Under a new Massachusetts oil heating law which went into effect on September 30, 2011, every homeowner with an oil heating system is required to install an oil safety valve or an oil supply line with protective sleeve in their system. The cost is approximately $150 to $350 depending on the system. The required upgrade is to prevent leaks from tanks and pipes that connect to your furnace. The upgrade will reduce the risk of an oil leak so by making a relatively small expenditure now, you can prevent a much greater expense in the future.
Who Must Upgrade?
Owners of 1- to 4-unit residences that are heated with oil must already have or install an oil safety valve or an oil supply line with a protective sleeve. Installation of these devices must be performed by a licensed oil burner technician. Technicians are employed by companies that deliver home heating oil or are self-employed. It is important to note that heating oil systems installed on or after January 1, 1990 most likely are already in compliance because state fire codes implemented these requirements on new installations at that time.
Who Is Exempt?
Homeowners are exempt from taking these leak prevention steps if:
the oil burner is located above the oil storage tank and the entire oil supply line is connected to and above the top of the tank OR
an oil safety valve or oil supply line with protective sleeve was installed on or after January 1, 1990, AND
those changes are in compliance with the oil burning equipment regulations; a copy of the oil burner permit from the local fire department may be used to demonstrate compliance.
Why Comply?
Not only is complying with the new law required, it makes good financial and environmental sense. Homeowners who take these preventive measures can avoid the disruption and expense that can be caused by heating oil leaks. A leak may result in exposure to petroleum vapors in your home. If the leak reaches the soil or groundwater beneath your house, then a cleanup must be performed to restore your property to state environmental standards. Such a leak can cost many thousands to clean up. Leaks that affect another property or impact drinking water supply wells can complicate the cleanup and increase the expense. Each year, several hundred Massachusetts families experience some kind of leak.
What will an upgrade cost?
The typical cost of installing either an oil safety valve or oil supply line with a protective sleeve ranges from $150 – $350 (including labor, parts, and local permit fees).
The Supreme Judicial Court has just issued an unusual order in the very important Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association case, indicating its deep concern over whether an adverse ruling against foreclosing lenders will have a disastrous impact on foreclosure titles and, if so, whether its ruling should be applied prospectively rather than retroactively. The Court is seeking supplemental briefing and friend-of-the-court briefs on these decisive issues. A final decision is expected in February or March.
As outlined in my prior post on the case, the Court is considering the controversial question of whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. This is the essence of the “produce the note” defense. In a securitized mortgage pool, in which over 60% of all U.S. mortgage are part, the note and mortgage are separated between securitized trusts, mortgage services or Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS).
If the SJC rules against lenders, it could render the vast majority of securitized mortgage foreclosures defective, thereby creating mass chaos in the Massachusetts land recording and title community. If you thought U.S. Bank v. Ibanez was bad, Eaton v. FNMA could be the Nuclear Option.
The text of the order is as follows:
ORDER :Having heard oral argument and considered the written submissions of the parties and the various amici curiae, the court hereby invites supplemental briefing on the points described below. Supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages and shall be filed on or before January 23, 2012. 1. It has been claimed that requiring a unity of the mortgage and the underlying promissory note, in order for there to be a valid foreclosure, would cloud any title that has a foreclosure in the chain of title, regardless of how long ago the foreclosure occurred. The parties are invited to address whether they believe that such a requirement would have such an effect, and if so, what legal or practical measures exist that might limit the consequences of such a requirement. 2. It also has been suggested that, if the court were to hold that unity of the mortgage and note is required under existing law, the court’s holding should be applied prospectively only. The parties are invited to indicate on what authority they believe (or do not believe) the court could make such a holding prospective only.
Reading into this order, perhaps a majority of the justices are already leaning towards ruling against the lenders and want to limit the potentially disastrous effect it could have on existing titles and pending and future foreclosures. Interestingly, lenders in the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case asked the SJC to apply its ruling prospectively, but it declined, thereby leaving hundreds to thousands of property owners and title insurers to clean up toxic foreclosure titles.
In my opinion, an adverse ruling against lenders in Eaton could be the apocalyptic scenario, rendering open to challenge any title with a previous foreclosure in it and inserting a fatal wedge into the current securitized mortgage system. Hopefully this time around the Court is more sensitive to how its ruling will impact the real estate community. It will be interesting to see how this case continues to develop. We will continue to monitor it.
First Reported Mass. Ruling On Home Affordable Modification Program Liability
The fallout from the sub-prime and mortgage crisis continues in Massachusetts courts, and some judges are reacting in favor of sympathetic borrowers. In Parker v. Bank of America, Massachusetts Superior Court (Dec. 15, 2011), Judge Thomas Billings considered what is unfortunately now a very common fact pattern in borrowers’ quest to have their lenders approve loan modifications, or loan mods. The ruling is embedded below.
A Common Story of Lost Paperwork and Ineptitude
In 2007, Valerie Parker granted first and second mortgages on her home in Lowell to Bank of America. She paid the loans on time for the first 24 months. As the economy worsened, however, she anticipated difficulty in making payments, and so she called BofA for advice. The bank told her that because the loan was not in default they could not help her, and that she would have to cease payments if she wanted their assistance. (Is this not one of the most ridiculous, yet common, responses lenders give to troubled borrowers?)
After a lengthy period of lost and repeatedly re-submitted paperwork, BofA informed Parker she qualified for HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) relief, underwent a lengthy financial audit over the telephone, and was promised followup documentation and a halt to further collection and foreclosure efforts. BofA repeatedly lost her paperwork; she had to submit and re-submit documents; and she spent hours at a time on hold, waiting to speak with a human being. She did, however, receive the bank’s verbal assurance that she was “pre-qualified” for the HAMP program and that confirmatory paperwork would be forthcoming. BofA never sent the promised documentation, however, and refused to approve a loan modification. Lengthy and repeated telephone calls produced no documents, no approval, and no progress. Finally, BofA told Parker there was no record of her having qualified for the program. She requested and was given the opportunity to reapply, but the documentation still never came. All while, the collection calls continued and the late fees kept mounting, and the loan was at some point placed in foreclosure.
“Inertia Is Not An Option”
Parker asserted a number of different claims against BofA, but the two which stuck, according to the judge, were her claims for fraud and breach of contract. The judge went through a lengthy history of the recent sub-prime crisis, the TARP bailout plan, and the HAMP program, concluding that BofA’s actions against Parker were unfair under these consumer protection programs.
In a great line, the judge said that “inertia is not an option” when a lender considers a borrower’s legitimate request for a HAMP loan modification. Under HAMP, there are strict deadlines by which lenders must respond to a borrower’s application, and foreclosure activity must stop during the consideration period. The judge lamented that federal regulators had failed to pass enforcement mechanisms to protect borrowers from lenders dragging their heels on loan modifications. Noting that borrowers have no other forum in which their claims may be heard and adjudicated other than the courts, Judge Billings held that Parker could claim “third party beneficiary” status of BofA’s participation in the TARP/HAMP program–diverging from several colleagues opinions to the contrary.
Lastly, in a boon for borrowers, the court left open whether lenders could face Chapter 93A liability — with its triple damages and attorneys’ fees — for similar conduct. While Parker’s counsel dropped the ball by not sending BofA a required demand letter prior to filing suit, this option may be open for other borrowers.
Impact of Ruling
This is one of the first court rulings siding with a borrower on a lender’s liability for dropping the HAMP ball. Clearly, this particular judge is well-educated on what’s been going on with the mortgage crisis and was likely fed up with lenders’ shoddy treatment of some borrowers. But is his legal reasoning correct? The judge can certainly be accused of legislating from the bench here, as the vast majority of other court rulings have rejected his reasoning. (At least 6 opinions by my count, mostly from federal court).
But his reasoning does have some intrinsic appeal inasmuch as HAMP is clearly a consumer driven program and the judge is basically saying that lenders must treat HAMP applicants fairly in accordance with the program rules. If what Ms. Parker says is true, there is a minimum level of fairness that she did not receive. But the problem is what if she simply doesn’t qualify for a loan modification? And every lender who entertains a modification request can be subject to civil liability for rejecting an applicant? Would that chill HAMP modifications even more? Rest assured, we will see more cases like Parker reaching the Superior Court and the Massachusetts appellate courts in the near future.
Judge Rules That Occupy Movement Protesters Are Common Trespassers
Today, Massachusetts Superior Court Justice Frances A. McIntyre issued a ruling clearing the way for the eviction of the Occupy Boston protest which has taken over Dewey Square in downtown Boston. Judge McIntyre had originally granted the protesters a temporary restraining order sustaining the protests, but after reviewing evidence and hearing legal argument, she has changed her mind.
For interest to our real estate readers, the Judge balanced the City’s property rights vs. the protesters First Amendment speech rights. The judge ultimately concluded that the “occupation” as practiced by the Occupy Boston protesters — physically taking over the public park from the City and to the exclusion of others — was a classic trespass and not a First Amendment right.
“To the extent that the act of occupation, as defined, communicates, it speaks of boldness, outrage, and a willingness to take personal risk. But the plaintiffs’ occupation of Dewey Square to the effective exclusion of others is the very antithesis of their message that a more just and egalitarian society is possible. It does not send the message the plaintiffs profess to intend.” — Judge Francis McIntyre
Analysis: Sound Decision But Quite Expansive
This is a solid, well-reasoned judicial opinion that may be difficult to overcome on appeal. However, the judge’s reasoning on “occupation” is new and perhaps ground-breaking, so it could be susceptible to a different opinion on appeal. This case will surely make its way up to the Supreme Judicial Court, and we’ll blog about it here of course.
As the judge found, the First Amendment is not absolute. Yes, the protesters have a right to assembly, but that right must be peaceful and not permanent as to constitute a seizure of public land or present a grave public safety risk. The First Amendment, by its own language, protects speech, not physical occupation of public land. That’s called eminent domain.
Furthermore, the possibility of real public safety tragedy is virtually guaranteed at some point the longer this encampment is allowed to fester with its flammable tarps, fire sources, auto batteries, extension cords and no sanitary facilities on site. Most of the protesters were not born for the terrible Cocoanut Grove Fire in 1942. A fire would quickly swallow up the tent camp and kill dozens. Health, sanitary and fire codes were not intended to abridge the protester’s speech rights.
The judge went much further than she had to though, and this is where her reasoning could be challenged on appeal:
“Little in the way of expression is outlawed under the United States Constitution, but an act which incites a lawful forceful response is unlikely to pass as expressive speech.”
One need only turn to the Civil Rights Marches in Alabama in 1963 to see the flaw with this argument. The protesters in Alabama, simply by marching, incited a forceful response by the Alabama police and their water guns. Using Judge McIntyre’s reasoning, therefore, the Civil Rights Marches are not protected by the First Amendment simply because they elicited a police response. This is illogical as many expressive marches in turbulent times have resulted in police reaction. It doesn’t make the marches or speech any less entitled to constitutional protection.
I’ve posted the ruling below. What are your thoughts on the legal issues?
Major Impact To College Rental Market: Landlords Cannot Rent To 4 or More Unrelated Adults In One Unit Without Lodging License
In a decision which will significantly impact landlords renting apartments to students near local colleges and universities and perhaps beyond Boston and Amherst, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that renting to 4 or more unrelated students in one apartment unit is an illegal “lodging house” unless a special license is obtained.
In City of Worcester v. College Hill Properties LLC (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 8, 2011), several landlords renting to Holy Cross students challenged the legality of the Massachusetts lodging housing law. The law requires a lodging housing license for any unit rented to four or more unrelated adults. City of Worcester officials cited the College Hill landlords for renting to 4 students in each apartment unit, without a proper license and without sprinkler systems. The students all signed a 12 month lease. The Housing Court sided with the city, and when the landlords balked, found them in contempt.
Lodging Housing Law
Although enacted nearly a hundred years ago in 1918, the court found that the lodging house law has relevance today with respect to the common practice of overcrowding persons in an unsuitable space and fire prevention. To obtain a lodging house license, an applicant must have sprinkler systems in the premises, which most landlords find too expensive to install.
The landlords argued that a group of four college students was a “family unit” not lodgers. While the landlords get credit for creative lawyering, the court didn’t buy the argument, holding that “we have no doubt that four or more unrelated adults, sharing housing while attending college, is not an arrangement that lends itself to the formation of a stable and durable household.”
Impact Outside College Towns?
Prior to this decision, housing authorities typically allowed 4 or more unrelated adults to occupy single apartments as roommates without a lodging license provided that minimum space requirements were met: 150 s.f. of living space for the first person, 100 s.f. for each additional person (3 occupants = 350 s.f. of living space); 70 s.f. of bedroom space for 1st person, plus 50 s.f. for additional person (120 s.f. for 2 persons in one bedroom).
After the College Hill decision, however, this generally accepted interpretation is now in question. The court did not mention adult roommates, nor did it make any distinction between undergraduates or adults. In my opinion, using the College Hill ruling, housing authorities, who want to crack down on unruly, crowded apartment dwellers, may seek to require lodging licenses for apartments occupied by 4 or more unrelated persons.
Boston: Rule Is 5+ Undergrads
In the City of Boston, a new zoning ordinance went into effect in 2008 prohibiting 5 or more undergraduate students from living in one apartment unit. We will see how the Boston Inspectional Services Dept. interprets the College Hill ruling.
No Easy Fix For Defective Foreclosure Titles After U.S. Bank v. Ibanez Ruling
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion today in the much anticipated Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez case considering property owners’ rights when they are saddled with defective titles stemming from improper foreclosures in the aftermath of the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez ruling last January. (Text of case is embedded below). Where Ibanez consider the validity of foreclosures plagued by late-recorded or missing mortgage assignments, Bevilacqua is the next step, considering what happens when lenders sell defective foreclosure titles to third party purchasers. Previously, I discussed the oral argument in the case here and detailed background of the case here.
The final ruling is mix of bad and good news, with the bad outweighing the good as fixing defective Massachusetts foreclosure titles just got a lot harder and more expensive. But, contrary to some sensationalist headlines, the sky is not falling down as the majority of foreclosures performed in the last several years were legal and conveyed good title. Bevilacqua affects those minority percentage of foreclosures where mortgage assignments were not recorded in a timely fashion under the Ibanez case and were otherwise conducted unlawfully. Importantly, Bevilacqua does not address the robo-signing controversy, which may or may not be considered by the high court in another case.
The Bad News
First the bad news. The Court held that owners cannot bring a court action to clear their titles under the “try title” procedure in the Massachusetts Land Court. This is the headline that the major news outlets have been running with, but it was not a surprise to anyone who has been following the case. Contrary to the Daily Kos, the court did not take the property away from Bevilacqua. He never held good title it in the first place–and you can blame the banksters for that. If you don’t own a piece of property (say the Brooklyn Bridge), you cannot come into court and ask a judge to proclaim you the owner of that property, even if the true owner doesn’t show up to defend himself. It’s Property Law 101.
The Good News
Next the good news. The court left open whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together (like Humpty-Dumpty) and conduct new foreclosure sales to clear their titles. Unfortunately, the SJC did not provide the real estate community with any further guidance as to how best to resolve these complicated title defects.
Background: Developer Buys Defective Foreclosure Title
Frank Bevilacqua purchased property in Haverhill out of foreclosure from U.S. Bank. Apparently, Bevilacqua invested several hundred thousand dollars into the property, converting it into condominiums. The prior foreclosure, however, was bungled by U.S. Bank and rendered void under the Ibanez case. Mr. Bevilacqua (or presumably his title insurance attorney) brought an action to “try title” in the Land Court to clear up his title, arguing that he is the rightful owner of the property, despite the faulty foreclosure, inasmuch as the prior owner, Rodriguez, was nowhere to be found.
Land Court Judge Keith Long (ironically the same judge who originally decided the Ibanez case) closed the door on Mr. Bevilacqua, dismissing his case, but with compassion for his plight.
“I have great sympathy for Mr. Bevilacqua’s situation — he was not the one who conducted the invalid foreclosure, and presumably purchased from the foreclosing entity in reliance on receiving good title — but if that was the case his proper grievance and proper remedy is against that wrongfully foreclosing entity on which he relied,” Long wrote.
Given the case’s importance, the SJC took the unusual step of hearing it on direct review.
No Standing To “Try Title” Action In Land Court
The SJC agreed with Judge Long that Bevilacqua did not own the property, and therefore, lacked any standing to pursue a “try title” action in the Land Court. The faulty foreclosure was void, thereby voiding the foreclosure deed to Bevilacqua. The Court endorsed Judge Long’s “Brooklyn Bridge” analogy, which posits that if someone records a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, then brings a lawsuit to uphold such ownership and the “owner” of the bridge doesn’t appear, title to the bridge is not conveyed magically. The claimant in a try title or quiet title case, the court ruled, must have some plausible ownership interest in the property, and Bevilacqua lacked any at this point in time.
The court also held, for many of the same reasons, that Bevilacqua lacked standing as a “bona fide good faith purchaser for value.” The record title left no question that U.S. Bank had conducted an invalid foreclosure sale, the court reasoned.
Door Left Open? Re-Foreclosure In Owner’s Name?
A remedy left open, however, was whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together and conduct new foreclosure sales in their name to clear their titles. The legal reasoning behind this remedy is rather complex, but essentially it says that Bevilacqua would be granted the right to foreclosure by virtue of holding an “equitable assignment” of the mortgage foreclosed upon by U.S. Bank. There are some logistical issues with the current owner conducting a new foreclosure sale and it’s expensive, but it could work.
That is if the SJC rules in the upcoming Eaton v. FNMA case that foreclosing parties do not need to hold both the promissory note and the mortgage when they foreclose. An adverse ruling in the Eaton case could throw a monkey wrench into the re-foreclosure remedy–it would also be an even bigger bombshell ruling than Ibanez, as it would throw into question the foreclosure of every securitized mortgage in Massachusetts.
In Bevilacqua’s case, he did not conduct the new foreclosure sale, so it was premature for the court to rule on that issue. Look for Bevilacqua to conduct the new foreclosure and come back to court again. The SJC left that option open.
Other Remedies & What’s Next?
The other remedy to fix an Ibanez defect, which is always available, is to track down the old owner and obtain a quitclaim deed from him. This eliminates the need for a second foreclosure sale and is often the “cleanest” way to resolve Ibanez titles.
Another option is waiting out the 3 year entry period. Foreclosure can be completed by sale or by entry which is the act of the foreclosure attorney or lender representative physically entering onto the property. Foreclosures by entry are deemed valid after 3 years have expired from the certificate of entry which should be filed with the foreclosure. It’s best to check with a real estate attorney to see if this option is available.
The last resort is to demand that the foreclosing lender re-do its foreclosure sale. The problem is that a new foreclosure could open the door for a competing bid to the property and other logistical issues, not to mention recalcitrant foreclosing lenders and their foreclosure mill attorneys.
Title insurance companies who have insured Ibanez afflicted titles have been steadily resolving these titles since the original Ibanez decision in 2009. I’m not sure how many defective foreclosure titles remain out there right now. There certainly could be a fair amount lurking in titles unknown to those purchasers who bought REO properties from lenders such as U.S. Bank, Deutsche Bank, etc. If you bought such a property, I recommend you have an attorney check the back title and find your owner’s title insurance policy. Those without title insurance, of course, have and will continue to bear the brunt of this mess.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure title defect matters & cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure title dispute.
Massachusetts Summary Process Evictions: An Unlevel Playing Field For Landlords
How do you evict a tenant in Massachusetts? In Massachusetts, evictions are called “summary process.” According to the rules governing eviction cases, summary process is supposed to be “just, speedy, and inexpensive.” In practice, however, summary process can be anything but that. In fact, as I always inform my landlord clients, Massachusetts is one of the most tenant friendly states in the country, and an eviction can be costly, frustrating and unfair to landlords. In some cases, it can take many months to evict a tenant.
Further, Massachusetts eviction practice is loaded with traps for the unwary and procedural complexities for landlords. Landlords who represent themselves do so at their own peril and will often arrive at court with their cases dismissed for not following these requirements. It’s not a do-it-yourself situation.
Grounds For Eviction
A. Non-payment
There are several common grounds for evicting a tenant. The most common is for non-payment of rent. In these cases, the landlord must send the tenant a statutory 14 day “notice to quit” before starting the eviction process. The 14 day notice to quit must be drafted carefully, and the best practice is to have it served by a constable or sheriff to ensure proof of delivery. The landlord must prove in court that the tenant received the notice, and service by constable or sheriff will automatically qualify as “good service.” Certified mail is not good enough as tenants can avoid pickup. Having an experienced eviction attorney draft the notice to quit can prevent have your case being “dead on arrival.”
B. No-Fault
Another common ground for eviction is for termination of a 30 day tenancy at will, otherwise known as a no-fault eviction. Again, a 30 day notice to quit must be served on the tenant before commencing an eviction. Landlords often trip up on this type of notice with short months. In practice, judges will often give tenants in no-fault evictions a bit more leeway in terms of vacating the premises.
C. For cause
“For cause” evictions encompass the range of bad behavior by tenants in violation of lease provisions. It could be illegal activity, drug use, excessive noise, uncleanliness, harassment of other residents, non-approved “roommates” and the like. Like all other evictions, the landlord must issue a notice to quit to the tenant stating the specifics of the offenses. “For cause” evictions are the most involved of all evictions as the landlord must offer proof by way of live testimony of the tenant’s violations of the lease. Getting police officers to show up for an eviction hearing can be challenging. For drugs and other illegal activity, Massachusetts also has a special expedited eviction process.
Starting an eviction requires the preparation and service of a Summary Process Summons and Complaint. You can choose to file your case in the local District Court or the Housing Court which is specialized to hear evictions. The Housing Court fees are less expensive, but can be busier. Some Housing Court judges have the reputation of being tenant or landlord friendly as well. Some would probably be happier retired and playing golf. It’s a tough job these days.
The summary process summons and complaint form is complicated to the layperson. It must be first served by a constable or sheriff on the tenant. Then, no less than 7 days after, it must be filed with the court by the “entry date,” which is always a Monday. The hearings are almost always on Thursday morning. Again, it’s best to have an experienced Massachusetts eviction attorney handle the legal paperwork.
Tenant Defenses and Counterclaims
Through the use of discovery requests, defenses and counterclaims, tenants in Massachusetts have ample legal means to delay and beat evictions. All tenants have a right to file “discovery” – formal requests for information and documents – from the landlord, which will automatically delay the hearing for two weeks. The tenant also may assert defenses and counterclaims against the landlord. These can range from improper notice or service, state Sanitary Code violations, no heat/hot water, failure to make repairs, retaliation, discrimination, and violations of the security deposit law—which carries triple damages and attorneys’ fees. (See my prior post on security deposits). Regardless of the merits of such claims, these defenses and counterclaims make the eviction process more complicated, time-consuming, and expensive.
Eviction sessions are very busy. In some courts, there are over 100 cases stacked up on any one day and only one judge to hear them all. Accordingly, the courts will encourage parties to work out their differences on their own through mediation which is an informal sit-down between the parties to discuss ways to resolve the case. Some courts have housing specialists who can preside over the mediation session. Mediation is always non-binding so if no agreement can be reached you can proceed to a trial.
In the Housing Court, there are trained housing specialists who facilitate the mediation process. There are many advantages for landlords to mediation, and I almost always recommend giving it a try. The end result of a mediation is for the parties to sign an agreement for judgment. In a non-payment case, you can structure a payment plan and/or voluntary move-out. For a “cause” eviction, you can provide for a “last chance” agreement or move-out. The major benefit for landlords is that an agreement for judgment becomes a binding court order and the judge is supposed to enforce it upon proof of a violation. It also shows the judge that the landlord has been reasonable and accommodating. Experienced Massachusetts eviction attorneys will also make the tenants waive their rights to appeal and right to delay the case any further so as to avoid last minute requests for more time to vacate.
On the other hand, sometimes the situation is untenable and you have to go before the judge. Some judges hold a basic hearing, giving both sides the opportunity to speak. Some judges, particularly in the Housing Court, are more formal and require an actual trial with live witnesses and exhibits. I’ve had hearings last one minute and jury trials in eviction cases go on for days. But I’m always prepared to put on a case on for trial, as I always have my client present in court or on standby.
Appeals
Tenants in eviction cases do have a fairly robust right of appeal which can greatly delay resolution of the case. (A good reason in and of itself to do an agreement for judgment waiving appeal rights). However, in certain cases, the landlord can ask the court to impose an appeal bond so the tenant must pay rent into court to proceed with the appeal. Most tenants do not have the financial ability to do that, so that will terminate the appeal.
If you have any questions or need assistance with a Massachusetts summary process eviction, please contact me via email at [email protected] or by phone at 508-620-5352.
__________________________________
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts summary process & eviction attorney who has handled over 2,000 eviction cases all across Massachusetts. For help with a landlord tenant matter, please email him at [email protected] or call him at 508-620-5352.
FNMA v. Nunez: Tenant Foreclosure Act Applied Retroactively
On September 6, 2011, in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Nunez (embedded below), the Supreme Judicial Court considered for the first time the 13-month-old “Tenant Protections In Foreclosed Properties” Act which protects tenants living in foreclosed properties from eviction in certain circumstances. The issue was whether the Act applied retroactively, and the court answered “yes,” applying it “to protect all residential tenants on foreclosed properties who, on or after August 7, 2010, had yet to vacate or be removed from the premises by an eviction, even where the owner purchased the property before the act’s effective date, and initiated a summary process action before that date.”
Summary Of Act
The Act, passed in August 2010 and now codified in a new Mass. General Laws Chapter 186A, bans institutional lenders (not private parties) who own foreclosed properties from evicting residential tenants without “just cause.” What this means in plain English is that foreclosing lenders such as Fannie Mae cannot evict tenants of foreclosed properties unless they stop paying rent or commit serious lease violations such as illegal activity on the premises.
Loophole: Private Purchasers
There is a huge loophole in the Act however. It does not apply to private individuals who purchase properties at foreclosure. They are free to evict tenants for any reason. But, they must provide tenants with at least 90 day notice to move, and the tenant retains the right to ask for more time to leave in any eviction legal proceeding.
Impact: Slow Down In Sales of Foreclosed Properties
The impact of this ruling will be to expand the number of tenants who will be protected from eviction when their apartments fall into foreclosure. It will also slow down the pace of selling off REO and foreclosed properties to individual owners and investors who will now inherit tenants with expanded occupancy rights in foreclosed properties.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled over 500 eviction cases in the District and Housing Courts. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts landlord-tenant dispute.
Prospective real estate buyers tend to think of the “mortgage” as the contract they are signing with the bank. This is misleading. The promissory note is the actual contract to loan and borrow money between lender and borrower. The mortgage is the lender’s instrument, or more accurately, its security interest, to enforce that loan contract. This is an important distinction because, if for example, a couple purchases property or refinances, and the loan is taken out solely in the wife’s name, then lining up the correct parties on the signing documents becomes important. But before discussing how to properly configure the closing documents, it is important to understand the definitions.
The Deed
The deed is the legal instrument conveying an ownership interest of the property to a grantee (buyer). The deed is typically drafted by the seller’s attorney. It includes the grantor (seller), the grantee (buyer), the manner in which the buyer is taking title (the tenancy), the consideration (the amount of the purchase price), a legal description of the property, and a cite to the recording information of the prior deed. Click here for an example of a Massachusetts quitclaim deed.
The Promissory Note
The promissory note is the lending contract between the borrower and the lender. The note includes the name(s) of the borrower and the property address. It also includes the amount of the loan, the term (number of years), and the interest rate. The lender generates the note and uses a FannieMae/ Freddie Mac standard template which reflects that it is a uniform instrument. A typical note includes a provision of whether the loan is fixed or adjustable, contains a “no pre-payment fee” clause, and includes language that sets the deadline for the 15th of the month for the lender to receive payment (and sets out a late fee penalty). Click here for a standard form Fannie Mae promissory note.
The Mortgage
The mortgage is the lender’s security interest in the property. In Massachusetts, a “title state,” the borrower is conveying his ownership interest in the home to the lender, such interest would be exercised only in the event of default. Thus, the lender has a lien on the property, which gives it authority to foreclose in the event of continued non-payment. The mortgage is also a uniform instrument whose template is typically generated by the lender and designed and approved by the above-referenced government housing agencies. The only unique terms in the mortgage are the names of the borrowers, the property address and the exhibit which provides a legal description of the property. The rest of the mortgage is standard, providing that the borrower agrees to keep the property insured and maintained, make it her primary residence (unless it’s an investment loan), and not to contaminate the property with hazardous waste, among other requirements. Click here for a sample Massachusetts Fannie Mae mortgage.
Thus, to return to our example, if husband and wife purchase a home and only wife is to be on the loan, then the grantees on the deed are husband and wife, reflecting their ownership interest in the property. The note will contain only the wife (since she alone is taking out the loan). The mortgage however must contain both owners of the property since this instrument tracks the deed. Thus, the husband and wife are both on the mortgage.
After the closing attorney explains the deed, mortgage and promissory note, there are a stack of other loan documents and disclosure to review. We’ve written posts about all the important ones:
Attorney Marc E. Canner brings years of experience working closely with Buyers, Sellers, mortgage brokers, loan officers and realtors to provide expert counsel on closing residential real estate transactions. Marc is the founding partner of the Law Offices of Marc E. Canner and a founder of TitleHub Closing Services LLC.
Do Lenders Need To Hold Both Promissory Note & Mortgage At Foreclosure?
In a rare “sua sponte” (on their own) direct appellate review, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear an appeal considering the controversial “produce the note” defense in foreclosure cases and whether a foreclosing lender must possess both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to foreclose. Based on arguments asserted by the lender, the court may also consider the circumstances by which a mortgage granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) can be effectively foreclosed in Massachusetts.
This could be a very important decision — potentially as important as the landmark U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case issued in the spring. A ruling against the lenders could expose a gaping and fatal legal black hole with many foreclosure-bound mortgages that were hastily bundled and sold to Wall Street during the real estate boom years. A rejection of the borrower’s arguments as recently made by a bankruptcy judge in Worcester, however, could significantly reduce some MERS induced anxiety and heartburn presently being experienced by lenders and foreclosure attorneys.
The case is Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), SJC-11041. The court will hear arguments in October, with a decision coming several months later. The court is also seeking amicus, or friend of the court, briefs from interested parties.
Where’s The Note?
As with many sub-prime mortgage borrowers, Henrietta Eaton had defaulted on her mortgage to Green Tree Mortgage. This was a MERS mortgage originally granted to BankUnited then assigned to Green Tree. Green Tree foreclosed in 1999 and assigned its winning bid to Fannie Mae who attempted to evict Eaton in January 2010.
Eaton was able to obtain an injunction from the Superior Court halting the eviction on the grounds that Green Tree did not possess the promissory note underlying the mortgage when the foreclosure occurred. This has been coined the “produce the note” defense and has been gaining steam across across the country. This is the first Massachusetts appellate case that I’m aware of to consider the defense and surrounding legal issues.
The Superior Court judge, Francis McIntyre, wrote a well-reasoned 10 page opinion, explaining that Massachusetts has long recognized that although the promissory note and the mortgage can travel different paths after the borrower signs them, both instruments must be “reunited” to foreclose. “The mortgage note has a parasitic quality, in that its vitality depends on the promissory note,” the judge ruled. As is becoming increasingly prevalent, neither Green Tree nor Fannie Mae could located the original signed promissory note; they were only able to produce a copy endorsed in blank without an amendment, or allonge, indicating when it was endorsed or who held it at the time of the foreclosure. Without the note properly endorsed and assigned to Green Tree, the foreclosure was a nullity, the judge held.
Potential Impacts Far and Wide
As I mentioned before, a ruling that foreclosing lenders must produce both the note and mortgage held by the same entity would drastically alter existing foreclosure practice in Massachusetts, and may open existing foreclosures to legal challenge. Although I don’t practice in foreclosures, I do know that rarely, if ever, are properly endorsed and assigned promissory notes in the hands of lenders when they foreclose. As with this case, they are typically endorsed in blank, that is, to no one, and in storage somewhere in New Jersey or Ohio held by a loan servicer. In fact, obtaining such promissory notes from lenders can be nearly impossible. They are often lost, missing pages, or destroyed.
This case, which is typical, illustrates the problem with the entire system. According to Fannie Mae’s brief, after the loan funded, the note was indorsed in blank and allegedly transferred to Fannie Mae. How does an entity as sophisticated as Fannie Mae purchase a loan without getting the promissory note properly indorsed and assigned to it? God only knows. So the best Fannie could do was produce a copy of the note indorsed to no one. That’s just great…
The mortgage took a different path along the securitization trail. This was a MERS mortgage, so it was originally granted to MERS, the electronic registry who admittedly acts only as a “nominee” and holds no financial stake in the loan. A Mass. bankruptcy court judge recently voided the foreclosure of a MERS mortgage for some of these reasons. Now while the paper is held by Fannie Mae, the mortgage supposedly gets assigned to Green Tree, the loan servicer, which like MERS has no financial stake in the loan. Green Tree then conducts the foreclosure sale, although it has no real financial interest in the loan–that remains with Fannie Mae. Now it doesn’t take a Louis Brandeis to ask, why didn’t the mortgage get assigned to Fannie Mae, and why didn’t Fannie Mae conduct the foreclosure sale since it held all the financial cards in this transaction? I would love someone to explain this to me because I don’t get it, and I’m not the only one. At this point, the whole system is FUBAR.
Of course, a favorable ruling for lenders would preserve the status quo and business-as-usual atmosphere for foreclosures in Massachusetts, while upholding the effectiveness of the MERS mortgage. The SJC wasn’t afraid to drop a bombshell in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez. Eaton v. Fannie Mae may be next. At the very least, the SJC joins a steady stream of jurists who have concerns about the way in which foreclosures are being conducted in a post-subprime world. When the decision comes down, I’ll be on it!
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced real estate litigation attorney who’s handled numerous foreclosure defense and title defect cases in Land Court and Superior Court. Please contact him if you are dealing with a Massachusetts foreclosure and title dispute.
The day has finally come and it’s time to close on the purchase of your property. You will need to bring the following to the closing:
Funds For Closing. If you need to bring cash to the closing, you must bring to closing a bank or certified check PAYABLE TO YOURSELF for the balance of the figure shown on line 303 on your HUD-1 Settlement Statement: Cash From Buyers. This is for fraud prevention, and you’ll endorse the check over to the closing attorney at the closing. The closing attorney should provide you with this number at least 24-48 hours prior to closing. Accordingly, if you need to move funds around from investments accounts, etc., do so well in advance of the closing, and be prepared to make a bank run to obtain that bank/certified check!
Homeowner’s Insurance Binder. At closing, you need a homeowner’s insurance binder showing the first year premium paid. If you are purchasing a condominium unit, you will need to provide us with the Master Insurance Binder, and depending on the type of loan you use, you may need an HO-6 policy covering the interior of your unit. The closing attorney will typically get an insurance binder ordered ahead of time, but this should be on your “to-do” list.
Your state issued driver’s license with picture or other picture identification. Some lenders now require a second form of i.d. Your closing attorney will advise you of this.
If a sale of your present home is required by your new lender, you must bring the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and a copy of the Deed from that transaction.
Good Faith Estimate. You should bring the Good Faith Estimate of closings costs that your lender originally provided to you during the loan application process. That way, you can ensure that the final closing costs match up to those originally quoted to you.
Draft HUD-1 Settlement Statement. You should have received a preliminary HUD-1 Settlement Statement from the closing attorney’s office. Due to lender delays, it is not uncommon to receive this the night before or the morning of closing, although this is obviously not ideal. Compare the prelim HUD to the HUD you are signing at the closing table.
Your Smile. Yes, bring your smile. It’s a happy day, and despite all the tumult and stress you are finally purchasing your home!
Seller’s Closing Checklist
Sellers will need to bring the following to the closing:
Massachusetts or state issued driver’s license
Keys to home and alarm codes/information
Smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector certifications from local fire department. Your Realtor should assist you with this.
Signed Deed from you to the buyers. Your attorney should have drafted the Deed.
Title V Inspection Report for septic system
Evidence of repairs (if applicable)
Final water/sewer bill and reading (paid) and final oil bill and statement from oil company as to amount remaining in tank. You will need to make the request at least 2 weeks prior to closing.
Copy of last paid real estate tax bill.
6D certificate for condominium unit showing that condo fees are paid up.
It’s also a nice gesture to give the new buyers the name of your landscaper, septic company, private trash hauler, handyman, etc. I’m sure your workmen will appreciate it also.
Before you close, don’t forget to:
Fill out change of address forms
Notify utility companies of move out
Discontinue phone service and cable
Leave all appliance warranties and instructions in the house (these are usually left in a kitchen drawer so they will be easily found by the new owners)
Notify insurance agent of closing date in order to cancel present policy
If you are purchasing a new home at the same time, make sure you get a copy of the fully signed HUD-1 Settlement Statement
A lis pendens is Latin for “a suit pending.” Under the Massachusetts lis pendens law, a lis pendens is a notice endorsed by a judge certifying that there is litigation pending involving the title or occupancy rights to a property. Where real estate deals go sour, a court will often issue a lis pendens where a buyer seeks “specific performance” of a real estate contract in order to force a seller to go through with a transaction. Lis pendens are also common in other real estate cases such as boundary, title, zoning, and ownership disputes. The lis pendens is recorded at the registry of deeds against the property and its owner(s), creating a serious cloud on the title to the affected property. A lis pendens will, in many cases, effectively prevent the owner from selling the property until the claim is resolved–thus, earning its well-deserved reputation as dangerous arrow in a real estate litigator’s quiver.
Heavy Ammunition For Buyers
Since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in 1998 that the standard Greater Boston Real Estate form Offer To Purchase is a binding contract, buyers have used the lis pendens with great success against sellers who unjustifiably try to back out of Offers to Purchase and Purchase and Sale Agreements. Aggressive buyer attorneys would often obtain a lis pendens without prior notice to the seller (called ex parte relief), and this would give buyers a huge advantage and effectively derail any pending sale of the property until the judge resolved the claim.
Recent Changes To The Law
In response to complaints that litigants were abusing the law with frivolous claims for lis pendens’, lawmakers amended the law in 2003. Now, claimants seeking ex parte relief must show there is a clear danger that the seller, if notified in advance, will convey, encumber, damage or destroy the property. Sellers also have a new remedy to stop frivolous claims: a “special motion to dismiss” which carries with it an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The playing field is a bit more leveled now, yet the lis pendens remains a powerful tool for real estate attorneys.
Dealing With A Lis Pendens
Dealing with a meritorious lis pendens remains very difficult. Standard owner’s title insurance policies do not insure against them. Further, most title companies hesitate to affirmatively insure a lis pendens as they would effectively be underwriting the ultimate success of the lawsuit. Sometimes, however, coverage can be obtained for an additional premium and/or with some form of indemnification or security. In the absence of insurance, a lis pendens will remain a cloud on title until the claim is ultimately resolved in the courts, which these days can take many years. Given the high cost of litigation, a financial settlement is often the only way to resolve the matter in a cost-effective manner.
As an experienced real estate litigator who has obtained and defended scores of lis pendens’, please contact me with any questions about a Massachusetts lis pendens.
______________________________________
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced and creative Massachusetts real estate litigator who loves to help property owners defend their contract or property rights in court. Please contact him at [email protected] or 508-620-5352 for a no-obligation consultation.
The Massachusetts Purchase and Sale Agreement Is Anything But “Standard”
Home buyers sign a never ending pile of legal documents to purchase a home. But arguably the most important document in the entire transaction is the Massachusetts purchase and sale agreement. The purchase and sale agreement is signed after the Offer to Purchase is executed, and spells out the parties’ responsibilities during the interim period when the property is taken off the market and the closing.
In Massachusetts, the form most often used is the so-called standard form agreement supplied by the Greater Boston Real Estate Board or one modeled very closely to this form. (Due to copyright laws, we cannot embed the standard form agreement — contact my office if you need assistance with drafting a purchase and sale agreement). The “standard” form purchase and sale agreement is, however, far from standard, especially for buyers. In fact, the standard form is very much slanted in favor of the seller, and the playing field must be “leveled” to protect the buyer’s interests.
This is why it’s imperative that home buyers and sellers alike retain a Massachusetts real estate attorney to modify the “standard” form purchase and sale agreement in order to best protect all parties’ rights and remedies, and customize the agreement to the particular aspects of the transaction. This is typically done through a “rider” to the purchase and sales agreement. Often, the buyers’ attorney and the sellers’ attorney will attached two different riders to the agreement.
I’ll outline a few common issues not addressed adequately in the “standard” purchase and sale agreement. (Most of these are from the buyer’s perspective).
Mortgage Contingency
The “standard” purchase and sale agreement does provide a basic mortgage contingency which gives the buyer the option of terminating the agreement if mortgage financing falls through. However, for a buyer, the more specific you are in terms of interest rate, points, name of lending institution and definition of “diligent efforts,” the better. Buyers’ counsel should specify that the buyer will not be required to apply to more than one institutional lender currently making mortgage loans of the type sought by the buyer and that the buyer may terminate the purchase and sale agreement unless the buyer obtains a firm, written commitment for a mortgage loan. Here is a sample rider provision:
MODIFICATION TO PARAGRAPH 26: Application to one such bank or mortgage lender by such date shall constitute “diligent efforts.” If the written loan commitment contains terms and conditions that are beyond BUYER’S reasonable ability to control or achieve, or if the commitment requires BUYER to encumber property other than the subject property, BUYER may terminate this agreement, whereupon any payments made under this agreement shall be forthwith refunded and all other obligations of the parties hereto shall cease and this agreement shall be void without recourse to the parties hereto.
Home Inspection/Repairs
Typically, buyers complete the home inspection process prior to the signing of the purchase and sale agreement, and any inspection contingency provision is deleted from the purchase and sale agreement. What happens if the inspection results are not ready before the P&S signing deadline or if the seller has agreed to perform repairs prior to the closing or give a credit at closing? In this case, a home inspection contingency clause should be added back to the agreement, and any seller repairs or closing credits should be meticulously detailed in the rider.
Septic Systems/Title V
If the home is serviced by an on-site sewage disposal system otherwise known as a septic system, the Massachusetts Septic System Regulations known as Title V requires the inspection of the system within 2 years of the sale of the home. Failed septic systems can cost many thousands of dollars to repair or replace. Thus, buyers would look to be released from the agreement if the septic system fails inspection. Alternatively, buyers could be given the option to close if the seller can repair the septic system during an agreed upon time period, provided that the buyers do not lose their mortgage rate lock.
Radon Gas
Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas. The ground produces the gas through the normal decay of uranium and radium. As it decays, radon produces new radioactive elements called radon daughters or decay products which scientists have proven to cause lung cancer. Radon testing should be performed by buyers during the home inspection process. Elevated levels of radon (above 4.0 picoCuries per liter (pCi/l) can be treated through radon remediation systems. The purchase and sale agreement should provide for a radon testing contingency and the buyers’ ability to terminate the agreement if elevated radon levels are found, or the option of having the sellers pay for a radon remediation system.
Lead Paint
Under the Massachusetts Lead Paint Law, buyers of property are entitled to have the property inspected for the presence of lead paint. (Sellers are not required to remove lead paint in a sale situation). Because the abatement of lead paint can be costly, buyers typically look for a right to terminate the purchase and sale agreement if lead paint exists and the abatement/removal of it exceeds a certain dollar threshold. Here is an example of a provision added to the standard form:
LEAD PAINT. Seller acknowledges that the Buyers have a child under six (6) years of age who will live in the premises. In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111, section 197A, as the premises was constructed prior to 1978, Buyer may have the premises inspected for the presence of lead paint which inspection shall be completed within ten (10) days after the execution of this Agreement, unless extended in writing by the parties. If the inspection reveals the presence of lead paint, the abatement and/or removal of which will cost $2,000 or more, then Buyer may terminate this agreement, whereupon any payments made under this agreement shall be forthwith refunded and all other obligations of the parties hereto shall cease and this agreement shall be void without recourse to the parties hereto. Any lead paint removal or abatement shall be Buyers’ responsibility.
Access
When my wife and I signed the Offer to Purchase on our house, she couldn’t wait to get in there with her tape measure, paint chips and fabric swatches. Oftentimes overlooked, but a cause of friction is buyers’ ability to access the house prior to the closing. To avoid such friction, an access clause should be added to the purchase and sale agreement giving the buyer reasonable access at reasonable time with advance notice to the sellers–it’s still their house after all.
These are just a few of the issues not adequately addressed by the “standard” form purchase and sale agreement. There are many more.
_________________________________________ Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a nationally recognized real estate attorney, and has handled thousands of Massachusetts real estate transactions. He can be reached via email at [email protected].
In my opinion, title insurance is an absolute necessity in every real estate conveyance transaction. Even though I’m an experienced real estate attorney, when I purchased my own house, I obtained owner’s title insurance. With the instances of title and bank paperwork problems on the rise, I prefer not having to worry about hidden title defects which could affect my ability to refinance and sell my house down the road.
The problem is that most home buyers don’t know what title insurance is or what it covers, and only see it for the first time on the closing settlement statement. Closing attorneys and title insurance companies need to do a better job explaining the excellent benefits and value of title insurance, so consumers don’t have the perception that it is just another junk fee.
What Is Title Insurance?
Title insurance is policy of insurance (technically an indemnification policy) protecting homeowners and lenders from actual financial loss in the event that certain covered problems develop regarding the rights to ownership of property. While Massachusetts closing attorneys search and certify each title to real estate before a closing, there are often hidden title defects that even the most careful title search will not reveal. In addition to protection from financial loss, title insurance pays the cost of defending against any covered claim.
There are two types of title insurance, lender’s and owner’s policies. Lender’s policies are required by most every public mortgage lender in the U.S., and are typically paid as part of closing costs. Owner’s policies are optional and paid for by home buyers. I will discuss owner’s policies in this post.
Title Defects: What Does An Owner’s Policy Of Title Insurance Cover?
The recent foreclosure paperwork mess and the Massachusetts high court ruling in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez are perfect examples of the importance of title insurance. Thousands titles in Massachusetts coming out of faulty foreclosures were rendered defective because of the Ibanez ruling. Those without owner’s title insurance were left to fix the title problems on their own at great expense. Those with title insurance, by contrast, were able to sell their property with the title insurer issuing “clean” policies over the defects.
Here are some other real world examples of how title insurance protects you. I recently represented a condominium seller who was shocked to learn a day before the closing that there were several un-discharged mortgages and liens on her unit left over from the original developer. Fortunately, she had an owner’s title insurance policy which allowed her closing to go forward as scheduled. I represented a young family who was dismayed to learn that the property they were about to buy was subject to the claim of a long-lost heir of a prior owner. The title insurance company agreed to file litigation against the “missing” heir, and clear the title. If title insurance was not available in these transactions, the deals would have been canceled altogether, or the closings would have been delayed by months if not years until the issues were resolved, if at all.
In addition to undischarged mortgages and the sudden appearance of unknown or missing heirs claiming an interest in the property, an owner’s policy of title insurance also covers a myriad of other types of title defects, including:
Faulty foreclosures
Forged deeds or impersonations
Incorrect legal or boundary descriptions
Recording errors
There is also a new extended or enhanced coverage policy available from all major title insurance companies which covers:
Building permit violations
Adverse possession or prescriptive easements
Building encroachments
Incorrect surveys
Pre-existing violations of subdivision, zoning laws, restrictive covenants.
For a full list of just about every conceivable situation covered by title insurance, please read my article: 50 Ways To Lose Your Home.
How Much Does Title Insurance Cost?
Title insurance is a one-time premium paid at closing and is calculated based on the purchase price of your home. The cost is for standard coverage is $3.65 per $1,000 in home value. Enhanced coverage policies run $4.00/thousand, and provide better coverages (i.e., for boundary disputes) and inflationary protection. These days, we are always recommending enhanced coverage as it’s a better value. When you purchase both lender’s coverage (always required by mortgage lenders) and owner’s coverage at the same time, there is a substantial discount.
Title insurance is a good deal because you pay once and it continues to provide complete coverage for as long as you or your heirs own the property. Those who decline title insurance rationalize that the risk of a title defect is minimal and not worth the premium. That is false. As a former claims counsel for a national title company, I could write a treatise on the different types of title problems I have seen derail closings and drag on for years.
The Role Of The Closing Attorney
The closing attorney ensures that the title examination is done on the property, certifies that the title is “marketable,” and issues the title insurance policy. While all U.S. public lenders require lender’s policies of title insurance, closings attorneys should always recommend owner’s policies for buyers. Attorneys do share in the title premiums generated. However, as I said before, even the most careful title search cannot reveal a hidden title defect that can wreck havoc on any subsequent sale or refinancing of the property.
To borrow from Nike’s old slogan, Title Insurance: Just Get It.
Please contact me at [email protected] if you have any further questions about title insurance.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is regarded as one of the leading real estate attorneys in Massachusetts. With over 25 years in practice, he is a four time winner of the "Top Lawyer" award by Boston Magazine, a "Super Lawyer" designation from Thompson/West, and "Best of Metrowest." For Rich's professional biography, click here. If you are interested in hiring Rich or have a legal question, email or call him at [email protected] or 508-620-5352.
Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. Please contact him if you need assistance with a home purchase or sale.
Massachusetts Summary Process Evictions: An Unlevel Playing Field For Landlords
Overview: Lis Pendens, Latin for “A Suit Pending”
