Source: http://masscases.com/cases/land/2016/2016-16-000083-53-458-ORDER.html
Timestamp: 2017-01-20 05:49:08
Document Index: 749420325

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', 'art:\n19', '§ 21', 'art:\n27', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21']

JAMES B. NUTTER & CO. vs. ESTATE OF BARBARA A. MURPHY, MISC 16-000083
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.
MISC 16-000083 August 1, 2016
Suffolk, Franklin, Essex, ss.
With: MISC 16-000053 : JAMES B. NUTTER & COMPANY v. THE ESTATE OF MARY B. JAMIESON, SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MARYELLEN FLUET, ROBERT HOWE, WILLIAM JAMIESON, and BRETT JAMIESON. MISC 15-000458 : JAMES B. NUTTER & COMPANY v. JOHN C. CASSIDY, DEBORAH A. CASSIDY, LORI JEAN CASSIDY, SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. James B. Nutter & Company (JBNC) makes loans secured by reverse mortgages. A reverse mortgage
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 these three cases, 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 these three cases 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.
On January 28, 2016, JBNC filed its verified complaint in the case of James B. Nutter & Co. v. The Estate of Mary B. Jamieson, et al., 16 MISC 000053. Case management conferences were held on March 3, 2016 and April 4, 2016. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue filed its Disclaimer of Interest on March 9, 2016. Defendant Maryellen Fluet filed her Answer and Motion for Dismissal on March 14, 2016. Defendant Robert Howe disclaimed any interest on March 15, 2016. At a status conference on May 6, 2016, the defendants were given leave to treat JBNC's Limited Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as filed in this case, and file oppositions. On May 23, 2016, defendant Brett Jamieson filed his Motion to Strike the Verification of the Plaintiff's Complaint and his Motion for a More Definite Statement. On June 8, 2016, the Motion to Strike Verification was denied and the Motion for a More Definite Statement allowed. JBNC filed its amended complaint on July 5, 2016. Defendant Brett Jamieson filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. On July 13, 2016, defendant Brett Jamieson filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
On October 27, 2015, JBNC filed its complaint in James B. Nutter & Co. v. Judith A. Ouellette, et al., 15 MISC 000458. Case management conferences were held on December 8, 2015, and January 15, 2016. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint was allowed and the amended complaint deemed filed on March 25, 2016. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commissioner of Revenue filed his answer on March 30, 2016. The claims against defendant David E. Sweeney were dismissed on April 21, 2016. The Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint was allowed and the Second Amended Complaint deemed filed on April 27, 2016. The answer and counterclaim of defendant Deborah A. Cassidy and Lori Jean Cassidy was filed on May 27, 2016. At a continued case management conference on June 8, 2016, the defendants were given leave to treat JBNC's Limited Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as filed in this case, and to file oppositions. [Note 1] Plaintiff filed its answer to counterclaims on June 16, 2016. The defendants appeared at the hearing on the Limited Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and opposed it.
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 relates to cases 16 MISC 000083, 16 MISC 000053, and 15 MISC 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.
James B. Nutter & Co. v. Murphy (16 MISC 000083)
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.
9. The Murphy Mortgage does not explicitly incorporate the Statutory Condition and Power of Sale of G.L. c. 183, § 21. Paragraph 20 of the Murphy Mortgage provides, in relevant part:
Foreclosure Procedure. If Lender requires immediate payment in full under Paragraph 9, Lender may invoke the power of sale and any other remedies permitted by applicable law  At this sale Lender or another person may acquire the Property. This is known as foreclosure and sale. In any lawsuit for foreclosure and sale, Lender will have the right to collect all costs allowed by law.
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.
James B. Nutter & Co. v. Jamieson (16 MISC 000053)
11. The property at issue is located at 44 Woodleigh Avenue, Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301 (Jamieson Property).
12. The defendant Estate of Mary B. Jamieson is the successor to Mary B. Jamieson, an individual.
13. Mary B. Jamieson became the owner of the Jamieson Property by way of a quitclaim deed dated August 7, 2006 and recorded in the Franklin County Registry of Deeds in Book 5155, Page 254.
14. On July 21, 2008, Mary B. Jamieson executed and delivered a note to First Call Mortgage Company in the original principal amount of Two Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($297,000) (Jamieson Note).
15. On July 21, 2008, Mary B. Jamieson granted a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage recorded in the Franklin County Registry of Deeds in Book 5538, Page 141 to First Call Mortgage Company in the original principal amount of Two Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($297,000) (Jamieson Mortgage).
16. JBNC is the current holder of the Jamieson Mortgage by way of an Assignment of Mortgage dated March 24, 2009 and recorded in the Franklin County Registry of Deeds in Book 5844, Page 135.
17. Paragraph 9 of the Jamieson 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, Mary B. Jamieson.
18. The Jamieson Mortgage does not explicitly incorporate the Statutory Condition and Power of Sale of G.L. c. 183, § 21. Paragraph 20 of the Jamieson Mortgage provides, in relevant part:
19. Mary B. Jamieson was the individual who last resided at the Jamieson Property. She died on November 18, 2014. According to JBNC, this entitled it to accelerate the debt and declare the debt to be in default if not reinstated by Mary B. Jamiesons heirs within thirty days.
James B. Nutter & Co. v. Cassidy (15 MISC 000458)
20. The property at issue is located at 23 Locust Street in Danvers, Massachusetts (Ouellette Property).
21. The defendants John C. Cassidy, Lori Jean Cassidy and Deborah A. Cassidy are the children and only heirs of Judith A. Ouellette.
22. Judith A. Ouellette became the owner of the Ouellette Property by way of deeds dated March 16, 1971 and recorded in the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 5754, Page 221; dated November 4, 1976 and recorded with said Registry of Deeds in Book 6286, Page 386; dated September 13, 1979 and recorded with said Registry of Deeds in Book 10150, Page 79; dated September 26, 2007 and recorded with said Registry of Deeds in Book 27230, Page 503.
23. On September 27, 2007, Judith A. Ouellette executed and delivered a note to JBNC in the original principal amount of Four Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($424,500) (Ouellette Note).
24. On September 27, 2007, Judith A. Ouellette granted a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage recorded in the Essex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 27230, Page 517 to JBNC in the original principal amount of Four Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($424,500) (Ouellette Mortgage).
25. Paragraph 9 of the Ouellette Mortgage provides, in relevant part, that one of the grounds for immediate payment in full of the debt secured by such mortgage is the failure of the borrower, Judith A. Ouellette, to physically occupy the mortgaged property as her principle residence for a period of longer than twelve (12) consecutive months.
26. The Ouellette Mortgage does not explicitly incorporate the Statutory Condition and Power of Sale of G.L. c. 183, § 21. Paragraph 20 of the Ouellette Mortgage provides, in relevant part:
27. Prior to April 18, 2014, Judith A. Ouellette no longer resided at the Ouellette Property due to physical illness. According to JBNC, this entitled it to accelerate the debt and declare the debt to be in default if not reinstated within thirty days.
JBNC's complaints in each of 16 MISC 000083, 16 MISC 000053 and 15 MISC 000458 allege that paragraph 20 in the Murphy Mortgage, the Jamieson Mortgage, and the Ouellette Mortgage (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.
The meaning of paragraph 20 in the Reverse Mortgage is free from ambiguity. Therefore it must be interpreted according to its plain terms, with its words construed in their usual and ordinary sense. General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the U.S. of Am., Inc. v.
MacKenzie, 449 Mass. 832 , 835 (2007). As discussed below, the plain terms of paragraph 20 favor a finding that the form Reverse Mortgage incorporates the statutory power of sale.
[Note 1] At the case management conference, the parties disclosed that JBNC had foreclosed on the subject property and that Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) is now the owner. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Defendants' Motion for Joinder of a Necessary Person are pending. [Note 2] the mortgagee or his executors, administrators, successors or assigns [Note 3] the mortgaged premises or such portion thereof as may remain subject to the mortgage in case of partial release thereof, either as a whole or in parcels, together with all improvements that may be thereon [Note 4] on or near the premises then subject to the mortgage [Note 5] upon any default in the performance or observance of the foregoing or other condition  complying with the terms of the mortgage and with the statutes relating to the foreclosure of mortgages by exercise of a power of sale [Note 6] by public auction Home/Search Land Cases by Docket Number