Sherwin Law Firm Succeeds in FHA Foreclosure Defense Case

Last week, I had a successful outcome in a FHA foreclosure defense case.  My client was facing a post-foreclosure eviction and I raised a successful defense regarding the lender’s non-compliance with the foreclosure requirements for these types of loans.

FHA Foreclosure

A Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) loan is a loan guaranteed by the federal government and designed to help home buyers who would not meet the traditional lending requirements for purchasing a home.  Because the federal government insures these loans, lenders are more willing to offer loans to potential buyers who might otherwise be considered a high risk for lending.

FHA foreclosures require lenders to comply with many more requirements than those associated with a standard mortgage agreement.  Lenders of FHA loans must review borrowers for loan modifications and other loss mitigation opportunities and, in most circumstances, have a “face-to-face” meeting with the borrower prior to foreclosure.

Strict Compliance Is Required for FHA Foreclosures 

Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state, which allows lenders to foreclose without bringing a court case against the borrower.  This is in contrast to states like New York and Vermont, where a lender needs to file a lawsuit against a borrower to foreclose.  Here in Massachusetts, a lender must strictly comply with the applicable foreclosure requirements.  Failure to do so will make the foreclosure void.

The Appeals Court has extended this strict compliance requirement to FHA foreclosures.  A lender’s failure to comply with the “face-to-face” requirement will be fatal to a foreclosure’s validity.

While I am aware of no case on this, I believe that this type of foreclosure defense would equally extend to the other FHA foreclosure requirements, including reviewing a borrower for a loan modification.

For this reason, borrowers who are facing FHA foreclosures often have viable defenses in these cases.

Outcome of Case

In this case, the lender alleged to have performed the required “face-to-face” meeting, but only after it accelerated the mortgage loan (where the lender demands the entire loan balance prior to foreclosing).  Because this meeting came after, and not before, the loan acceleration, the lender failed to comply with this foreclosure requirement, making the foreclosure void.

While it is sometimes obvious that the lender made an error with the foreclosure requirements, such mistakes are not always clear.  Here, this foreclosure defense required a strong understanding of the non-judicial foreclosure process and these FHA requirements.

Conclusion

The benefits of having an experience foreclosure defense attorney is essential in dealing with one of these cases.  If you need assistance in defending against an FHA foreclosure, contact me for a consultation.

Who Can File An Eviction in Massachusetts?

foreclosure appeal

The Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision this week for landlord-tenant law: who can file an eviction in Massachusetts?  The decision, Rental Property Management Services v. Hatcher, is included below.

Overview

The facts of this case are fairly straightforward.  A property manager (a person hired to maintain rental property) filed an eviction (“summary process”) case against a tenant in Housing Court.  This property manager brought this case in the name of “Property Management Services” (his business), which was not the owner of the subject property, nor the lessor.  This property manager personally signed the eviction summons.

Who Can File An Eviction in Massachusetts?

This case presented two main questions for the Supreme Judicial Court.  First, could this property management service bring this eviction case against the tenant?  Second, could the property manager (who was not a lawyer) sign the eviction summons?

The Court held that only an owner or lessor of rental property is entitled to bring an eviction case against a tenant.  Here, while the property management company may have been responsible for maintaining the property, it was not the right party to bring this eviction.

It is not uncommon in Massachusetts for property management companies to directly enter into leases with tenants.  Here, if this property management company had a lease or written agreement with the tenant, I suspect the outcome may have been different.  However, where this company was neither the owner nor lessor, it was not entitled to proceed with this eviction.

The Court then addressed whether the property manager was permitted to sign the eviction paperwork.  Because this manager was not an attorney, the Court held that he was not permitted to do so, and had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Lessons for Massachusetts Landlords

This case has an important lesson for Massachusetts landlords: proceed with caution when filing an eviction in Massachusetts.  While I highly recommend that landlords use property management services if they need assistance in maintaining their rental units, these services cannot substitute as lawyers.

The Court declined to find that doing so was an unfair and deceptive business practice against the tenant (a claim that could allow for monetary damages and attorney fees).  Hatcher is clear, however, that a Court can punish a party who knowingly disobeys these eviction requirements.

Conclusion

If you are confused about who can file an eviction in Massachusetts, take away this critical advice: hire an experienced landlord-tenant attorney for your eviction.  Aside from avoiding some of the problems stated above, an experienced attorney will help you navigate this tricky area of law and reach an effective resolution to your dispute.  If you are in need of such assistance, contact me for a consultation.

12373

Can I Owe Money After a Foreclosure?

Challenging a Foreclosure

A common question for homeowners facing foreclosure is whether they will owe money after a foreclosure.  While it is possible to owe money after a foreclosure sale (commonly known as a deficiency judgment), there are requirements that a lender must follow to pursue such a claim, and other considerations that come into play on whether a lender will seek these damages against a borrower.

Requirements for Pursuing a Deficiency Judgment

Whether a borrower may own money after a foreclosure depends on the outcome of the foreclosure auction.   In such an auction, the home is put up for sale, with the lender attempting to recover the money that the homeowner owes on the home.  If the winning bid is greater than the amount owed by the borrower, the borrower gets the difference, after deducting the loan payoff and the lender’s costs and fees.

If the borrower owes more than the highest bid on the property, the borrower would owe the difference (known as a “deficiency judgment”).  However, to collect this judgment, the bank is required to comply with a notice and affidavit requirement.  A 2017 decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, Gavin v. U.S. Bank, N.A., held that a lender must strictly comply with this law.  In that case, the lender failed to send the required affidavit within thirty days after the foreclosure sale, which precluded the lender from attempting to recover this money from the homeowner.

Deadline for Pursuing a Deficiency Judgment 

Another consideration on whether a homeowner will owe money after a foreclosure sale is whether the lender has filed such a claim within the required deadline (known as the statute of limitations).  The statute of limitations for such a claim is two years from the foreclosure sale.  If such a claim is not brought within this deadline, the homeowner will not owe money after the foreclosure.

Practical Considerations on Owing Money After Foreclosure 

As discussed above, while it is possible to owe money after a foreclosure, it is not common.  The reason is that most lenders do not want to spend the time and money collecting a judgment that the homeowner will likely not be able to pay.  The old adage applies:  you can’t get blood from a stone.

Moreover, any owed money after a foreclosure sale can often be eliminated through a bankruptcy, either before or after the foreclosure.  If such a bankruptcy occurs, the lender will have few, if any, options for trying to collect this debt.

Conclusion 

Although it is rare to owe money after a foreclosure sale, it is possible.  Homeowners facing such a claim should speak with an experienced attorney to learn their options.

Sherwin Law Firm Wins Foreclosure Appeal

foreclosure appeal

I’m pleased to announce that I, along with appellate attorney Joseph Schneiderman, won a foreclosure appeal this week in the Massachusetts Appeals Court.  The case, Nationstar v. Culhane (included below) concerns an important topic for appealing an eviction (“summary process”) case in Massachusetts: the importance of timely filing a notice of appeal.

Overview of Case

It would take much, much more than a single blog post to give the background on this case, or even the procedural history of this matter.  Here’s a quick synopsis.  The homeowner went through a foreclosure sale and faced a post-foreclosure eviction case by the foreclosing lender.  In such a case, the homeowner has a right to defend against the eviction by alleging that the foreclosure was not lawful.  Here, my client had a strong defense based on the lender’s failure to comply with paragraph 22 of her mortgage.

Case History

My client won her case at the District Court, where the foreclosing lender filed this eviction case.  Following my client’s win, the foreclosing lender appealed this case to the District Court Appellate Division.  The Appellate Division is a part of the District Court and hears appeals of most civil cases from the District Court.

The Appellate Division reversed the District Court’s decision, and ruled that the foreclosing lender should have won the eviction case.  I then appealed the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which hears appeals decided by the Appellate Division.

Outcome of Foreclosure Appeal

The Appeals Court ruled in my client’s favor based on a critical argument we raised for my client: the foreclosing lender’s failure to timely file this foreclosure appeal.

Massachusetts eviction law has a short deadline for pursuing an eviction appeal: ten days.  As we argued to the court, previous decisions on this law hold that a failure to meet this deadline, for seemingly any reason, are grounds for dismissing the appeal.  Here, the foreclosing lender filed its notice of appeal after the ten-day deadline, which the Appeals Court agreed was grounds for dismissing the appeal.

Conclusion

This case has some really important lessons not just for a foreclosure appeal, but any appeal of an eviction case.  The deadline for such an appeal must be timely filed.  Often, the failure to timely appeal a civil case is not always fatal to one’s case; appeal courts have discretion to allow a untimely appeal for good cause.  Not so with eviction cases.  This case, along with many prior cases on this matter (discussed in the court’s decision below) suggest that there are few grounds for filing an eviction appeal late.

For this reason, I always recommend that lawyers and parties representing themselves in an eviction appeal err on the side of caution when preserving a right to appeal.   File the notice of appeal as soon as possible and make sure you have proof that the court and opposing party receive this notice.  Take no chances on this.  I have been known to jump in my car on the last day of the deadline to appeal and make a special trip to court if I have any reason to believe the notice of appeal was not timely received by the court.

This case also demonstrates the importance of working with an experienced appellate attorney on one of these matters.  The arguments in this case were highly technical and required a deep understanding of Massachusetts eviction law and appellate procedure.  If you find yourself involved in a similar foreclosure appeal, contact me to see if I can help.

 

16P1723

Preserving a “Pinti” Defense – Paragraph 22 of the Standard Mortgage

The Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an important decision this week on preserving a “Pinti” defense under paragraph 22 of the standard mortgage.  In US Bank v. Milan, the Appeals Court ruled that a homeowner failed to preserve this foreclosure defense and was precluded from raising it in his foreclosure case (a full copy of this decision is below).

Overview of Paragraph 22 of the Standard Mortgage

Paragraph 22 of the standard mortgage (used for most residential home purchases) requires that a default notice be sent to a homeowner containing a number of required disclosures before a foreclosure sale can proceed.  In Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a lender must strictly comply with this mortgage requirement.  Failure to do so makes any subsequent foreclosure sale void.

Pinti, importantly, limited the homeowners who were entitled to this defense.  Initially, the decision only applied to those paragraph 22 notices sent after July 17, 2015 (the date of Pinti).  The Appeals Court subsequently extended the benefit of Pinti to those homeowners who had a pending appeal on the paragraph 22 issue, and later, to any homeowner who raised it as a defense in a pending trial court case.  In this present appeal, the Appeals Court needed to determine what counts to preserve this defense in a pending foreclosure case.

How Does a Homeowner Preserve a Paragraph 22 Defense? 

In this case, the homeowner was in a post-foreclosure eviction case, where the bank alleged to have foreclosed the home.  The homeowner was entitled to defend against the eviction by arguing that the foreclosure was void, precluding the bank from obtaining possession of the home.

Here, the homeowner appears to have answered the bank’s eviction lawsuit by using a printed answer form, which allows claimants to raise defenses and counterclaims by checking a box.  This homeowner made a general allegation that the foreclosure was void.  In response to the bank’s inquiry on the basis of this defense, the homeowner alleged that there was forgery in his case, and did not mention a failure to comply with paragraph 22 of his mortgage.  While this case was ongoing, the Supreme Judicial Court issued Pinti.  The trial judge ruled that Pinti applied because the homeowner preserved a Pinti defense in this case, and found the overall foreclosure to be void.

The Appeals Court disagreed, ruling that the homeowner listed forgery, and not a paragraph 22 defect, as the asserted grounds for the homeowner’s foreclosure defense.  In other words, the Court was not willing to let the homeowner “change horses midstream” and get the benefit of Pinti after stating a prior, separate basis for his foreclosure defense.

Conclusion 

Recent court cases have been favorable to foreclosed homeowners with a paragraph 22 defect.  Milan suggests that there are limits to who can get the benefit of Pinti  in their case, and that a failure to expressly raise this matter can be fatal to one’s defense.  This decision, however, really only applies to homeowners with a pending foreclosure case who received a defective paragraph 22 notice before July 17, 2015.  Homeowners who received a defective notice after this date will likely have much more leeway in raising a Pinti defense.

While the Court did not address this issue, Milan touches upon the problems of using forms in answering or bringing a lawsuit.  Such forms allowed a claimant to raise a defense or claim merely by “checking a box” and without providing any supporting facts or detail.  I have long believed that these forms are problematic and not proper under the requirements for raising a legal claimMilan suggests that Massachusetts appeal courts may be inclined to take a closer look at this issue in the future.  Regardless, this is a reason why the benefits of finding an experienced foreclosure defense attorney cannot be overstated.

US Bank v. Milan

Challenging a Foreclosure in Massachusetts

Challenging a Foreclosure

A recent decision by the Massachusetts Land Court discusses the importance of properly challenging a foreclosure in Massachusetts, and the ramifications of failing to do so correctly.  This case, Kenney v. Brown, is to the best of my knowledge the first decision to interpret Massachusetts’s foreclosure title clearing law, a 2015 law that puts a deadline upon the right of homeowners to challenge a foreclosure in Massachusetts. 

Overview of the Deadline for Challenging a Foreclosure in Massachusetts

Massachusetts’s foreclosure title clearing law places a deadline for challenging a foreclosure in Massachusetts.  This law requires a homeowner to raise a challenge to a foreclosure within three years after a foreclosure affidavit is recorded in the land records where the property is located (this affidavit is generally recorded several months after the foreclosure sale).

How to Preserve A Foreclosure Challenge 

Under this law, a homeowner must challenge a foreclosure by either filing a lawsuit or raising a defense or counterclaim in a post-foreclosure eviction case.  Simply put,  challenging a foreclosure under this new law requires a homeowner to pursue their claim in court.

In Kenney, the homeowners attempted to preserve their challenge to the foreclosure against their home by filing an affidavit in the land records, and pursuing this challenge in court later on.  This affidavit was filed pursuant to G.L. c. 183, § 5B:

Subject to section 15 of chapter 184, an affidavit made by a person claiming to have personal knowledge of the facts therein stated and containing a certificate by an attorney at law that the facts stated in the affidavit are relevant to the title to certain land and will be of benefit and assistance in clarifying the chain of title may be filed for record and shall be recorded in the registry of deeds where the land or any part thereof lies.

These affidavits, commonly known as “5B affidavits” can be useful for resolving property matters.  I have used them in opposing a foreclosure by entry or recording judicial decisions regarding the validity of a foreclosure.  Here, these homeowners attempted to preserve their foreclosure challenge by filing one of these affidavits, and listing the reasons why they believed their foreclosure was unlawful.  These homeowners, undisputedly, did not file a lawsuit within the deadline of the title clearing law.  The question for the court was whether such an affidavit was a proper means for challenging a foreclosure in Massachusetts under the title clearing law’s deadline.

The court in Kenney v. Brown rejected the homeowner’s use of 5B affidavits for this purpose, by holding that the law requires an actual court case to preserve a foreclosure challenge, which may not be done by merely filing an affidavit.  Failure to do so will prevent a homeowner from being able to pursue such a claim, even if the underlining foreclosure was unlawful.

Critical Advice for Homeowners Who Want to Challenge a Wrongful Foreclosure 

The lesson from this case is an important one: speak to an experienced foreclosure defense attorney if you have a potential challenge to a wrongful foreclosure.   The failure to comply with the laws applicable for such a claim can cost you “your day in court” on these matters.

 

 

 

SJC Extends Paragraph 22 Defense

The Supreme Judicial Court issued an important ruling last weekend extending the “paragraph 22 defense” to other homeowners facing foreclosure.  In Federal National Mortgage Association v. Marroquin, the Court extended the benefit of the prior Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage decision to those homeowners who similarly challenged a foreclosure based on non-compliance with paragraph 22 of the standard mortgage (a full copy of the decision is included below).  This is alot of information to take in at once, so read on for a “non-lawyer” explanation!

Paragraph 22 of the standard mortgage is a provision in a typical mortgage agreement that requires a foreclosing entity to provide a default notice to borrowers prior to foreclosure.  This notice requires specific disclosures that need to be given to the borrower.  In the wake of the recent foreclosure crisis, many of these notices have had errors, and have not included all of the required disclosures.  A paragraph 22 defense is a challenge to a foreclosure based on non-compliance with this mortgage requirement.

In Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage, the Supreme Judicial Court determined that the failure to strictly comply with this mortgage requirement made the foreclosure void.  Pinti, importantly, required “strict compliance” for this part of the mortgage: a borrower does not need to show any harm from such a defect to challenge the foreclosure.  The Court’s decision in Pinti was “prospective”: it would only apply to the homeowners in Pinti and future foreclosure challenges based on non-compliance with paragraph 22.  In Aurora Loan Services v. Murphy, the Appeals Court extended the Pinti ruling to other cases on appeal at the time of the Pinti decision.

In Federal National Mortgage Association v. Marroquin, the Supreme Judicial Court needed to decide whether a paragraph 22 defense could be raised by a homeowner who had a trial court case pending at the time of Pinti.  This would include post-foreclosure eviction cases and Superior and Land Court challenges to foreclosure.  In  Marroquin, the Supreme Judicial Court extended Pinti to these cases as well.  If a homeowner had raised a paragraph 22 defense in one of these cases at the time of Pinti, “strict compliance” would apply.

Marroquin will likely apply to only a small range of cases.  The Supreme Judicial Court did not suggest that the prospective ruling of Pinti has changed.  In other words, a homeowner who did not properly preserve a paragraph 22 defense will not be helped by Marroquin.  As this decision comes over 1.5 years after Pinti, there are likely many homeowners who had such viable defenses, but failed to preserve them, on the belief that Pinti’s  prospective ruling would not let this defense apply to their case.

This is my main complaint with Marroquin and the Supreme Judicial Court’s other decisions on paragraph 22.  The Court in Pinti knew that the issue of the paragraph 22 defense would come before the Court again.  Why the Court could not have addressed this matter in the first place, making these later decisions unnecessary, is beyond me.  Nonetheless,  Marroquin fully resolves the scope of this defense for homeowners with a paragraph 22 defect.

If you find yourself in need of assistance with foreclosure, contact me for a consultation.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Marroquin

Appeals Court Issues Decision on Legal Rights Following a Loan Modification

 

The Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an important decision last week concerning a homeowner’s legal rights following a loan modification.  In Barrasso v. New Century Mortgage Corporation, the Appeals Court held that a homeowner was unable to raise prior claims related to their mortgage loan after accepting a modification of that loan (a copy of the decision is below).

Background

In Barrasso, the homeowner entered into a loan modification with their lender, for the purpose of making the loan payments more affordable.  Years later, the homeowner brought a lawsuit against the lender, challenging several of the mortgage loan assignments and whether the present holder of the mortgage was the proper holder of the loan.

Legal Decision

Barrasso held that the homeowner was estopped from challenging the transfer of his mortgage due to the homeowner’s signing of this loan modification.  Estoppel is a legal defense that prevents a party from making an allegation or defense that contradicts a prior representation.  The loan modification in Barrasso, like most loan modification agreements, required the homeowner to agree to several factual representations about the mortgage loan, namely, who held the mortgage.  The Court reasoned that, because the homeowner benefited from this loan modification agreement, it could not then deny one of the prior statements in this agreement that it had agreed to: who the owner of the mortgage was.

Implications to Homeowners

Barrasso follows a line of reasoning that I have often taken with loan modifications: the signing of one of these agreements generally waives any prior legal claims associated with the loan.  A loan modification, in essence, is a new loan, with new terms and conditions.  If a homeowner had legal claims arising from the original loan (such as predatory lending), the homeowner probably won’t be able to raise them following a loan modification.  As explained by Barrasso, if a homeowner gets the benefits of a loan modification, it can’t then go back and raise matters that arose before the modification.

Some loan modification agreements, such as those coming from the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), do not require a homeowner to waive any legal rights against a lender.  Barrasso makes clear, however, that  a loan modification has strong implications for one’s legal rights following one of these agreements.  Homeowners should keep this in mind when considering accepting a loan modification: homeowners generally won’t be able to raise claims arising out of the prior loan.

Barrasso should not scare homeowners away from accepting a loan modification.  Loan modifications are the best means of avoiding foreclosure, and a homeowner should absolutely accept a modification with an affordable loan payment.  The key is to make sure that such a modification is right for the homeowner.  If you find yourself in such a scenario, contact me for a consultation.

Barrasso v. New Century

SJC Rules that Failure to Send a Postforeclosure Notice Does Not Invalidate A Foreclosure

The Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision this week on postforeclosure notices, and whether the failure to send one invalidates a foreclosure sale.  In Turra v. Deutsche Bank, the Court ruled that the failure to send one of these notices does not void a foreclosure (disclosure: this was my appeal!).  A full copy of the decision is below.

The law in question, G.L. c. 244, § 15A, requires a mortgagee to notify the local municipalities of a foreclosure thirty days after the sale has occurred.  As the Court acknowledged in Turra,  prior court decisions suggested that strict compliance with this law was required to perform a lawful foreclosure.  The question in Turra was whether this was such a requirement, and whether a failure to comply with this step would invalidate a foreclosure.  Turra determined this statute isn’t grounds for challenging foreclosures.

I don’t read Turra to suggest that a failure to comply with a postforeclosure notice requirement can never be used to challenge a foreclosure.  If a homeowner or someone else is actually harmed from a bank’s failure to send such a notice, this violation may potentially be a consumer protection claim.  Turra is clear, however, that such a violation, on its own, is not enough to be a foreclosure defense.

While Turra wasn’t the outcome I wanted, I’m pleased that the Supreme Judicial Court acknowledged the basis for my argument, and conceded  that its prior caselaw suggested this was a plausible defense.  The decision mentions two other decisions where courts came out the oppositie way on this question of law (one of these decisions was one of my other cases using this defense).  You can’t win ’em all!

Turra has an important lesson of wisely choosing a foreclosure defense strategy.  The Internet is filled with foreclosure defense hoaxes and myths that do struggling homeowners more harm than good in trying to save their homes.  A review of unsuccessful foreclosure defense cases in state and federal court shows dozens of cases lost on the same arguments that courts routinely reject.  My strategy in defending homeowners is to make arguments that have a basis in law, and reject arguments that don’t work.  I reject the “kitchen sink” approach to foreclosure defense, where one raises every argument they can think of, irrespective of whether the claim has any hope of succeeding.  It is far better, in my opinion, to stick with arguments that work, and try new approaches.   While not successful in this case, my legal argument on these postforeclosure notices succeeded in several of my other cases, and helped keep a deserving family in their home.  If you find yourself facing foreclosure, don’t rely on an Internet myth to defend yourself: contact an experienced attorney for assistance.

Decision

MA SJC Issues Important Decision on Consumer Protection Demand Letters

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision on consumer protection demand letters last week, that is of particular importance to Massachusetts foreclosure defense.  The case, Moronta v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC,  is an interpretation of the consumer protection demand letters that are required for Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law (a full copy of the decision is below).

Overview of Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law

Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law (commonly known as “Chapter 93A”) prohibits “unfair and deceptive” practices by businesses.  The scope of this law is broad, and has been used successfully for a variety of consumer protection claims.  For foreclosure defense, Chapter 93A claims have been effective for loan modification denial claims; courts have increasingly allowed these lawsuits based on a loan servicer’s repeated refusal to properly review a loan modification application.

To bring a Chapter 93A claim against a business, a consumer is required to send the business a demand letter and provide them thirty days to make a settlement offer.  These consumer protection demand letters are an essential requirement of this law; courts have thrown out Chapter 93A claims for a claimant’s failure to send one of these letters (or to send a letter that makes a proper demand to the business).

Exceptions to the Demand Letter Requirement

A consumer does not need to send a demand letter if “if the prospective respondent does not maintain a place of business or does not keep assets within the commonwealth.”  The question in Moronta was whether one or both of these two exemptions are needed to avoid sending the demand letter.  As the Court explained: “if the defendant keeps assets in the Commonwealth, but does not maintain a place of business here, must the plaintiff serve a demand letter?”  The Court answered no: either one of these exceptions (no assets or no place of business in the Commonwealth) is an exception to the consumer protection demand letters under Chaper 93A.

How Does Moronta Affect Massachusetts Foreclosure Defense?

Moronta is of particular importance for Massachusetts foreclosure defense.  Because Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state (where a bank does not need to go to court to do a foreclosure), homeowners often need to go on “the offense” in avoiding foreclosure, through a civil action.  The demand letter requirement under Chapter 93A can be a burden for borrowers who have less than thirty days before a scheduled foreclosure to pursue a legal action.  Moronta will be a help for homeowners with cases against national banks and loan servicers, many of which do not have offices in Massachusetts, and would trigger the exception to the demand letter requirement.

Despite the benefit of Moronta for consumers, I caution consumers (especially homeowners with foreclosure defense claims) from pursuing Chapter 93A claims without the benefit of legal counsel.  Chapter 93A may be intended to help consumers, but consumer protection claims are often still too complicated for a non-lawyer to take on.  Consult an attorney if you believe you have a viable cause of action.

12042