Source: https://www.harmonlawoffices.com/Creditors-Rights/Case-Successes.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:39:49+00:00

Document:
A substantial part of the services that Harmon Law Offices, P.C., provides to its clients is representing them in court on virtually a daily basis in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Our attorneys appear in all courts: the various states' District Courts, Housing Courts, Superior Courts, the Massachusetts Land Court, and all of the states' appellate courts, as well as in the federal District Court, Bankruptcy Court, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
As can be seen from the vast array of decisions summarized below, our attorneys have an established track record of success in defending clients in alleged wrongful foreclosure cases, adversary proceedings, bankruptcy matters, eviction cases, title litigation, code violation defense — indeed, in all aspects of creditor-debtor relations at the trial and appellate levels. View our case victories in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
Strawbridge v. Bank of New York Mellon (91 Mass.App.Ct. 827) ( 2017 WL 3081085) (Agnes, Massing, & Lemire, JJ.) (affirming trial court judgment holding that "MERS's status as nominee does not preclude it from validly assigning the Mortgage, or limit its power to exercise a right of sale under the Mortgage," and concluding that the recorded assignment from MERS to BNYM and the affidavit attesting that BNYM held the note and the mortgage constitute "uncontested evidence" that when BNYM initiated a foreclosure in 2015, it did so in accordance with the statutory requirements for the exercise of a statutory power of sale as construed by the Supreme Court in Eaton). (Attorney Anthony J. Coletti).
Federal Nat'l Mtge. Assn. v. Nunez, 2016 WL 6358926 (MA.App.Ct. No. 15-P-0477) (Oct. 28, 2016): Typographical error referring to mortgaged property as "Street" instead of "Avenue" did not render foreclosure invalid as the property could be identified in other parts of the mortgage or documents referred to in the mortgage. Description of the property in foreclosure publication as Street a/k/a Avenue was not fatal, because the sale was held in good faith, complied with statutory requirements and the property could be ascertained. Despite a change to state law concerning the frequency of default/right-to-cure notices, borrower failed to prove fundamental unfairness, which is necessary to set the foreclosure aside. (Attorneys Thomas Santolucito, Anthony Coletti and Paolo Franzese).
Mack v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 88 Mass.App.Ct. 664 (2015), further app. rev. denied (2016) (mortgagor's action against mortgagee's law firm for alleged Chapter 93A and state civil rights violations is barred by the absolute litigation privilege because the firm's actions occurred preliminary to and during mortgagor's litigation in which firm represented mortgagee) (Attorney Robert M. Mendillo).
Boulanger v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee (Appeals Court No. 14-P-1341) (Hampshire County Superior Court, Docket No. HSCV2012-00050) (October 13, 2015) (finding that (1) MERS could assign a mortgage without the express authority of the lender; (2) the borrower's lacked standing to allege that the assignment violated the terms of a PSA; and (3) the assignment complied with M.G.L.c.183 § 54B; consequently, rejecting the argument that the person who executed the assignment for MERS was not authorized to do so. (Attorney).
DeSouza v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al., 2018 WL 1896077 (Mass.Super. No. 0977CV01917), Essex Superior Court, Barry-Smith, J., March 19, 2018 (foreclosing lender and its attorneys were entitled to summary judgment against former mortgagor's complaint because (1) mortgagor did not qualify for a loan modification; (2) attorneys' representation of its client does not provide a basis for relief; and (3) attorneys owed no duty to mortgagor.) (Attorney Scott C. Owens).
Ressler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., as Trustee, et al., 2017 WL 5983689 (92 Mass.App.Ct. 502) Massachusetts Appeals Court, Agnes, Sacks, & Lemire, JJ., December 1, 2017 (borrower lacks standing to claim that assignment of mortgage was executed in violation of pooling and servicing agreement, and borrower's counsel warned to refrain from making arguments that are frivolous). (Attorney Robert Mendillo).
Nims v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 2017 WL 5892083 (Mass.Super. No. 17-01677) Worcester Superior Court, Campo, J., November 13, 2017 (motion to enjoin foreclosure sale denied because plaintiffs did not have standing to claim that the mortgage was assigned to the foreclosing mortgagee in violation of a pooling and servicing agreement, and because acceleration of the mortgage note did not serve to trigger the obsolete mortgage statute's bar to foreclosure of the mortgage). (Attorney Robert Mendillo).
Urbon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al. 2017 WL ________________ (D.M.A., 2017) (order denying mortgagor's motion to suspend or enjoin foreclosure on the basis that (1) mortgagor is precluded from or does not have standing to challenge chain of assignments into foreclosing mortgagee; and (2) foreclosing mortgagee has sufficiently shown itself to be the bearer of the Note through production of a copy of the Note endorsed in blank with the Notice of Sale and an affidavit attesting to the mortgagee's possession of the Note. (Attorney Kurt R. McHugh).
Teries Isckarus v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., Middlesex County Superior, Docket No. 1781CV00804 (Lu, J.) (June 30, 2017) Spouse of deceased mortgagor's challenge to underlying foreclosure dismissed, because the pleading failed to meet the standard announced by Iannacchino v. Ford Motor." Specifically she failed to "state a claim as she has not alleged any facts amounting to wrongdoing on the part of the Defendants." (Attorney Anthony J. Coletti).
Keuchkarian, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court, Docket No. 17-10460 (2017 WL 1199768 )(Stearns, J.) (D.Mass, March 30, 2017) (suit challenging upcoming foreclosure sale dismissed because neither the obsolete mortgage statute nor the statute of limitations for filing a suit on a promissory note requires a mortgagee to conduct a foreclosure sale within six years of the acceleration of the note, and sale can proceed even if lawsuit for personal liability on the note may be barred by the statute of limitations governing notes). (Attorney Robert M. Mendillo).
Selene Finance, LP v. Willie D. Brown, United States District Court, Docket No. 16-11443 (Stearns, J.) (D.Mass, Feb. 3, 2017) (563 B.R. 451) (Bankruptcy Court's "forced vesting" order in Chapter 13 plan vacated as being unauthorized by the Bankruptcy Code, and secured creditor's appeal of the order was not rendered moot even though a stay was not sought or obtained). (Attorney Robert M. Mendillo).
Cellucci v. Bank of New York Mellon, et al. (Mass. Super. 2017) (Docket No. 1685CV00351) (Reardon, Jr., J.) ( Jan. 19, 2017) ("MERS's status as nominee does not preclude it from validly assigning the Mortgage, or limit its power to exercise a right of sale under the Mortgage," and recorded assignment from MERS to BNYM and the affidavit attesting that BNYM held the note and the mortgage constitute "uncontested evidence" that when "BNYM initiated foreclosure, it did so in accordance with the statutory requirements for the exercise of a statutory power of sale" as construed by the Supreme Court in Eaton). (Attorney Christine A. Murphy).
Beneficial Massachusetts, Inc. v. Bruneau, Southeast Housing Court No. 15-SP-00961 (Chaplin, F.J.)(June 2, 2016): Mortgage does not contain the standard verbiage incorporating the HUD regulations, so the mortgagee was under no duty to comply with the regulation mandating a face to face meeting. No fundamental unfairness existed that could defeat the foreclosure/eviction concerning the plaintiff's loss mitigation processes as it introduced extensive communications with the borrower and proof that Defendants defaulted under the trial modification plan. Failure to send notice to one deceased borrower's estate did not render the foreclosure defective, as the two owned the property as tenants by the entirety with rights of survivorship. (Attorney Paolo Franzese).
Strawbridge v. Bank of New York Mellon (Mass. Super. 2016) (Docket No. 15-01023) (2016 WL 2989572) (Locke, J.) (holding that "MERS's status as nominee does not preclude it from validly assigning the Mortgage, or limit its power to exercise a right of sale under the Mortgage," and concluding that the recorded assignment from MERS to BNYM and the affidavit attesting that BNYM held the note and the mortgage constitute "uncontested evidence" that when "BNYM initiated a foreclosure in 2015, it did so in accordance with the statutory requirements for the exercise of a statutory power of sale as construed by the Supreme Court in Eaton).
DaCruz-Crossley, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association (Mass. Super. 2016) (Docket No. 1681CV01458) (2016 WL 3017092) (Billings, J.) (denying a motion for preliminary injunction, holding that the borrower has no standing to raise a claim of breach of the PSA, and the chain of title of record establishes that the foreclosing mortgagee is entitled to exercise the power of sale under G.L.c.244, §14.
Central Mortgage Co. v. Lee, No. 2011-4208 (Mass. Super. Ct.) (August 28, 2015) (mortgage executed by borrower on behalf of himself and as guardian of two minor children where the Probate Court issued an order permitting the borrower to mortgage the minors' interests, is valid and enforceable against the interests of all parties) (Attorney Stephanie Sprague).
Morse v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al. (2015 WL 1208363) (Land Court Docket No. 12 MISC 469307) (Speicher, J.) (dismissing a post-foreclosure try title action where the borrower challenged the validity of the foreclosure but failed to meet the burden of proof set forth by the SJC in Abaterequiring that the borrower demonstrates "better title" than the mortgagee).(Attorney).
Gelfgatt v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al. (2015 WL 1095685) (Essex County Superior Court Docket No. ESCV2012-01658B) (Feeley, J.) Borrower sued US Bank, NA claiming that it did not have authority to foreclose and that it failed to perfect their interest in the note under the uniform commercial code. Borrower argued that the assignment is void because MERS was the nominee for Homevest Mortgage Company and that MERS no longer had any authority to assign the mortgage after Homevest was dissolved. The court held that Homevest had conveyed its interest in the loan to US Bank well before the dissolution of Homevest and had the right to obtain an assignment from MERS. Furthermore, the court held that there is no evidence in the record that the loan was securitized or how US Bank had violated the UCC. (Attorney Kurt R. McHugh).
Cetoute v. DRRF SPE II, LLC, et al. (Mass. Bankr. Ct. AP No. 15-01113) (2015 WL 6159733 ) (October 8, 2015) (Bailey, J.) (ruling that the debtor did not have standing to "avoid" an assignment in an Adversary Proceeding case because the assignment was executed before a notary by someone purporting to be a vice president of the assigning entity - thus, the claim was barred by M.G.L.c.183 § 54B, as the assignment was at best voidable and not void). (Attorney).
Strawbridge v. The Bank of New York Mellon (Norfolk County Superior Court, No. 1582CV01023) (2015 WL 6157922 ) (October 7, 2015) (Connors, J.) (denying borrower's request for a preliminary injunction because (1) the bank's filing of an affidavit stating that it was acting as the authorized agent of the note holder shows compliance with Eaton and thus there was no Eaton violation; (2)MERS as the mortgagee has the ability to assign a mortgage so the assignment, especially as it was executed by someone purporting to be a MERS official and the assignment was notarized; and (3) any claim that the assignment was executed contrary to a pooling and servicing agreement would render the assignment voidable at best and thus the borrower had no standing to challenge it) (also concluding that although the balance of harm "plainly" weighed in the borrower's favor, that could not justify an injunction where the borrower failed to show "any appreciable likelihood of success on the merits.") (Attorney).
Household Finance Corp. II v. Carneiro, Southeast Housing Court No. 14-SP-01454 (2015 WL 5459518) (Sept. 10, 2015) (Chaplin, FJ) (under the SJC's recent Pinti decision, a mortgagee need only comply strictly with the terms of the mortgage concerning default notices for notices sent after July 17, 2015. For notices sent prior to the Pinti decision, substantial compliance is sufficient) (Attorney Paolo Franzese).
Galvin v. Metrocities Mortgage, LLC, et al. 2017 WL 5632868 (D.N.H., 2017) (borrowers' lawsuit against the firm and multiple lenders and loan servicers alleging fraudulent origination, illegal securitization, rescission and conspiracy dismissed on motion to dismiss because the borrowers' rescission was 10 years after inception of the loan and untimely; origination, securitization and conspiracy claims were not plausible; and, claims, generally, were barred by res judicata due to two prior actions) (Attorney Scott Owens).
Woodmansee v. Federal National Mortgage Association, New Hampshire Supreme Court No. 2017-0109 (September 19, 2017) (Dalianis, C.J. with Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz-Marconi, J.J. concurring) (Judgment affirming trial court's awarding of summary judgment to foreclosing lender against borrowers' complaint challenging lender's title to property. The borrowers' claims are precluded by res judicata because their cause of action could have been litigated and/or was disposed of through a prior Superior Court action and an eviction action in the Circuit Court.) (Attorney Andrea V. Lasker).
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Willette, 2016 WL 145319, NH Supreme Court, January 12, 2016 (District Division of Circuit Court may resume eviction proceedings and issue a writ of possession after a borrower's plea of title (foreclosure challenge) before another court is dismissed). (Attorney Amie DiGiampaolo).
Benlaatmania v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 2018 WL 1936302 (NH.Super. No. 218-2016-CV-01202), Rockingham Superior Court, Anderson, J., March 29, 2018 (foreclosing lender was entitled to summary judgment against former mortgagor's alleged plea of title complaint because (1) there were no genuine issues of material fact; and (2) mortgagor did not offer supporting evidence in the form of an affidavit refuting lender's arguments.) (Attorney Andrea V. Lasker).
Sykes v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., Docket No. 13-00334 (D.N.H.) (November 20, 2015) (DiClerico, Jr., J.) Pro se plaintiff brought claims against certain banks and mortgage providers alleging clams that arose from defendants' involvement in circumstances surrounding the 2009 foreclosure of plaintiff's home. Although the Court found that all of the claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, plaintiff alleged that the limitation periods should be tolled based upon his alleged mental incapacity. The Court found that the summary judgment record established that Plaintiff was mentally competent for purposes of NH RSA 508:8 and federal equitable tolling during the relevant period and granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. (Attorney Andrea V. Lasker).
Pimental v. Well Fargo Bank, NA et al. 2015 WL 5243325 (D.R.I.) (September 4, 2015) (Sullivan, Mag. J.) (recommendation of dismissal of FDCPA claim and invasion of privacy claim against foreclosure firm by Magistrate Judge; because pre-foreclosure default and acceleration notices expressly exempted personal liability due to borrowers' bankruptcy discharge, there was no debt collection for the purposes of FDCPA; foreclosure firm's sending statutory notice letters by first class mail did not constitute any invasion of plaintiffs' privacy) (Attorney Scott Owens).
Harmon Law Offices, P.C., located in Newton (about ten miles west of downtown Boston) serves clients throughout Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 54
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §14
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 54
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.