Foreclosure law in Massachusetts was impacted by the Ibanez decision of January 2011. Throughout Essex County, Middlesex County, the Northshore or elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ibanez and the string of Massachusetts cases that followed, such as Bevilaqua, Eaton, Pinti and Schumacher, examined and interpreted what does and does not constitute compliance with the Massachusetts foreclosure statute (M.G.L. c. 244) and what does and does not constitute an effective challenge to the validity of a foreclosure in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts law allows the holder of a mortgage to foreclose without having to file suit in court (“Massachusetts does not require a [mortgagee] to obtain judicial authorization to foreclose on a mortgaged property.” Pinti, citing Ibanez). Because Massachusetts statutory law allows this streamlined, non-judicial process, Massachusetts courts narrowly interpret the statute and require strict compliance with it (“…we adhere to the familiar rule that ‘one who sells under a power [of sale] must follow strictly its terms…’”. Pinti citing Ibanez)
In the Pinti case, borrowers in a standard Fannie Mae mortgage challenged validity of a foreclosure based on borrowers’ claim that that the lender/mortgagee, Emigrant Mortgage Company, Inc., failed to strictly comply with paragraph 22 in the mortgage. Paragraph 22 states that prior to acceleration of the loan following a breach of the mortgage by the borrowers, the mortgagee must notice the borrowers of: “(a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a dated, not less than [thirty] days from the date the notice is given to [the plaintiffs], by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by [the mortgage].” Paragraph 22 further requires that the borrower be informed “of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense of [the plaintiffs] to acceleration and sale”. Then, upon failure of the borrower to cure the default, Emigrant may proceed with the “statutory power of sale”. The borrower, Pinti challenged Emigrant’s default notice because the notice stated that the borrowers “…have the right to assert in any lawsuit for foreclosure and sale the nonexistence of a default or any other defense [they] may have to acceleration and foreclosure and sale”. Pinti.