Inside Financial Services

MASS. OFFICIAL WASTES NO TIME REALIZING SUPREME COURT THERE HAS SCREWED THINGS UP ROYALLY

In Massachusetts, the Secretary of State seems to realize that the Supreme Court's foreclosure ruling against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp has opened up a sizable can of worms:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Massachusetts, the Secretary of State seems to realize that the Supreme Court’s foreclosure ruling against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp has opened up a sizable can of worms:

Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin is calling for the Legislature to create a special tribunal to deal with homeowners’ concerns about foreclosures, following Friday’s ruling by the state’s highest court that puts into question the ownership of thousands of properties repossessed by lenders.

“Homeowners’ concerns about foreclosures” is putting it rather gently, don’t you think? In fact, any homeowner in Massachusetts who purchased a foreclosed property from a bank over the past several years is likely in the middle of a conniption. These borrowers bought their properties in entirely good faith, and the vast majority have stayed current on their mortgages. Yet because the Massachusetts Supreme Court last week invalidated two foreclosures over basically paperwork issues, these post-foreclosure buyers no longer have clear title. At a minimum, they won’t be able to sell their properties any time soon. And conceivably-who knows how things work in Massachusetts these days?-they could lose them outright to the original, pre-foreclosure, delinquent borrowers. If this is what is supposed to pass as fair, I’m at a loss. . . .

One Response to “MASS. OFFICIAL WASTES NO TIME REALIZING SUPREME COURT THERE HAS SCREWED THINGS UP ROYALLY”

  1. Greg

    i wouldn’t say the court screwed it up. The law says what it says, and the court interpreted the law in exactly the way that it has always been interpreted. Paperwork is all-important in real estate transactions. That is the way things have been in English-speaking countries for centuries, and in many countries the paperwork requirements are much more stringent that in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the United States. If the legislature wants to change that system, they can do so, but that’s not what the court is supposed to do.

    Blame the securitization trusts’ lawyers who decided that the “old” system was no good and made up their own new system with no basis whatsoever in law or history. I can assure you that when those lawyers made that decision, there were many other lawyers jumping up and down, pounding the table and trying to explain that this new, made-up system did not satisfy the clear requirements of black-letter law that should have been learned in the first year of law school. Those lawyers were ignored. Now investors are paying the price. It may be that the trusts’ lawyers, or their malpractice insurance carriers, will soon be paying part of the price, too.

Comments are closed.