Fighting Foreclosure: Lessons from a Massachusetts Federal Court Case

A recent decision from the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals provides an important lesson on fighting foreclosure and the importance of properly preparing such a defense.  The case, Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank, is included below.

Background

Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state.  Unlike judicial foreclosure states, such as New York and Vermont, a lender does not need to bring a court case to foreclose.  Rather, a lender can foreclose through a series of notices and publications.

In Klimowicz, the homeowner went through a non-judicial foreclosure and the lender, Deutsche Bank, became the record owner of the home following the foreclosure sale.  Deutsche Bank then brought an eviction (“summary process”) case against the former homeowner for possession of the property.

Massachusetts permits defendants in a post-foreclosure eviction case to raise defenses against the validity of the foreclosure sale.  If successful, a homeowner can defeat a bank’s right to possession of the property.  In this case, the homeowner did just that, and attempted to argue that the foreclosure was void due to problems with the mortgage assignment.

The homeowner lost this eviction, and failed to appeal this case.

Federal Court Lawsuit 

Following this unsuccessful eviction case, this homeowner continued fighting foreclosure through a federal court lawsuit.

By way of brief background, federal courts are permitted to hear state court matters under specific circumstances, including what is known as diversity jurisdiction: where the parties live in different states.  Diversity jurisdiction is common in foreclosure defense cases, as the homeowner and bank tend to be in different states.

In this case, the homeowner attempted to pursue her foreclosure defense case in federal court, by essentially arguing the same claims raised in her eviction case.  The federal court dismissed this lawsuit, and the appeals court agreed that the homeowner was not entitled to pursue this federal court action.

The main basis of this dismissal is a federal law concept known as the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.  In a nutshell, this doctrine prevents federal courts from hearing cases brought by parties who have lost in state court.  In other words, as the homeowner had lost her case in the state eviction case, she was not able to pursue it again in federal court.  If the homeowner had wished to continue fighting foreclosure, she needed to have appealed her eviction case, rather than starting a federal court lawsuit.

Although not discussed in Klimowicz, another basis for denying this federal court lawsuit was res judicata.  This legal defense prevents a party from getting a “second bite at the apple” by bringing a claim that was decided (or could have been decided) in a prior claim involving the same parties.

Practical Implications

Klimowicz has an important lesson for homeowners fighting foreclosure: it is incredibly difficult to have a second chance in defending against a foreclosure, if the homeowner is unsuccessful in their first court case.  There are many, many similar cases like this where courts have denied homeowners their day in court because their foreclosure defense claims (no matter how strong or compelling) were, or could have been, raised before.  There are few “second chances” to defend against a foreclosure.

Conclusion 

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

17-1916P-01A

What Is Needed for a Declaratory Judgment in Massachusetts?

foreclosure appeal

The Massachusetts Appeals Court issued an important decision last week on what is needed for a declaratory judgment.  The decision comes from a foreclosure law case, but just as easily applies to other areas of law.  The decision, Wells Fargo v. Mulvey, is included below.

What is a Declaratory Judgment?

A declaratory judgment, simply put, is a court order that resolves a legal uncertainty.  Pursuant to G.L. c 231A, § 1:

The supreme judicial court, the superior court, the land court and the probate courts, within their respective jurisdictions, may on appropriate proceedings make binding declarations of right, duty, status and other legal relations sought thereby, either before or after a breach or violation thereof has occurred in any case in which an actual controversy has arisen and is specifically set forth in the pleadings and whether any consequential judgment or relief is or could be claimed at law or in equity or not . . .

Declaratory judgments are often requested when the desired remedy for a case is more than simply money.  For example, in the context of foreclosure defense, money alone will not help someone who wrongfully lost their home to foreclosure . . . that party wants the home back, not money.  In such a case, the party can request a declaratory judgment stating that the foreclosure was wrongful, which has the full force of law.

For real estate cases, declaratory judgments are often recorded in the land records, which becomes part of the property’s title.

Overview of Case

In this case, Wells Fargo requested a declaratory judgment as to whether it could perform a non-judicial foreclosure against a homeowner.  The bank was concerned that its mortgage did not include the necessary language permitting such a foreclosure.

Importantly, the home owner in this case never filed an answer or response to the bank’s motion.  The bank sought a default judgment and requested what it asked for: a declaratory judgment allowing it to foreclose.

What is Needed for a Declaratory Judgment?

Not so fast, said the Court!  Although the homeowner never responded to the lawsuit, the court, on its own, declined to give the bank a declaratory judgment.  The reason for doing so answers this important question: what is needed for a declaratory judgment?

A declaratory judgment requires there to be an actual controversy for a court to resolve.  Here, because the bank presented no evidence to conclude that its right to foreclose against the homeowner was in question, this was not a matter appropriate for a declaratory judgment.

Practical Implications

As someone who often requests declaratory judgments in my cases, this decision is an important reminder of the need to properly prepare such lawsuits.  Failure to do so can result in dismissal of the case.  This decision is clear that a court can do this entirely on their own, even if the opposing party never raises this concern.

If you find yourself involved in a legal dispute concerning a declaratory judgment, contact me for a consultation.

Wells Fargo v. Mulvey

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.

Do I Need A Foreclosure Attorney?

Homeowners facing foreclosure in Massachusetts often ask themselves: do I need a foreclosure attorney?  As an attorney who has helped hundreds of Massachusetts homeowners facing foreclosure, let me discuss some of the ways that a lawyer can assist with the foreclosure process.

Applying for a Loan Modification or Short Sale

A lawyer is not always needed for a loan modification or short sale application.  If a homeowner is comfortable completing the required paperwork and staying on top of the process, a homeowner can do this on their own.

However, many homeowners find these applications to be overwhelming, which often require extensive paperwork and communication with the loan servicer.  For many homeowners, a lawyer (or reputable loan modification professional) can be a huge help with this process.

Stopping a Foreclosure Sale

If a homeowner is facing a scheduled foreclosure sale, a foreclosure attorney is generally needed.  While a homeowner can attempt to represent themselves in court, the process for doing so is especially overwhelming and complicated for a non-lawyer.  I’ve rarely seen a self-represented litigant succeed in fighting a foreclosure.  Massachusetts foreclosure law is complicated, and a foreclosure attorney is generally necessary for developing an effective foreclosure defense strategy.

Facing a Post-Foreclosure Eviction 

After a foreclosure sale in Massachusetts, the bank (or the third-party buyer of the foreclosed property) is required to evict the occupants of the home.  Per Massachusetts law, a homeowner is allowed to challenge the foreclosure’s legality as an eviction defense.  If a homeowner wishes to pursue such a defense, having a foreclosure attorney is critical.  An experienced foreclosure attorney will know what defenses to raise, the information that is needed to pursue such a defense, and how best to present such a case before a judge or jury.

As I have written before,  even if the homeowner does not want to stay in the home, a foreclosure attorney can still be helpful.  A foreclosure attorney can help the homeowner obtain the time they need to leave the property and avoid any potential liability from the foreclosure sale.

Conclusion 

If you are facing foreclosure in Massachusetts, it is worthwhile to speak with an experienced foreclosure attorney.  If you are in need of such help, contact me for a consultation.

Sherwin Law Firm Files Brief for Lost Promissory Note Appeal

Last week, I filed a brief for a pending appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals concerning a lost promissory note.  This appeal concerns a critical issue of Massachusetts foreclosure law: the need for a lender to have a borrower’s promissory note to foreclose.

Overview of a Promissory Note 

A promissory note is a legal term for a written promise to pay a definite sum of money.  Often referred to as simply a “note”, this is a legal contract that a party signs, promising to repay a sum of money.  In the context of real estate, a promissory note is signed by a lender and a home buyer, where the home buyer agrees to repay the money borrowed to purchase the home.  While it is common for homeowner to refer to “paying my mortgage” when making payments on a home loan, a homeowner is actually making payments towards the promissory note (a mortgage, in contrast, is a security agreement, allowing a lender to foreclose if the debt is not repaid).

Most promissory notes for home loans are negotiable instruments, a legal document guaranteeing the payment of a specific amount of money at a set time.  The critical importance of this is negotiability: the right of a mortgage lender to sell the promissory note.  Mortgage lenders generally want to sell a mortgage loan as quickly as possible, for the purpose of maximizing their return on investment.

“Hold the Note” Requirement for Massachusetts Foreclosure Law 

Massachusetts law requires a foreclosing entity to “hold the note” at the time of foreclosure.  This comes from Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, a landmark Massachusetts case that made this a requirement for the foreclosure process.  A foreclosing entity does not need to have physical possession of the note; it is permissible for an agent (such as the loan servicer) to hold it on the note owner’s behalf.

A home owner who wishes to see their promissory note can generally request it from their lender through a qualified written request.  Moreover, Massachusetts law requires a loan servicer to certify in writing to the borrower that they own the loan.  A foreclosing entity must also record an affidavit in the land records certifying that they own the note.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement that a  foreclosing entity must show the actual, physical note to the borrower prior to foreclosure.

What Happens When a Promissory Note is Lost?

If a promissory note is lost, the lender has the option of doing a lost note affidavit.  The law for this, G.L. c. 106, § 3-309, only allows such an affidavit if the lender (among other things) previously had possession of the note and cannot obtain the note through a diligent search.

However, even with the the lost note affidavit law, a missing promissory note is a headache for a lender attempting to foreclose.  For example, a 2017 Land Court decision held that a lender could not foreclose on the basis of a lost note affidavit due to problems arising from the change of the servicer for the loan.

In my appeal, I challenged whether the foreclosing entity made an adequate showing for each requirement of the lost note affidavit law.  This is an area of law that continues to evolve and be relevant to matters of foreclosure defense.  Stay tuned . . .

Conclusion 

If you need help avoiding foreclosure, contact me for a consultation.  The benefits of having an experienced attorney on your side can make all the difference in getting you the outcome you need.

 

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

Foreclosure Help

Foreclosure Help

Foreclosure help is available for homeowners in danger of losing their homes, or homeowners who have already gone through a foreclosure sale.  While saving a home from foreclosure is never a guarantee, foreclosure help may be an option in your case depending upon the circumstances.

Before a Foreclosure 

Foreclosure help for homeowners pre-foreclosure largely consists of attempting to obtain a loan modification or similar means of paying the outstanding loan debt.  Despite the best efforts of homeowners to properly apply for this assistance with their lenders, it is not uncommon for lenders to make a mess out of reviewing loan modification applications, by claiming to “lose” paperwork and deny such applications for absurd reasons.  In such a case, an attorney can provide foreclosure help through a lawsuit against a lender’s repeated refusal to properly review of these applications.

An attorney can similarly help a homeowner defend against foreclosure by determining whether a mortgage lender complied with the requirements for starting a foreclosure sale.  Errors in the notice requirements and pre-foreclosure laws can all be effective defenses against a foreclosure sale.

After a Foreclosure

Foreclosure help is also available after a foreclosure has occurred.  Massachusetts is a “non-judicial foreclosure” state, and a mortgage lender is not required to file a court case to foreclose a home.  A mortgage lender, however, must strictly comply with the applicable laws and mortgage terms to conduct a lawful foreclosure.  The failure to do so can be grounds for defending against a foreclosure sale and getting a home back.

In addition to errors in the foreclosure requirements, a homeowner can also pursue equitable challenges to a foreclosure’s validity.  Such claims are circumstances where the lender complied with the basic foreclosure requirements, but otherwise acted in a manner that justifies the foreclosure being void.

Avoid Foreclosure Defense Scams 

A critical reminder for seeking foreclosure help is to avoid foreclosure scams.  There are many con artists who try and take advantage of struggling homeowners by promising them services that are unrealistic or not otherwise legitimate.  Avoid anyone who promises you a free home, guaranteed loan modification, or something else that seems “too good to be true.”  The Attorney General’s Office provides helpful resources for homeowners who have been victims to these scams.

Speak to An Experienced Foreclosure Defense Attorney 

Needless to say, the importance of speaking to an experienced foreclosure defense attorney cannot be overstated.  Foreclosure help may be available to you, but such assistance generally requires the knowledge of someone familiar with this area of law and the options available for saving  a home.

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

Foreclosure Judgment

A common inquiry about foreclosures in Massachusetts is regarding a foreclosure judgment.  What does a bank get from a homeowner after it forecloses?

In judicial foreclosure states, where a bank needs to go to court to foreclose, a foreclosure judgement is a court order allowing the bank to do a foreclosure sale.  Massachusetts, in contrast, is a non-judicial foreclosure state, where a bank doesn’t need a court order.  A foreclosure judgment in Massachusetts, therefore, generally refers to what a bank can get after foreclosure: possession of the property and a deficiency judgment.

Even if a bank performs a lawful foreclosure, it must still bring an eviction (“summary process”) case to get possession of the property.  A foreclosure only changes title to the subject property; a eviction is required to get the former homeowners out of the home.  A post-foreclosure eviction case generally occurs several months after the foreclosure sale, and is usually brought in District or Housing Court.  If a bank is successful in one of these cases, it is entitled to an execution for possession, allowing the sheriff or constable to physically remove the occupants and their possessions from the property.  In one of these eviction cases, a bank can also obtain a judgment for use-and-occupancy against the former owners, which amounts to  rent for the time that the former owner resided in the home after the foreclosure sale.  While banks generally request use-and-occupancy in post-foreclosure eviction cases, it is rare for a bank to pursue this claim for money; the bank generally just wants possession of the home.

Another foreclosure judgment in Massachusetts is a claim for any deficiency judgment that exists following the foreclosure sale.  This is the difference between the amount that the homeowner owes on the mortgage loan and the amount obtained at the foreclosure sale.  For example, if the homeowner owes $400,000 on the mortgage loan, and the bank obtains $300,000 at the foreclosure sale, the homeowner is potentially liable for the difference: $100,000.  Claims for deficiency judgments are not frequently pursued.  Generally, most former homeowners do not have sufficient assets to make one of these claims worth pursuing.  Additionally, a bank has a two-year deadline (“statue of limitations”) from the foreclosure sale to bring one of these claims, which many banks fail to do.  A homeowner can also usually file a bankruptcy to get rid of this type of debt.

Each type of foreclosure judgment in Massachusetts is an important consideration for homeowners who are facing foreclosure or who have been foreclosed.  If you find yourself in either situation, contact me for a consultation.