• DYE CULIK PC | Consumer Protection Division

Banks Must “Substantially Comply” with Foreclosure Statute, Says Massachusetts Housing Court


foreclosure-massachusetts-culiklaw-3

Under paragraph 22 of most Massachusetts mortgages, a bank must provide a notice to a homeowner telling them that the failure to cure the default may result in acceleration of the debt, and that they have the right to file a lawsuit to stop the foreclosure.

A recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage, held that where there are technical errors in these notices, the foreclosure is void, but only for cases where the notice was sent after the date of the decision.

The Housing Court decision, however, ruled that if the problems with the notice go beyond mere technical errors and it does not even “substantially comply” with the bare minimum of the statute, a foreclosure may still be void – even if the notice was sent after the date of the Pinti decision.

This decision shows that even though many homeowners’ wrongful-foreclosure claims are precluded based on the prospective application in Pinti, banks whose foreclosure notices are substantially deficient may nevertheless have their foreclosures challenged.

The case is titled Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Bojarski.

Our office has challenged foreclosures for homeowners throughout Massachusetts and has been able to void or overturn them entirely. Contact us for a no-cost consultation.

#Pinti #MassachusettsHousingCourt #foreclosure #homeowner #wrongfulforeclosure