Foreclosure Notices in Massachusetts: What’s Required?

Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court issued its long-awaited decision in the Thompson case, concerning foreclosure notices in Massachusetts. This is a decision that lenders, title examiners, and other real estate professionals have been closely following since the original federal court decision. The full decision is below.

Thompson was a federal court case brought by a borrower challenging a foreclosure sale against his home. In 2019, the First Circuit of Appeals ruled that the foreclosure in this case was void due to an error in the right to cure notice, which both state law and the terms of most mortgages required to be sent prior to foreclosure.

This decision surprised many (including yours truly) because it seemed to “stretch the limits” on what is required for one of these notices, per established law.

For this reason, Thompson generated a great deal of concern and criticism, leading the Supreme Judicial Court to take this decision for the purpose of resolving this matter.

Foreclosure Notices in Massachusetts: Basic Requirements

To be clear, there are several required foreclosure notices in Massachusetts, including those notifying the property owner about the scheduled foreclosure sale. Here, I am focusing on the required default notice that must provide the mortgagor with an opportunity to cure their loan default, prior to foreclosure. Both state law, as well as the terms of most standard mortgages, require such notice.

Under the SJC’s decision in Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage, a lender must strictly comply with the mortgage requirements for such notices. Even a minor error in one of these notices could seemingly invalidate a foreclosure.

In Thompson, the question for the court was whether an alleged error in one of these notices was fatal to a foreclosure’s validity.

Here, the First Circuit had held that a paragraph 22 notice sent to a borrower made the foreclosure sale void because it misrepresented the borrower’s rights. The notice told the borrower that he could reinstate his loan after acceleration , anytime before the foreclosure was to occur. The problem with this was that the borrower’s mortgage required this reinstatement to occur five days before a foreclosure sale.

The SJC ruled that, because state law gave the borrower a longer time to reinstate than the mortgage itself, the default notice was not deceptive.

Implications of Thompson

Due to a series of SJC decisions in the wake of the 2008/2009 financial crisis (including Pinti), the validity of many Massachusetts foreclosures have been often called into question, with many areas of foreclosure law remaining unclear. Thompson is a step away from this trend, and avoided a circumstance where many foreclosures across Massachusetts could have been voided.

The SJC, however, avoided answering an underlining question in this decision: how strict is strict compliance? In other words, how much of a mistake needs to occur in a foreclosure notice for an underlining foreclosure to be invalidated? Such a question remains unclear, and will likely be resolved in future court cases.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with a foreclosure matter, contact me for a consultation.

g12798

What’s Required for a Foreclosure Default Notice? Massachusetts’s Highest Court Will Soon Clarify

foreclosure default notice

There is old saying for those living in New England: if you don’t like the weather, wait a few minutes. The same can be said about Massachusetts foreclosure law: if you don’t like a particular decision . . . wait a few minutes.

This is evident by a recent decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, that requests the Supreme Judicial Court to clarify the requirements for a foreclosure default notice, commonly known as “paragraph 22.” This comes from the Thompson decision, a ruling in favor of homeowners against a foreclosure sale that has been widely criticized by many in the real estate field. The full decision is below.

Background on Paragraph 22

The vast majority of homeowners in the United States have a mortgage agreement that uses a standard form. This standard form mortgage comes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and requires a lender to send a default notice prior to foreclosure. This requirement is generally found in paragraph 22 of this mortgage agreement.

This notice, among other things, requires specific disclosures to a homeowner prior to the start of foreclosure and provides the homeowner thirty days to pay the outstanding loan balance to avoid foreclosure.

In 2015, in a landmark court decision, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage that lenders need to strictly comply with this foreclosure default notice requirement. Failure to include or correctly state one of the required disclosures in these notices can be grounds for setting aside a foreclosure.

The Thompson Decision

Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a decision applying the Pinti decision to an error in one of these paragraph 22 notices. In this decision, Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, the First Circuit ruled that the notice was defective because it mislead the borrower about when he could pay his outstanding loan balance to avoid foreclosure.

Importantly, the homeowner in Thompson never suffered any harm from this defect in his foreclosure default notice. The First Circuit suggested that any potential harm to a borrower in one of these notices was a violation of paragraph 22 and grounds for challenging a foreclosure’s validity.

Not surprisingly, many involved with Massachusetts real estate are concerned with the ramifications of this decision, and its impact on the foreclosure process. I, personally, have received many inquires about the ramifications of this decision; a sign that this area of Massachusetts foreclosure law remains in flux.

SJC to Review Requirements for a Foreclosure Default Notice

Thompson, importantly, was decided by a federal appeals court. The reason for this is that the case was brought into federal court from state court, which the law allows in certain circumstances.

The bank in Thompson asked for a reconsideration of this decision, which is rarely granted in appeals. The First Circuit declined to reconsider this decision, but instead, has asked the Supreme Judicial Court to clarify the law on foreclosure default notices and paragraph 22.

I, personally, have never heard of an appellate court doing this after issuing a decision. This is a good example of how Massachusetts foreclosure law continues to be an evolving area of law.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with a foreclosure matter, contact me for a consultation.

18-1559-2019-07-30