Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Massachusetts

Is this a legal loophole being utilized by the banks and if so, how can one defend against it?

Let us say that a homeowner falls behind in mortgage payments. The homeowner seeks a modification from their bank but are thwarted by deceptive practices (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/bofa-gave-bonuses-to-foreclose-on-clients-lawsuit-claims.html.) The bank does a foreclosure and buys back the property at the auction. The bank�s subsequent eviction case gets tossed out for illegalities in the initial foreclosure.

The bank then auctions the owner-occupied house online or sells it to an individual investor. Is there any way that the former owner can defend against all of the previous 93A illegalities?

To me, if the initial foreclosure was found to be illegal, I would not view the bank as truly "owner"? Would they not have to foreclose again to become owner and have the right to sell? How would one challenge an investor who had purchased the property from the bank prior to a legitimate foreclosure in Court?


Asked on 6/21/13, 9:12 am

1 Answer from Attorneys

This is a very complex question. Technically if the District Court found there were illegalities in the foeclosure and refused to evict the former owner, the former owner is still not the owner of the home. The correct thing to do is to sue the bank for possession of the home in Superior Court or Land Court seeking return of title and notwithstanding the sale to a third party, that the foreclosure was defective.

I would also contact the AG's office to see if they will help since they just received funds from a settlement to compensate people for improper evictions and may seek to assist you. I would not wait too long before taking some action to recover title.

Read more
Answered on 6/21/13, 9:24 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Real Estate and Real Property questions and answers in Massachusetts