Court rules that designated open space on plat is insufficient to establish an easement absent proof the developer induced buyers to purchase in reliance on promises of open space.

Posted on May 19th, 2012 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Consumer protection, Easements, Estates & future interests, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds.

Disagreeing with the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Reagan v. Brissey, 844 N.E.2d 672 (Mass. 2006), an appeals court in New Mexico held that open space designated on a recorded plat is not sufficient to create an easement of access by owners of lots on the map in the absence of evidence the developer made representations to buyers inducing them to buy in reliance on promises those lots would remain open. The mere presence of open space on the map was insufficient to prevent the developer from selling that open space for development purposes. Agua Fria Save The Open Space Ass’n v. Rowe, 255 P.3d 390 (N.M. 2011)

Comments Off

Oral agreement to buy property does not create a compensable property interest when the property is condemned

Posted on November 21st, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds, Takings.

The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that a potential buyer who had an oral contract to buy real estate did not have a right to just compensation when the property was condemned by public authorities. American Central City, Inc. v. Joint Antelope Valley Auth., 2011 WL 2420787 (Neb. 2011). Although oral agreements to buy property are enforceable despite the statute of frauds in cases of part performance, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the potential buyer’s sole remedy was against the seller of the property rather than the public authorities that took the property by eminent domain.

Comments Off

Massachusetts high court voids title when a buyer purchases property from an owner who obtained title through an improper foreclosure

Posted on October 19th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Consumer protection, Mortgages, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds.

In an important but almost inevitable case, Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez,  2011 WL 4908845 (Mass. 2011), the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held that a lender who does not follow proper procedures to foreclose on property cannot pass good title to a subsequent purchaser. The court’s earlier ruling in U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011) had held that a nonjudicial foreclosure cannot lawfully happen unless the party conducting the foreclosure can show requisite assignments of the mortgage given it the right to foreclose. In Bevilacqua, the original buyer Rodriguez granted a mortgage to MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) as nominee for the real lender Finance America, LLC. At the time of the private foreclosure proceedings, MERS had not formally assigned the mortgage from the original lender to U.S. Bank National Association (US Bank); for that reason, the foreclosure brought by US Bank was invalid. The buyer at the foreclosure sale (also US Bank as trustee for a securitized pool of mortgages) could not therefore transfer good title to the property. Thus the buyer Bevilacqua had no title to the property and no standing to bring a quiet title action against the original owner/borrower. The court did suggest that the buyer could sue the bank from whom he tried to obtain title in order to get relief either in the form of damages or actions would satisfy the statute of frauds and actually result in a clear transfer of title from the original owner to the subsequent buyer.

 

Comments Off

Register of Deeds in Essex County, Massachusetts refuses to record robo-signed documents

Posted on September 28th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds, Title issues.

A dispute has arisen between South Essex Register of Deeds John O’Brien and the Massachusetts Real Estate Bar Association (REBA) over O’Brien’s refusal to allow seemingly “robo-signed” mortgage documents to be recorded in the Registry of Deeds. REBA contends that state law allows the recording of any document “purporting” to be signed by an authorized signatory to a mortgage or a mortgage assignment. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, § 54B. But Register O’Brien points to 1,300 documents received that were signed “Linda Green” but which exhibit different handwriting styles and different titles, and some were filed after 2010 when it was believed that Green stopped working for a mortgage company. O’Brien takes the position that he will not record documents signed by “known robo-signers” and he will also forward suspicious documents to the Attorney General’s office for investigation of mortgage fraud. Scott Pitman & MIchael Pill, To record or not to record robo-signed documents? 40 Mass. Lawyers Weekly 9 (Sept. 26, 2011).

Comments Off

Bank cannot suggest a homeowner stop mortgage payments as part of modification negotiations and then foreclose on the basis of that failure to pay

Posted on September 10th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds.

A federal District Court judge in Massachusetts has ruled in the case of Dixon v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 WL 2945795 (D. Mass. 2011), that a ban cannot induce a homeowner to stop making mortgage payments as a prerequisite to negotiations to modify the mortgage and then use that failure to make the mortgage payments as a predicate for foreclosing on the property and evicting the owner. The bank’s representation that it would renegotiate following the borrower’s cessation of mortgage payments constituted a promise on which the borrower reasonably relied and that promise could be equitably enforced by denying the bank the right to foreclose in the circumstances. The court did not find a promise by the bank to modify the mortgage but it did have a duty to negotiate the modification in good faith before foreclosing.

Comments Off

Massachusetts high court denies eviction from a home foreclosed in a private sale unless there is proof of a right to foreclose

Posted on August 9th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds, Title issues.

In an extension of its earlier ruling in U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011) that a foreclosure is invalid unless the party seeking foreclosure proves that it owns the mortgage (has the right to foreclose) at the time of the foreclosure, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ruled in the case of Bank of New York v. KV Bailey, 2011 WL 3307553 (Mass. 2011),  that a homeowner could challenge an eviction from his home even though it was foreclosed in a private sale to determine whether the mortgagor/lender had the power to foreclose. Because Massachusetts uses private foreclosure rather than court-supervised foreclosure, the ruling extends court supervision of foreclosure to homeowners by effectively requiring foreclosing parties to have proof of the right to foreclose before the foreclosure sale. It does so by denying power to evict an occupying homeowner without proof of the right to possession of the premises. Because the law generally protects a peaceable possessor of land unless the one seeking possession can show a better title denial of the right to evict has the effect of regulating the prior foreclosure process, which, in turn, will require that the market for transfers of mortgages comply with the requisite formalities of the statute of frauds.

Comments Off

NY court holds that MERS cannot bring foreclosure actions

Posted on June 24th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds.

An appellate court in New York has held that MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) cannot file foreclosure lawsuits in its own name because it does not “own” the mortgage, having neither the right to payment under the note nor the right to foreclose. Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 2011 WL 2279723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Despite the fact that the parties put MERS’s name on the mortgage, it is not the real party in interest, having no right to payment under the note

Comments Off

NY and Delaware AGs investigate mortgage bundling for requisite written documentation of the chain of title

Posted on June 24th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Statute of frauds.

The New York and Delaware Attorneys General have asked for information from two trustees of mortgage bundles (Bank of New York Mellon and Deutsche Bank) to determine whether they complied with all contractual obligations in the process of bundling the mortgages and selling shares to investors. The trusts that bundled the mortgages were supposed to ensure that proper paperwork was completed in transferring “ownership” of  the mortgages to the trust to ensure that the investors were actually investing in something that the trust owned. Many of the bundling contracts required the trust to examine the individual mortgages to ensure a proper chain of title and failure to do so would constitute a breach of contract that could lead to the whole thing unraveling. Read article

Comments Off

Washington Supreme Court adopts relative hardship doctrine and refuses to order a house removed when it was unwittingly built on land owned by another

Posted on June 2nd, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Easements, Servitudes, Statute of frauds, Trespass.

Defendants unknowingly built their house on land that belonged to the plaintiff who also did not know that the land belonged to him. The mistake was discovered after the house was built and plaintiff sued to eject the trespassers from his land. The Washington Supreme Court denied injunctive relief, adopting the relative hardship doctrine. The court granted plaintiff damages for the value of the land encroached on by his neighbor’s structure but denied plaintiff an injunction ordering the structure removed. Proctor v. Huntington, 238 P.3d 1117 (Wash. 2010).

 

Comments Off

Maine Supreme Court denies foreclosure when the lender filed fraudulent affidavits

Posted on June 2nd, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds.

On May 19, 2011, the Maine Supreme Court denied summary judgment on a foreclosure claim when it found that affidavits filed by the lender were suspect and possibly fraudulent. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Murphy, 2011 Me. LEXIS 59, 2011 ME 59 (Me. 2011). The question was whether the note had been validly assigned from the original lender to the entity now seeking to foreclose. The court found the affidavits testifying to that effect to be inherently untrustworthy because (1) one affidavit swearing that a mortgage assignment had been recorded was signed before the assignment was recorded, (2) another affidavit and assignment suggested the same person was simultaneously the vice president of both the assignor and the assignee, (3) an affidavit’s jurat was dated four days before the affidavit was signed, and (4) an affidavit in support of a summary judgment motion that was denied provided information vital to the entry of a judgment that was unavailable until over four months after the affidavit was signed. The court remanded for further proceedings.

Comments Off

Oral promise to convey land enforceable when promisee builds a home in reliance on the promise

Posted on May 12th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds.

In a straight-forward application of the usual rule, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court recognized an exception to the statute of frauds by enforcing an oral promise to convey land when the promisee relied on the promise and built a house on the land. In this case, the promise was made by parents to their son and daughter. The daughter built a home on the land with the parents’ assistance and then asked for a deed to the land. When the parents refused, she sued them seeking a court order to them to transfer title to the land to her and the court granted her request. Harvey v. Dow, 11 A.3d 303 (Me. 2011).

Comments Off

Texas courts allow fraud claims in real estate transactions despite a non-reliance clause

Posted on May 4th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Leaseholds, Real estate transactions, Statute of frauds.

The states disagree about whether parties to real estate transactions can sue each other for fraud when the contract of sale contains a “non-reliance clause” stating that neither party is relying on any representations made by the other party that are not included in the written contract. Some states allow such claims on the ground that “fraud vitiates consent” and such clauses do not amount to agreements to be defrauded. But other states hold that such clauses immunize the contracting parties from claims of fraud based on oral statements made prior to the deal. The Texas Supreme Court has waffled on this issue, first holding that contracts can be avoided on the ground of fraudulent inducement, Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990), and then ruling that the sophisticated parties are free to bargain around this rule by non-reliance clauses, Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. 1997). See also Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2008). However, the court clarified in Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 2011 Tex. LEXIS 291 (Tex. 2010), that  a non-reliance clause in a real estate contract will not immunize a real estate seller from liability for fraud if it contains a “standard merger clause” which recites that no representations were made other than those in the contract. Only if the clause states that the buyer is not relying on oral statements made by the seller would the buyer be foreclosed from suing for damages for fraud or to rescind the agreement because of fraud. Another way to waive the right to sue for fraud is to do so directly by a clear statement waiving the right to sue for fraudulent inducement.

In this case, the court allowed tenants to rescind a restaurant lease and recover damages when the landlord lied about the condition of the premises which were afflicted with persistent sewer gas odor.

Comments Off

No foreclosure if notice does not include the name of the lender

Posted on April 25th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Statute of frauds.

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

Comments Off

Another court refuses to allow a bank to foreclose when it cannot produce authenticated proof of the assignments of the mortgage that give it a right to foreclose

Posted on February 11th, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Statute of frauds.

In the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 2011 N.J. Super. LEXIS 13 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011), the court remanded to allow the bank to provide proof that it had a right to foreclose through authenticated writings proving that it was assigned the mortgage and note by the prior holder of the mortgage and that it had the right to foreclose at the time the foreclosure action was brought.

Comments Off

A New Jersey trial judge allows foreclosure to proceed even though the bank cannot produce the mortgage note

Posted on February 3rd, 2011 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Statute of frauds.

A bank lost the mortgage note and thus could not pass it along when it assigned the mortgage to the Bank of America, preventing the Bank of America from producing the note to prove that it had the right to foreclose on the property. The loan in question had been securitized and transferred from the original mortgagee, Washington Mutual Bank, to LaSalle Bank (the holder of the securitized and pooled loans) which was then acquired by Bank of America. Because Bank of America could show evidence of the assignment (but not written proof of the original mortgage), the trial court allowed it to foreclose on the ground that the mortgagor/homeowner would otherwise be unjustly enriched. In effect, the court used equitable principles to create an exception to the applicable statute of frauds which requiring a writing for the mortgage to be enforceable via foreclosure. The case is Bank of America, N.A. v. Alvarado, (N. J. Ch. Ct. 2011). See Mary Pat Gallagher, Judge Finds Equity Allows Foreclosure to Proceed Though Mortgage Note Lost, 203 N.J. L.J. 1 (Jan 24, 2011).

Comments Off

New Jersey Supreme Court may stop all foreclosures in the state

Posted on December 21st, 2010 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Statute of frauds.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey has issued an order setting a hearing for January 19, 2011, asking all mortgage loan servicers in the state to explain why the state should not stop all foreclosures for irregularities. A lower court judge had issued a more limited administrative order involving loan servicers who had filed more than 200 foreclosure actions in 2010. The Supreme Court is concerned about recent disclosure of serious flaws in recent foreclosures, especially since most foreclosures in the state are uncontested.

Comments Off

Banks stop foreclosures because of flaws in proof of standing

Posted on October 4th, 2010 by Joseph William Singer.
Categories: Mortgages, Statute of frauds.

Three large lenders, GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, have all suspended foreclosures because of irregularities in documents used to proof that they are entitled to foreclose. Various newspaper articles have talked about “technical” problems or “paperwork” problems but the real issue is that banks have obligations to prove they “own” the mortgage and have a right to foreclose, at least in states that require court proceedings for foreclosure. The problem is that many lenders did not keep accurate written records of all the assignments of these mortgages.

The statute of frauds in every state requires mortgages to be in writing and some states require them to be recorded. In lieu of providing a paper trail, some lenders have provided courts with affidavits that swear that the signing party has seen proof that the lender owns the mortgage and is entitled to foreclose. But some of the affiants now admit that they “signed” hundreds or thousands of affidavits a day, obviously with no knowledge of the underlying facts. If this is true, it is a fraud on the court and may have resulted in foreclosures when the bank was not legally entitled to foreclose. In addition, notaries often approved signed affidavits even though they did not witness the signatures as required by law.

Attorneys General in several states are now investigating these practices to see if they violate state consumer protection or property laws or if they are actionable violations of court rules. See article.

Comments Off