SJC Rules Housing Court Can Hear Title Challenges In Post-Foreclosure Evictions

by Rich Vetstein on December 18, 2013 · 2 comments

in Foreclosure, Housing Court, Housing Discrimination, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Title Defects

Foreclosure2-300x225.jpgHousing Courts Will Likely Face Increased Caseload

Giving an early Christmas present to distressed homeowners, the Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that a foreclosed upon homeowner may challenge a bank’s title and foreclosure sale irregularities through counterclaims in a post-foreclosure eviction in the Housing Court — rather than being forced to file a separate equity lawsuit in the Superior Court. The case is Bank of America v. Rosa, SJC-11330 (Dec. 18, 2013).

The high court also held that the Housing Court has jurisdiction to hear other counterclaims against foreclosing lenders, including fair housing, consumer protection (Chapter 93A), and HAMP related claims.

The likely impact of this ruling will be that the already busy Housing Court will now be “Ground Zero” for foreclosure related litigation. Foreclosed property owners will have more weapons to delay and prevent being evicted after foreclosures.

Overall, while the ruling seeks to protect the rights of foreclosed property owners, it has the potential to delay the housing recovery in Massachusetts. The longer folks who don’t pay their mortgages are allowed to live rent free in their foreclosed houses, the more the housing market suffers. There are plenty of creditworthy buyers and investors willing and able to buy up and rehab these foreclosed properties. Letting them sit and blight neighborhoods doesn’t help anyone in the long run. Just my opinion…

The ruling is embedded below. (Click for link).

Bank of America v. Rosa


    To: All readers & Bloggers. I have been involved in a property that my 81 year old aunt thought she was “re-financing. After her passing, I came to realize that she had been “schemed” “equity stripped” by a reverse-mortgage scammer, Financial Freedom sub. Indy-Mac Bank. The closing Attorney took an appraisal report of the property, used for the first lender 3 years previous, and arbitrarily marked it up 125 %. As a licensed appraiser, with over 30 years experience, I know this is a clear violation of the F.I.R.R.E.A. Act of (Financial Institutions Reform & Recovery Act) 1989. The D.O.J. Has recovered BILLIONS from these scheme-artist banks and related third party closing Attorneys. GOOD – THEY DESERVE IT !!!!! – Anthony Pollard – Winthrop, MASS

  • Bob

    Richard, Richard, Richard: I was just checking in to see what
    was new on the blog and I must say that I am a little disappointed in your
    remarks about the berated and beleaguered homeowners of our Commonwealth.

    After all the light that has been shed on the greatest Ponzi
    scheme unheralded in the annals of the world, you are still of the position
    that homeowners are dead beats. What about the homeowner that understands that
    there is no one entitled to payment on the fraudulent debt because no mortgage
    contract can rest on a misrepresentation or blatant FRAUD.

    Ever mortgage contract written since the enactment of Gramm,
    Leach, Bliley Act of 1999 that became effective in 2000 and deregulated the white
    colored-criminals, is unenforceable. Fraud vitiates all that it touches. Whatever
    happened to that tenet of law Richard?

    Whom shall the deceived homeowner pay when it is clear that
    when we ask for the name of the owner of the note, obfuscation becomes the word
    of the day and no entity will or can give up that information?

    Shall we blindly pay some entity that has no rights under
    the note and therefore, no rights under the mortgage contract, which prevents a
    purported mortgagee from foreclosing whereas it has no legal authority to
    invoke the power of sale under the mortgage contract?

    Let me see, a guy comes up to me in the middle of the street
    and say’s, hey buddy, you owe me $10,000.00; and what, I am supposed to pay
    that stranger. Stop the nonsense.

    The mortgagee is the note owner, not merely the holder. See
    [2] in Eaton. The holder is the owner of the note. The mortgagee is the note
    owner, not merely the holder under the UCC. Only the mortgagee or its authorized
    agent can invoke the power of sale. How will they now get beyond the lack of endorsements’
    on the note?

    We did not destroy the global economy, they did. Just think,
    had the criminals not destroyed the economy, this crisis never would have
    happened. Why didn’t the FED instruct it members not to reset the interest
    rates on all the toxic mortgages that plagued this country? No, that would have
    been too easy. This is a crime, it was committed with malice, and the FED has
    raped and pillaged this country far too long. Through inflation, deflation, and Ponzi scheme
    after Ponzi scheme, the FED and its members have devastated middle-class
    America and the financial Bar continues to perpetrate that fraud on a daily

    I think the word for today should be Shame. Shame on all,
    who after all that has become known, continues to aid and abet this criminal
    enterprise. Until the day I die, I will never forget the words of Judge Young
    in Nosek:

    “After 43 years at the bar,
    the saddest thing about this case is the conduct of the lawyers — all the
    lawyers. A careful reading of the briefs in this case reveals only a single
    recognition that counsel did anything amiss in their misrepresentations to the
    Bankruptcy Court. There’s blame aplenty, of course, each one blaming everyone
    else — including the hapless bankrupt homeowner. … How is it that our
    profession, the legal profession –which could have and should have strongly
    counseled against the self-interested excesses that set up the collapse —
    instead has eagerly aided and abetted those very excesses? How could we (all of
    us who profess to be lawyers) have fallen so low?”

    Sociopath’s feel no shame. Definition of a Sociopath: Someone
    whose personality makes them dangerous. Someone whose personality makes them
    behave in ways that are dangerous to other people. That defines Wall Street institutions,
    the largest banks, and those that control them.

    You pay your mortgage Richard, well how nice for you. That
    means, you still have an income and you were not a casualty of the Great Recession.
    However, you as an attorney are smart enough to understand that you to, are not
    obligated to pay your mortgage; however, you could never take such a position because
    you would become a pariah among your peers.

    Cordially yours

    Bob Marley

Previous post:

Next post:

Real Time Analytics