Property Law Developments—Joseph William Singer

In answer to two certified questions from the First Circuit the Massachusetts high court has ruled that Massachusetts law requires the presence and substantive participation by a lawyer on behalf of the mortgage lender but that routine title examination does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The case is Real Estate Bar Assn for Mass. Inc. (REBA) v. National Real Estate Information Services (NREIS), 2011 Mass. LEXIS 244 (Mass. 2011).

A New Jersey trial court has interpreted a state statute, N.J. Stat.. §2A:50-56,  to require mortgage foreclosure notices to include the name of the lender (the current holder of the mortgage) as well as contact information. Because a notice included only the name of the mortgage servicer, the court dismissed the foreclosure complaint. read article

A tenant with AIDS and related illnesses won $25,000 in emotional distress damages from his landlord for refusing to make an exception to a no-pets policy to allow the tenant to live with his emotional support dog. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination made the award and ordered the landlord to allow the dog as a reasonable accommodation to his disability which included depression and anxiety. The landlord was also fined $5,000. read article

When banks foreclose on property and then purchase the property at the foreclosure sale, they become the new owners of the property. They would like to resell the property as soon as possible. But in a recession, that is not always possible and when banks retain title to those foreclosed properties, they are subject to local law regulations to maintain the property and ensure that it does not become dilapidated. But many banks have been failing in that regard. They are in the business of financing the sale of property not in managing it. That has prompted the City of Boston to impose more than $80,000 in fines on Wells Fargo & Co and Bank of America for allowing many vacant properties in their possession ‘to fall into disrepair and blight neighborhoods.” Megan Woolhouse, Banks high on list of delinquent property owners, Boston Globe, Apr. 15, 2011.

Bank officials deny they own some of the properties, sometimes on the ground that they are merely the loan servicer or the trustee for securitized mortgages. This illustrates a problem with the securitization process and the practice of not recording the name of the bank that actually “owns” the mortgage. The city is using public records to contact the owner of record; if that institution is not the one who is the real owner, the fault lies not in the city but the failure of the banks to follow the requirements of the state recording laws which are designed to allow public identification of those with property interests in each parcel of real estate in the city.

An Alabama judge refused to allow a trustee to foreclose on a mortgage that had been made part of a securitized package of loans because there was no signed endorsement on the note (the contract creating the original loan) when the mortgage was transferred to the trust that held the securitized mortgages. Because the parties did not strictly adhere to the writing requirement in the state version of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) — a particularized version of the statute of frauds — the transfer of the mortgage never occurred and the trustee has no power to foreclose. Nor did the trustee have the rights of a “holder” of the note under the UCC because it did not acquire the note in a manner that complied with the rules in its foundational documents. In effect the party bringing the foreclosure action could not show that it had acquired the right to foreclose through properly executed documents evidencing the transfers of the mortgage from the original lender down the chain of title. see article