May 24, 2012

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds That Bad Foreclosure = Bad Title For Bona Fide Purchaser

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled this week that owners of property whose titles have been rendered defective due to improper foreclosures cannot bring a court action to clear their titles under the “try title” procedure in the Massachusetts Land Court. The Court, which in January found that banks can’t foreclose on a house if they don’t own the mortgage, went one step further in a closely watched case and said a sale after that foreclosure doesn’t transfer the property. Therefore, the buyer couldn’t bring his court action against a previous owner, the Court ruled. Left open, however, was whether owners could attempt to put their chains of title back together and conduct new foreclosure sales to clear their titles. Unfortunately, the Court did not provide the real estate community with any further guidance as to how best to resolve these complicated title defects. 

The Court upheld a lower-court decision that said Francis J. Bevilacqua III, the buyer of residential property in Haverhill, Massachusetts (who apparently invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the property, converting it into condominiums), never owned it because U.S. Bancorp foreclosed before it the mortgage was assigned to it by MERS. The Court also held that Bevilacqua lacked standing as a "bona fide good faith purchaser for value." This ruling could have implications in the foreclosure crisis, in which banks are accused of clouding home titles through sloppy transferring of mortgages. 

“By alleging that U.S. Bank was not the assignee of the mortgage at the time of the purported foreclosure, Bevilacqua is necessarily asserting that the power of sale was not complied with, that the purported sale was invalid, and that his grantor’s title was defective,” the Court wrote. “In light of its defective title, the intention of U.S. Bank to transfer the property to Bevilacqua is irrelevant and he cannot have become the owner of the property pursuant to the quitclaim deed.” 

While the long term implications of this case on the Massachusetts real estate market are certainly ominous, buyers in other jurisdictions need to also consider the potential implications of this case. If the Court's ruling were to be adopted by other state courts, any purchaser of property at a foreclosure sale or as REO property directly from a bank, will need to examine (or hire someone to examine) a preliminary title report for the property prior to completing the purchase, in order to determine that the chain of title on the property is proper. What's more, this concern could extend to anyone who is purchasing property that was sold at any time at a foreclosure sale or as REO property. Mr. Bevilacqua was in the process of converting his property to condominiums. What if he had sold the condominiums? Would the purchasers also have faulty title? Based on the Court's analysis, it is difficult to come up with an answer other than yes. 

This decision is to be contrasted with the Ninth Circuit's decision inCervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., which was discussed in our most recent blog. Unlike the Massachusetts decision, the Ninth Circuit appeared to honor substance over form and take the equities into account in making its decision. 

Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 10880, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Boston). 

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Senior Attorney

Mr. Root is a senior attorney in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office.

213-617-5465

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.