 22, 2011

Coming off a ruling (In re. Marron) that the MERS mortgage registration system does not run afoul of Massachusetts law, the same jurist, Bankruptcy Court Judge Melvin Hoffman, on Monday issued a ruling voiding a MERS-held mortgage which fell victim to sloppy paperwork. As Banker & Tradesman reports, the case is potentially troubling for any MERS held mortgage in default. The case is In Re. Schwartz and is embedded below.

Debtor Challenges Foreclosure Of Securitized Mortgage

During her bankruptcy proceeding, the debtor, Sima Schwartz, challenged the May 24, 2006 foreclosure of her Worcester home by Deutsche Bank. She asserted that under the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court earlier in the year, Deutsche did not own the mortgage on the property when it first started the foreclosure process.

The “lender” on her original mortgage was Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), as nominee for First NLC. Many housing advocates have criticized MERS’ role in the foreclosure crisis, with the New York Times weighing in most recently. The mortgage loan was securitized and subsequently transferred at least 3 times, ultimately winding up held by Deutsche Bank. No assignments of mortgage were recorded with the registry of deeds until a day before the foreclosure sale on May 23, 2006. That assignment was executed by Liquenda Allotey, one of the hundreds of deputized vice presidents of MERS, and an alleged “robo-signer” for Lender Processing Service (LPS) which has come under fire for document irregularities. The assignment ran to Deutsche Bank, which completed the foreclosure sale on May 24, bid its mortgage debt and purchased the property.

There was no dispute that under the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case, the late-filed mortgage assignment rendered the foreclosure defective unless Deutsche could establish its ownership of the mortgage loan when the foreclosure process started. During the trial, Deutsche submitted all the various agreements documenting the securitization process including the pooling and servicing agreement (PSA), loan purchase agreement, bill of sale and custodial log.

Judge: Lenders Can’t Have Their MERS Cake And Eat It Too

Critically, as the judge noted, the PSA provided that for a MERS mortgage such as this, assignments of mortgages did not have to be prepared or delivered to the buyer of the loans. As is endemic with most securitized mortgages, the participants in the securitization did not deliver and record any assignments documenting such transfers, instead, relying on the internal MERS registration system, which is out of the public records view. Throwing this provision back in the lenders’ faces, the judge basically said “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” — rendering his ruling that the mortgage itself (as opposed to the underlying loan) was never transferred through the securitization system from entity A, B, C, to Deutsche Bank, and that MERS had always held, and never relinquished, “legal title” to the mortgage. Accordingly, the judge held, Deutsche Bank was never the owner of the mortgage in the first place, could not foreclose in its name, and its foreclosure sale was null and void.

Impact: Are Foreclosures Of MERS Mortgages Now Open To Challenge?

I’m not sure what’s going to happen with Ms. Schwartz’s home. She’s been living in it since 2006 probably mortgage/rent free! Certainly, MERS could (and should have) started a second foreclosure and done it the right way. I’m perplexed why Deutsche and MERS kept fighting this case in court. As for the broader implications, it’s still unclear as to the effect on past and current foreclosures. One this is for certain, the ruling is yet another example of the legal fallout from the deficiencies in the MERS system.

Lastly, while I don’t claim to be a mortgage securitization expert, if the mortgage was not assigned/transferred properly and if it is MERS that holds legal title, then there is a mortgage backed security investor somewhere who THINKS he owns this mortgage but, in fact, does not. Even if MERS wanted to transfer the mortgage to the relevant trust or foreclose, sell the property and transfer cash, they may not be able to for legal and tax reasons. Now multiply by a million. So how many mortgage backed securities are missing how many mortgages? Are there mortgage backed securities out there that don’t actually own ANY mortgages? If someone sells a “mortgage backed” security that doesn’t legally own the mortgages in question, hasn’t that someone committed fraud? And furthermore, how the hell do we clean this up?

_______________________________________________________

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.

 

In Re Schwartz



Related Posts:

{ 18 comments }

Dealing With The Mess U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Left Behind: SJC To Consider Sale After Invalid Foreclosure

by Rich Vetstein on January 22, 2011 · 5 comments

in Foreclosure,Massachusetts Real Estate Law,Mortgage Crisis,Title Defects

Post image for Dealing With The Mess U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Left Behind: SJC To Consider Sale After Invalid Foreclosure

Breaking News (10/18/11): The Court has issued its opinion, affirming the Land Court’s dismissal. For a full analysis, click here.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has taken up an appeal about whether a home buyer can rightfully own a property if the bank that sold it to him didn’t have the right to foreclose on the original owner, after the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez landmark ruling a few weeks ago. This case may determine the rights of potentially thousands of innocent purchasers who bought property at foreclosure sales that have been rendered invalid after the Ibanez ruling.

The case is Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, and can be read here. In Bevilacqua, Land Court Judge Keith Long (ironically the same judge who originally decided the Ibanez case) ruled that the buyer of property out of an invalid foreclosure has no right to bring a “quiet title” action to establish his ownership rights because he never had good title in the first place. “I have great sympathy for Mr. Bevilacqua’s situation — he was not the one who conducted the invalid foreclosure, and presumably purchased from the foreclosing entity in reliance on receiving good title — but if that was the case his proper grievance and proper remedy is against that wrongfully foreclosing entity on which he relied,” Long wrote. The net effect of the ruling is that the innocent buyer’s only remedy is to sue the foreclosing lender for damages–not a great option–or force the lender to fix the deficiencies with the original foreclosure–if that’s possible at all.

Estimating how many purchasers have been affected by Ibanez defects is difficult. There have been over 40,000 foreclosures in Massachusetts in the last 5 years, and over 12,000 last year alone, up 32% from the year before. A Boston Globe columnist recently performed a rudimentary analysis of foreclosed properties in Chelsea, and found that about 33% may have been afflicted with Ibanez-type deficiencies.

Many people who purchased homes at foreclosure sales may not even know their titles are problematic–until they try to refinance or sell. So this problem will likely take years to ultimately resolve, unless the legislature comes up with some type of solution. And these problems may go back a very long way–5 or even 10 years in the past.

Bloomberg News has a great write up about the case here. I was quoted in the Bloomberg piece about the significance of the problem:

The third-party issue has become a major one for title insurers in the state, said Richard D. Vetstein, a real-estate lawyer in Framingham, Massachusetts.

“What’s going to happen to all these people?” Vetstein said. “The people who don’t have title insurance are really in big trouble.”

The court may have left the issue of third-party buyers unaddressed in Ibanez anticipating a ruling in the Bevilacqua case, said Thomas Adams, a partner at New York law firm Paykin Krieg & Adams LLP.

“That’s a big issue to leave outstanding,” said Adams, a former analyst at bond insurer Ambac Financial Group Inc. “If Judge Long’s decision holds, then that’s a big deal.”

If you purchased property out of a foreclosure sale within the last 10 years, you should have a title examination performed to assess whether you have defective title. Needless to say, if you are considering buying property out of foreclosure (or not), these cases are the very reason why you must obtain an owner’s title insurance policy! Contact us for more information.



Related Posts:

{ 5 comments }

Real Time Analytics