Content area
Full Text
Editor's note: The full text of these decisions can be found on Lawyers Weekly's website, masslawyersweekly.com.
Mortgages
Assignment
Where the validity of a mortgage assignment has been challenged, (1) the plaintiffs are unable to show that the mortgage assignment in question is void, (2) they lack standing to raise certain claims and (3) they have failed to state a claim for promissory estoppel with respect to a loan modification.
"Husband and wife Timothy A. Wilson and Carrie E. Wilson (collectively, 'the Wilsons') appeal the district court's dismissal of their eight-count complaint alleging certain improprieties with respect to HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.'s ('HSBC') acquisition of the mortgage on their home by way of an assignment from Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. ('MERS'). The Wilsons claim the assignment is void because it was executed not by MERS, but by an HSBC employee who falsely purported to sign on MERS's behalf. According to the Wilsons, HSBC never acquired the mortgage to their property and has no right to initiate foreclosure proceedings.
"A homeowner in Massachusetts who is neither a party to nor a third party beneficiary of a mortgage assignment has standing to challenge the assignment on the grounds that it is void. Although the Wilsons' complaint sets forth some rather troubling accusations about HSBC's business practices and foreclosure procedures, the Wilsons have not set forth a colorable claim that the mortgage assignment in question is void. ...
"(T)he Wilsons' allegations that the 2009 Assignment is 'fraudulent' and thus, void, because it was 'robo-signed' are of no moment. The Wilsons have not defined the term or cited any authority showing it has any legal significance under Massachusetts law. This Court's own research has found none in Massachusetts or in our Circuit. Moreover, it does not appear that other jurisdictions have assigned a single definitive meaning to it either. ... We decline to speculate on the meaning the Wilsons ascribe to the term. Accordingly, the bare allegation of 'robo-signing' does nothing to undermine the validity of the 2009 Assignment or render Section 54B inapplicable.
"Summing it all up, there is no question that MERS held the Wilsons' mortgage on March 19, 2009, as the Wilsons have not challenged its acquisition of the mortgage through the 2004 Assignment. The...