Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca1-14-02174/USCOURTS-ca1-14-02174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 14-2174

VINNY M. BRICKETT AND

STEPHEN R. BRICKETT,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

HSBC BANK USA, N.A.,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Chief Judge,

Selya and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Josef C. Culik and Culik Law PC on brief for appellants.

David G. Thomas, Michael E. Pastore and Greenberg Traurig, LLP

on brief for appellee.

June 10, 2015

Case: 14-2174 Document: 00116848240 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2015 Entry ID: 5914246
Per curiam. "We have said before, and today reaffirm,

that when a lower court accurately takes the measure of a case and

articulates a cogent rationale, it serves no useful purpose for a

reviewing court to write at length." Seaco Ins. Co. v. DavisIrish, 300 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 2002); accord Eaton v. PennAmerica Ins. Co., 626 F.3d 113, 114 (1st Cir. 2010) ("We have

explained with a regularity bordering on the echolalic that where

a trial court correctly takes the measure of a case and authors a

convincing decision, it rarely will serve any useful purpose for a

reviewing court to wax longiloquent."). This is such a case. We

therefore summarily affirm the judgment below for substantially the

reasons elucidated in the district court's closely reasoned

memorandum of decision. See Brickett v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 52 F.

Supp. 3d 308, 311-13 (D. Mass. 2014).

We add only this brief comment. The appellants' case

hinges on their argument that HSBC Bank has been guilty of "dual

tracking." Dual tracking is a practice wherein a mortgagee

financial institution engages in loan modification negotiations

with mortgagors while at the same time moving forward with

foreclosure. See, e.g., Worrall v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No.

13-330, 2013 WL 6095119, at *5 (D.N.H. Nov. 20, 2013); Figueroa v.

Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 12-11290, 2013 WL 2244348, at *5 (D.

Mass. May 20, 2013). But as the district court correctly pointed

out, see Brickett, 52 F. Supp. 3d at 312, there was no dual

-2-

Case: 14-2174 Document: 00116848240 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2015 Entry ID: 5914246
tracking here. At the time of the foreclosure, the appellants had

not yet filed a cognizable application for a loan modification.

We need go no further. The judgment below is summarily

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

-3-

Case: 14-2174 Document: 00116848240 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/10/2015 Entry ID: 5914246