Source: http://masscases.com/cases/land/2016/2016-16-000083-ORDER.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:24:59+00:00

Document:
JAMES B. NUTTER & COMPANY v. ESTATE OF BARBARA A. MURPHY, PATRICK F. MURPHY, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara A. Murphy, THOMAS E. MURPHY, JOHN F. MURPHY, MARY C. MURPHY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, TECHNICAL SERVICE GROUP, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE-ESTATE TAX UNIT, and SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
Court v. Financial Freedom Acquisition LLC, 807 F.3d 351, 354 (1st Cir. 2015). JBNCs reverse mortgages use a standard form. Paragraph 20 of its standard form does not explicitly incorporate the statutory power of sale, G.L. c. 183, § 21. JBNC seeks to foreclose on many of its mortgages, and has to date brought 45 cases in the Land Court seeking to determine its rights to foreclose under its form mortgage. The court has determined that three cases, including this one, in which the defendants have appeared, are ripe for resolving the specific and sole issue of whether paragraph 20 of the form JBNC mortgage acts to incorporate the statutory power of sale notwithstanding its failure to do so explicitly. At the instruction of the court, JBNC has brought a limited motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on this issue; the defendants in this case have filed oppositions. The motion was argued to the court on July 14, 2016. As set forth in this Memorandum and Order, the court finds that the language of paragraph 20 that Lender may invoke the power of sale and any other remedies permitted by applicable law is sufficient to incorporate the statutory power of sale by reference, even though the language of paragraph 20 is not substantially equivalent to that of the statute.
On February 11, 2016, JBNC filed a verified complaint in the case of James B. Nutter & Co. v. Estate of Barbara A. Murphy, et al., 16 MISC 000083. Patrick F. Murphy, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara A. Murphy filed his answer and counterclaim on March 24, 2016. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commissioner of Revenue filed his answer on March 30, 2016. The case management conference was held on April 4, 2016, at which the court set the schedule for filing the limited motion for partial judgment on the pleadings at issue here as well as the oppositions. On April 11, 2016, defendants Thomas E. Murphy, John F. Murphy, and Mary C. Murphy filed an answer and counterclaim. On May 18, 2016, JBNC filed its Limited Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Limited Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On June 30, 2016, defendants Thomas E. Murphy, John F. Murphy, and Mary C. Murphy filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, and defendant Patrick F. Murphy filed a separate Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Judgment on the Pleadings.
The court heard argument on the Plaintiff's Limited Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on July 14, 2016, and took the motion under advisement. The motion related to cases 16 MISC 000083, 16 MISC 000053, and 15 MICS 000458. For the following reasons, the motion is allowed.
For purposes of the Limited Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the court accepts as true the following facts as alleged in the complaints.
1. JBNC has a usual place of business at 4153 Broadway, PO Box 10346, Kansas City, Missouri 64171.
2. The property at issue is located at 29 Grove Street in Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 (Murphy Property).
3. The defendant Estate of Barbara A. Murphy is the successor to Barbara A. Murphy, an individual. The defendants Patrick F. Murphy, Thomas E. Murphy, John F. Murphy and Mary C. Murphy are heirs of Barbara A. Murphy and the purported owners of the Murphy Property.
4. Barbara A. Murphy became the owner of the Murphy Property by way of a quitclaim deed dated May 23, 1984 and recorded in the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds on May 25, 1984 in Book 6406, Page 440.
5. On June 19, 2008, Barbara A. Murphy executed and delivered a note to JBNC in the original principal amount of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($480,000) (Murphy Note).
6. On June 19, 2008, Barbara A. Murphy granted a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage recorded in the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds in Book 25866, Page 98 to JBNC in the original principal amount of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($480,000) (Murphy Mortgage).
7. JBNC is the current holder of the Murphy Note and the Murphy Mortgage.
8. Paragraph 9 of the Murphy Mortgage provides, in relevant part, that one of the grounds for immediate payment in full of the debt secured by such mortgage is the death of the borrower, Barbara A. Murphy.
10. Barbara A. Murphy was the individual who last resided at the Murphy Property. She died on October 25, 2011. According to JBNC, this entitled it to accelerate the debt and declare the debt to be in default if not reinstated by Barbara A. Murphys heirs within thirty days.
JBNC's complaint alleges that paragraph 20 in the Murphy Mortgage, which is the same in all the mortgages in the cases before the court (collectively, the form Reverse Mortgage) incorporates the statutory power of sale contained in G.L. c. 183, § 21. JBNC argues that the foreclosure procedure set forth in paragraph 20 of the form Reverse Mortgage serves the same function as G.L. c. 183, § 21, is substantially similar to the language in G.L. c. 183, § 21, and indicates that the parties to the Reverse Mortgage intended to grant JBNC the statutory power of sale. In this Limited Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, JBNC seeks a declaration from the court that paragraph 20 in the Reverse Mortgage incorporates the statutory power of sale contained in G.L. c. 183, § 21.
The defendants argue that paragraph 20 in the Reverse Mortgage does not incorporate G.L. c. 183, § 21 and therefore does not allow JBNC to foreclose by the statutory power of sale. The defendants also allege that the court must reform  rather than interpret  the Reverse Mortgage in order to determine the meaning of paragraph 20. The defendants argue that the Reverse Mortgage cannot be reformed without evidence of mutual mistake by the parties during the formation of the Reverse Mortgage.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 21
 v. 
 § 21
 § 21
 § 21
 § 21
 § 21