Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

download Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

of 31

Transcript of Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    1/31

    United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

    No. 13- 1298

    TI MOTHY A. WI LSON and CARRI E E. WI LSON,

    Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

    v.

    HSBC MORTGAGE SERVI CES, I NC. ,

    Def endant , Appel l ee.

    APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

    [ Hon. Ti mot hy S. Hi l l man, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

    Bef or e

    Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Thompson, and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

    Hel ene Ger st l e f or appel l ant s.J ohn S. McNi chol as, wi t h whom Lawson Wi l l i ams and Kor de &

    Associ at es wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

    Febr uary 14, 2014

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    2/31

    THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Husband and wi f e Ti mot hy A.

    Wi l son and Car r i e E. Wi l son ( col l ect i vel y, " t he Wi l sons" ) appeal

    t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal of t hei r ei ght - count compl ai nt

    al l egi ng cer t ai n i mpr opr i et i es wi t h r espect t o HSBC Mor t gage

    Ser vi ces, I nc. ' s ( "HSBC") acqui si t i on of t he mor t gage on t hei r home

    by way of an assi gnment f r om Mor t gage El ect r oni c Regi st r at i on

    Syst em, I nc. ( "MERS") . The Wi l sons cl ai m t he assi gnment i s voi d

    because i t was execut ed not by MERS, but by an HSBC empl oyee who

    f al sel y pur por t ed t o si gn on MERS' s behal f . Accor di ng t o t he

    Wi l sons, HSBC never acqui r ed t he mort gage t o t hei r pr opert y and has

    no r i ght t o i ni t i at e f or ecl osur e pr oceedi ngs.

    A homeowner i n Massachuset t s who i s nei t her a par t y t o

    nor a t hi r d par t y benef i ci ar y of a mor t gage ass i gnment has st andi ng

    t o chal l enge t he assi gnment on t he gr ounds t hat i t i s voi d.

    Al t hough t he Wi l sons' compl ai nt sets f or t h some r at her t r oubl i ng

    accusat i ons about HSBC' s busi ness pr act i ces and f or ecl osur e

    pr ocedur es, t he Wi l sons have not set f or t h a col or abl e cl ai m t hat

    t he mort gage assi gnment i n quest i on i s voi d. Because we agr ee t hey

    l ack st andi ng t o rai se cer t ai n cl ai ms, and because t hey have f ai l ed

    t o st at e a cl ai m f or pr omi ssor y est oppel wi t h r espect t o a l oan

    modi f i cat i on, t hei r r equest f or i nj uncti ve r el i ef must al so f ai l .

    Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m.

    -2-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    3/31

    BACKGROUND

    The f act s ar e st r ai ght f or war d. We r eci t e t hemas al l eged

    i n t he Wi l sons' Amended Ver i f i ed Compl ai nt ( "Compl ai nt " ) ,

    suppl ement i ng as necessary wi t h i nf ormat i on f ound i n t he mort gage

    i t sel f , publ i c r ecor ds, document s i ncor por at ed i nt o t he compl ai nt

    by r ef er ence, and ot her mat t er s suscept i bl e t o j udi ci al not i ce. 1

    Gi r agosi an v. Ryan, 547 F. 3d 59, 65 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

    On J une 28, 2004, t he Wi l sons gr ant ed a mort gage on t hei r

    pr opert y i n Nort hborough, Massachuset t s t o Amer i quest Mort gage

    Company ( "Amer i quest " ) i n order t o secur e a pr omi ssory note. The

    mor t gage was r ecorded on J ul y 6, 2004, and on that same day

    Amer i quest assi gned i t s i nt er est i n the mort gage t o MERS ( t he "2004

    Ass i gnment " ) . 2 The 2004 Assi gnment was recor ded on Februar y 8,

    2005.

    HSBC ent ered t he pi ct ur e on March 19, 2009, t he date on

    whi ch MERS pur por t ed t o execut e a document assi gni ng t he Wi l sons'

    mor t gage t o HSBC ( t he "2009 Assi gnment " ) . The 2009 Assi gnment was

    r ecor ded i n t he Worcest er Count y Regi st r y of Deeds on Apr i l 13,

    1 Al t hough pur port i ng t o be an "Amended Ver i f i ed Compl ai nt , "

    t he document was si gned by counsel r at her t han t he Wi l sons and wasnot si gned under oat h. The Wi l sons' or i gi nal compl ai nt , f i l ed i nt he Massachuset t s Land Cour t , was ver i f i ed by Pl ai nt i f f Ti mot hy A.Wi l son.

    2 Whi l e t he Compl ai nt r ef er s t o t hi s as an "al l eged"assi gnment , none of t he count s r el ate t o t he 2004 Ass i gnment .

    -3-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    4/31

    2009. Accor di ng t o t he Compl ai nt , t he 2009 Ass i gnment " was

    execut ed by Shel ene St r auss, as Vi ce Pr esi dent of MERS. "

    The Wi l sons at t ached a copy of t he 2009 Assi gnment t o

    t hei r Compl ai nt . The document i s ent i t l ed "Cor por at e Assi gnment of

    Mor t gage" and i dent i f i es MERS as t he ass i gnor and HSBC as t he

    assi gnee. I t goes on t o i dent i f y t he or i gi nal mor t gage gr ant ed by

    t he Wi l sons f or t hei r pr oper t y i n Nor t hbor ough. The assi gnment ' s

    t ext st at es, i n per t i nent par t , "Assi gnor [ MERS] her eby assi gns

    unt o t he above- named Ass i gnee [HSBC] , t he sai d Mor t gage t ogether

    wi t h t he Not e or ot her evi dence of i ndebt edness" wi t h r espect t o

    t he Wi l sons' pr oper t y. The si gnat ur e bl ock t owar ds the bot t om of

    t he document r eads as f ol l ows:

    MORTGAGE ELECTRONI C REGI STRATI ON SYSTEMS, I NC.On Mar ch 19, 2009

    By: / s/ Shel ene St r aussSHELENE STRAUSS, Vi ce- Pr esi dent

    The f ace of t he 2009 Assi gnment f ur t her shows i t was not ar i zed on

    March 19, 2009, t he same date upon whi ch i t was s i gned.

    I n spi t e of t he 2009 Assi gnment ' s t ext , and

    not wi t hst andi ng t hei r pr i or al l egat i on t hat St r auss execut ed i t on

    behal f of MERS, t he Wi l sons al l ege St r auss pr epar ed t he 2009

    Assi gnment "on behal f of t he assi gnee [ i . e. , HSBC] and not t he

    assi gnor [ i . e. , MERS] . " The Compl ai nt f ur t her al l eges t hat St r auss

    has notar i zed ot her mor t gage assi gnment s f r om MERS t o HSBC on at

    l east t wo occasi ons, and that she "pr epar ed and si gned a

    -4-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    5/31

    Sat i sf act i on of Mor t gage on behal f of Benef i ci al Fi nanci al , I nc. "

    The Compl ai nt goes on t o al l ege t hat St r auss has " r obo- si gned

    document s assi gni ng mor t gages, i ncl udi ng the [ Wi l sons' ] mor t gage,

    t o [ HSBC] f r om var i ous l ender s. " The Wi l sons do not def i ne t he

    t er m "r obo- si gned" i n t hei r Compl ai nt .

    Fol l owi ng t he 2009 Ass i gnment , HSBC, " r el yi ng on t he

    r obo- si gned assi gnment [ ] , " began f or ecl osure pr oceedi ngs by sendi ng

    cer t ai n not i ces t o t he Wi l sons and maki ng var i ous f i l i ngs i n t he

    Massachuset t s Land Cour t . Thr oughout t hese pr oceedi ngs, HSBC

    cl ai med t hat i t hel d t he mor t gage on t he Wi l sons' pr oper t y. The

    Wi l sons, however , asser t t hat HSBC di d not , i n f act , hol d t hei r

    mor t gage because the 2009 Assi gnment was " r obo- si gned and t her ef ore

    f r audul ent . "

    The Wi l sons go on t o i nt r oduce al l egat i ons of

    i r r egul ar i t i es r egar di ng HSBC' s f or ecl osur e pr ocesses. I n November

    2010, HSBC r epor t ed t o t he Secur i t i es and Exchange Commi ss i on t hat

    i t had hal t ed i t s f or ecl osur es because of "cer t ai n def i ci enci es i n

    t he pr ocessi ng, pr epar at i on and si gni ng of af f i davi t s and ot her

    document s suppor t i ng f or ecl osur es . . . i ncl udi ng t he eval uat i on

    and moni t or i ng of t hi r d- par t y l aw f i r ms r et ai ned t o ef f ect [ i t s]

    f or ecl osur es. " I n Apr i l 2011, HSBC' s par ent company ent er ed i nt o

    a Consent Or der wi t h t he Uni t ed St ates Depart ment of t he Tr easury

    Compt r ol l er of Cur r ency ( t he "Consent Or der " ) st at i ng, i n par t ,

    t hat i t had "i dent i f i ed cer t ai n def i ci enci es and unsaf e or unsound

    -5-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    6/31

    pr act i ces i n r esi dent i al mor t gage ser vi ci ng and i n t he Bank' s

    i ni t i at i on and handl i ng of f or ecl osur e pr oceedi ngs. " Accor di ng t o

    t he Compl ai nt , t he Consent Or der r equi r ed HSBC' s par ent company t o

    hi r e an i ndependent consul t ant t o revi ew cer t ai n r esi dent i al

    f or ecl osur e act i ons and t o det er mi ne "whet her l oss mi t i gat i on

    act i vi t i es wi t h r espect t o f or ecl osed l oans wer e handl ed i n

    accor dance wi t h t he r equi r ement s of t he HAMP, and consi st ent wi t h

    t he pol i ci es and pr ocedur es appl i cabl e t o t he Bank' s pr opr i et ar y

    l oan modi f i cat i ons or ot her l oss mi t i gat i on pr ogr ams. "3

    Then, on November 21, 2011, MERS agai n pur por t edl y

    assi gned t he Wi l sons' mort gage t o HSBC ( t he "2011 Ass i gnment " ) .

    Thi s 2011 Assi gnment was r ecor ded on November 23, 2011. The

    Wi l sons al l ege t hat HSBC was no l onger a member of MERS at t hi s

    poi nt i n t i me, havi ng ceased i t s membershi p somet i me i n 2009. The

    Wi l sons f ur t her al l ege t hat , as of t he t i me t hey f i l ed t hei r

    Compl ai nt , t hei r mor t gage was i n " i nact i ve" st at us wi t h MERS. They

    have not al l eged t hat HSBC ( or MERS) has t aken any f ur t her act i ons

    t owar ds f or ecl osi ng on t hei r pr oper t y.

    3 The Home Af f ordabl e Mort gage Pr ogr am( "HAMP") i s "a f ederali ni t i at i ve t hat i ncent i vi zes l ender s and l oan ser vi cer s t o of f er

    l oan modi f i cat i ons t o el i gi bl e homeowner s. " Young v. Wel l s Far goBank, N. A. , 717 F. 3d 224, 228 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . HAMP' s ul t i mat egoal i s t o encour age mor t gage hol der s t o renegot i at e t he l oans i norder t o reduce a homeowner ' s " ' mor t gage payment s t o sust ai nabl el evel s, wi t hout di schar gi ng any of t he under l yi ng debt . ' " I d.( quot i ng Bosque v. Wel l s Fargo Bank, N. A. , 762 F. Supp. 2d 342, 347( D. Mass. 2011) ) .

    -6-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    7/31

    I ndeed, i t appear s t her e was no f ur t her act i on at al l

    wi t h r espect t o t he Wi l sons' mor t gage unt i l t he Wi l sons submi t t ed

    a hardshi p l et t er and i ncome i nf ormat i on t o HSBC on March 26, 2012,

    i n connect i on wi t h a r equest f or a l oan modi f i cat i on. HSBC

    r equest ed f ur t her i nf or mat i on f r omt he Wi l sons t he f ol l owi ng day.

    Accordi ng t o t he Wi l sons, HSBC t hen "suggest ed" t o t he Wi l sons t hat

    t hey woul d be r equi r ed t o pay 40% of t he ar r ear age on t hei r

    mor t gage, appr oxi mat el y $25, 000, as a condi t i on of any l oan

    modi f i cat i on. Thi s of f er does not compl y wi t h HAMP r equi r ement s,

    t he Wi l sons cl ai m, because ( 1) HAMP does not r equi r e a down payment

    f or a l oan modi f i cat i on and ( 2) t he Wi l sons never r ecei ved wr i t t en

    not i ce t hat t hei r r equest had been deni ed.

    Wast i ng no t i me af t er maki ng t hei r r equest f or a l oan

    modi f i cat i on, t he Wi l sons f i l ed t hei r or i gi nal compl ai nt i n t he

    Massachuset t s Land Court on Mar ch 30, 2012. HSBC prompt l y r emoved

    t he mat t er t o t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of

    Massachuset t s, and t he Wi l sons f i l ed t hei r "Amended Ver i f i ed

    Compl ai nt " on Apr i l 5, 2012. I n addi t i on t o t he f act s recount ed

    above, t he Wi l sons' ei ght - count Compl ai nt cont ai ns t he f ol l owi ng

    al l egat i ons: ( 1) HSBC was not t he pr esent hol der of t hei r mor t gage

    when i t ser ved t hem wi t h a Not i ce of Ri ght t o Cur e i n 2009 and

    Not i ce of I nt ent t o For ecl ose i n 2010, ( 2) HSBC f r audul ent l y

    r epr esent ed i t was act i ng on behal f of MERS "when i n f act i t was

    act i ng on behal f of [ HSBC] and assi gni ng t he mor t gage to i t sel f "

    -7-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    8/31

    wi t h r espect t o t he 2009 Ass i gnment , ( 3) HSBC br eached i t s cont r act

    wi t h t he Wi l sons by at t empt i ng t o f or ecl ose on t hei r pr oper t y when

    i t di d not hol d t he mor t gage, ( 4) HSBC vi ol at ed i t s obl i gat i on of

    good f ai t h and f ai r deal i ng wi t h r espect t o i t s f or ecl osur e

    at t empt s, ( 5) HSBC made a pr omi se, upon whi ch t he Wi l sons r el i ed,

    t hat al l document s t o be recor ded wi t h r espect t o t hei r mor t gage

    woul d be r el i abl e and "f r ee f r om f r aud, " ( 6) HSBC wr ongf ul l y

    at t empt ed t o f or ecl ose on t hei r pr oper t y, ( 7) HSBC shoul d be

    pr omi ssor i l y est opped f r omof f er i ng t he Wi l sons a l oan modi f i cat i on

    whose terms var i ed f r omHAMP requi r ement s, and ( 8) t he Wi l sons ar e

    ent i t l ed t o i nj unct i ve r el i ef . The Compl ai nt seeks bot h an awar d

    of damages and "a permanent and pr el i mi nary i nj unct i on t o i ssue

    agai nst [ HSBC] enj oi ni ng [ HSBC] f r om conduct i ng a f or ecl osur e

    sal e. "

    HSBC f i r ed back wi t h a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss

    f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he

    mot i on and di smi ssed t he case on September 14, 2012. Key t o t he

    di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on was i t s concl usi on t hat t he Wi l sons di d

    not have st andi ng t o chal l enge the 2009 Assi gnment because t hey

    wer e not a par t y t o t hat assi gnment and wer e not t hi r d- par t y

    benef i ci ar i es ther eof . 4 The next day t he Wi l sons f i l ed a mot i on

    4 The di st r i ct cour t al so di smi ssed Count I I , whi ch al l egesf r aud agai nst HSBC, f or f ai l ur e t o pl ead t he cl ai m wi t h t hespeci f i ci t y r equi r ed by Rul e 9( b) of t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi lProcedur e. We need not consi der t hi s separ at e gr ound i n l i ght ofour r esol ut i on of t he st andi ng i ssue.

    -8-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    9/31

    f or r el i ef f r om j udgment , whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed on

    Febr uar y 13, 2013. Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

    DISCUSSION

    A. Standard of Review

    We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of a Rul e 12( b) ( 6)

    mot i on de novo. Woods v. Wel l s Fargo Bank, N. A. , 733 F. 3d 349, 353

    ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I n doi ng so, we "const r ue al l f actual al l egat i ons

    i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e to t he non- movi ng par t y t o det er mi ne i f

    t her e exi st s a pl ausi bl e cl ai m upon whi ch r el i ef may be gr ant ed. "

    I d. The par t i es do not di sput e t hat Massachuset t s l aw appl i es to

    al l subst ant i ve i ssues i n t hi s case. Rui z v. Bal l y Tot al Fi t ness

    Hol di ng Cor p. , 496 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . We ar e not wedded t o

    t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r easoni ng and may "af f i r m t he deci si on bel ow

    on any gr ound made mani f est by t he r ecor d. " I d.

    Al t hough we vi ew t he Compl ai nt i n the l i ght most

    f avor abl e t o t he Wi l sons, we di sr egar d st at ement s or al l egat i ons

    t hat are "merel y concl usor y. " Woods, 733 F. 3d at 353. Nor are we

    r equi r ed t o t ake ever y si ngl e al l egat i on at f ace val ue: "' [ w] e

    exempt , of cour se, t hose f act s whi ch have si nce been concl usi vel y

    cont r adi ct ed by [ t he Wi l sons' ] concessi ons or ot her wi se . . . . ' "

    Sot o- Negr n v. Taber Par t ner s I , 339 F. 3d 35, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2003)

    ( omi ssi on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Chongr i s v. Bd. of Appeal s, 811

    F. 2d 36, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ) . We can al so t ake i nt o account t he

    mor t gage i t sel f , " ' document s i ncor por at ed by r ef er ence i n [ t he

    -9-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    10/31

    Compl ai nt ] , mat t er s of publ i c r ecor d, and ot her mat t er s suscept i bl e

    t o j udi ci al not i ce. ' " Gi r agosi an v. Ryan, 547 F. 3d 59, 65 ( 1st

    Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng I n r e Col oni al Mor t g. Banker s Cor p. , 324 F. 3d

    12, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) . And wher e, as her e, st andi ng i s at i ssue

    we may consi der " ' f ur t her par t i cul ar i zed al l egat i ons of f act deemed

    suppor t i ve of [ pl ai nt i f f s' ] st andi ng, ' " such as t hose cont ai ned

    wi t hi n an af f i davi t . McI nni s- Mi senor v. Me. Med. Ct r . , 319 F. 3d

    63, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng War t h v. Sel di n, 422 U. S. 490, 501

    ( 1975) ) .

    B. Standing (Counts I-VI)

    The di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed t he f i r st si x count s of t he

    Wi l sons' Compl ai nt f or want of st andi ng. Speci f i cal l y, t he cour t

    f ound t hat under Massachuset t s l aw "par t i es cannot chal l enge

    mort gage ass i gnment s t o whi ch they were nei t her a par t y nor a

    t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y. " Our f i r st t ask, t her ef or e, i s t o

    det er mi ne i f t he Wi l sons have st andi ng. McI nni s- Mi senor , 319 F. 3d

    at 67 ( "St andi ng i s . . . a t hr eshol d quest i on i n ever y

    case . . . . ") . We, as di d t he di st r i ct cour t , consi der t hese

    f i r st si x count s t oget her because each one r el i es on t he Wi l sons'

    cont ent i on t hat HSBC never acqui r ed t he mor t gage on t hei r home f r om

    MERS. 5 Because t he quest i on of whet her cer t ai n f act s est abl i sh

    5The Wi l sons acknowl edge t hey " r ai sed t he i ssue of t heval i di t y of t he assi gnment s i n Count s I - VI of t he Compl ai nt . "Not abl y, t he Wi l sons ut i l i ze t he pl ur al f or m, "assi gnment s, " butt he Compl ai nt does not al l ege the 2004 Ass i gnment i s voi d, nor dot he Wi l sons devel op t hi s ar gument on appeal . I n t hei r br i ef , t he

    -10-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    11/31

    st andi ng i s a quest i on of l aw, we r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

    r esol ut i on of t he i ssue de novo. Cul hane v. Aur or a Loan Ser vs. of

    Neb. , 708 F. 3d 282, 289 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

    St andi ng- - a l i t i gant ' s r i ght t o be i n t he cour t r oom- - must

    be est abl i shed i n ever y case, as t he Const i t ut i on per mi t s t he

    f eder al cour t s t o addr ess onl y "act ual cases and cont r over si es. "

    I d. ( ci t i ng U. S. Const. ar t . I I I , 2, cl . 1) . A par t y does not

    est abl i sh st andi ng si mpl y because t he ot her si de agr ees t o submi t

    a cont r over sy t o a f eder al cour t . See Sosna v. I owa, 419 U. S. 393,

    398 ( 1975) . I nst ead, a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat he or she has a

    per sonal st ake i n t he l i t i gat i on' s out come by "est abl i sh[ i ng] each

    par t of a f ami l i ar t r i ad: i nj ur y, causat i on, and r edr essabi l i t y. "

    Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 289; see al so McI nni s- Mi senor , 319 F. 3d at 67

    ( obser vi ng "[ a] l i t i gant bear s t he bur den" of est abl i shi ng

    Wi l sons st at e t hat whi l e t he 2004 Assi gnment i s dat ed J ul y 6, 2004,i t was not not ar i zed unt i l si x days l at er . I n t he ver y nextbr eat h, however , t hey concede i n a f oot not e t hat " t her e was nor equi r ement under Massachuset t s Law at t he t i me of t he f i l i ng oft hi s Compl ai nt t hat an assi gnment was r equi r ed t o be not ar i zed. "The cl osest t hey come t o maki ng a l egal ar gument i s a si ngl esent ence asser t i ng t hey " r ai sed suf f i ci ent f act s i n t hei r AmendedVer i f i ed Compl ai nt t o suppor t t he cont ent i on t hat t he Second, andper haps even t he Fi r st assi gnment s ar e voi d. " Thi s wi shy washyst at ement - - one wi t hout anal og i n t he Compl ai nt - - i s a f ar cr y f r oman al l egat i on t hat t he 2004 Ass i gnment i s voi d. Any ar gument wi t h

    r espect t o i t s val i di t y has, t her ef or e, been wai ved. Uni t ed St at esv. Sl ade, 980 F. 2d 27, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( "Passi ng al l usi ons ar enot adequat e t o pr eser ve an ar gument i n ei t her a t r i al or anappel l at e venue. " ) . Whi l e HSBC has dedi cat ed a subst ant i al par t ofi t s br i ef t o ar gui ng t hat t he 2004 Assi gnment i s val i d, because i t sval i di t y i s not at i ssue we f ocus our i nqui r y on t he 2009Assi gnment .

    -11-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    12/31

    st andi ng) . The t hi r d aspect of t he t est , r edr essabi l i t y, i s t he

    most i mpor t ant one f or our pur poses t oday. To sat i sf y t hi s pr ong,

    a "pl ai nt i f f must adequat el y al l ege t hat a f avor abl e r esul t i n t he

    l i t i gat i on i s l i kel y t o r edr ess t he asser t ed i nj ur y. " Pagn v.

    Cal der n, 448 F. 3d 16, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( ci t i ng Luj an v.

    Def ender s of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 561 ( 1992) ) . Fur t her ,

    separ at e and apar t f r omt hese const i t ut i onal concer ns, a pl ai nt i f f

    must al so gener al l y show " t hat hi s cl ai m i s pr emi sed on hi s own

    l egal r i ght s ( as opposed t o t hose of a t hi r d par t y) , t hat hi s cl ai m

    i s not mer el y a gener al i zed gr i evance, and t hat i t f al l s wi t hi n t he

    zone of i nt er est s pr ot ect ed by t he l aw i nvoked. " I d. ( ci t i ng

    Ram r ez v. Ramos, 438 F. 3d 92, 98 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) .

    Here, we must determi ne whether t he Wi l sons have st andi ng

    t o asser t t hei r par t i cul ar cl ai ms wi t h r espect t o t he 2009

    Assi gnment . Far f r om bei ng done i n a vacuum, our anal ysi s i s

    gui ded by Cul hane. I n t hat case, we anal yzed Massachuset t s

    mort gage l aw and concl uded t hat "a mort gagor has st andi ng to

    chal l enge t he ass i gnment of a mor t gage on her home to t he extent

    t hat such a chal l enge i s necessary t o cont est a f or ecl osi ng

    ent i t y' s st atus qua mor t gagee. " Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 291.

    Al t hough thi s l anguage may appear t o gr ant st andi ng to a br oad

    gr oup of i ndi vi dual s, we i mmedi at el y di spel l ed any such not i on by

    expl ai ni ng how t hi s "hol di ng, nar r ow t o begi n wi t h, i s f ur t her

    ci r cumscr i bed. " I d. Pur suant t o Cul hane, under Massachuset t s l aw

    -12-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    13/31

    a mort gagor has st andi ng onl y " t o chal l enge a mort gage ass i gnment

    as i nval i d, i nef f ect i ve or voi d ( i f , say, t he assi gnor had not hi ng

    t o ass i gn or had no aut hor i t y t o make an assi gnment t o a par t i cul ar

    assi gnee) . " I d. ; see al so Woods, 733 F. 3d at 354 ( " [ S] t andi ng

    exi st s f or chal l enges t hat cont end t hat t he assi gni ng par t y never

    possessed l egal t i t l e and, as a r esul t , no val i d t r ansf er abl e

    i nt er est ever exchanged hands. " ) . By cont r ast , "a [ Massachuset t s]

    mort gagor does not have st andi ng to chal l enge shor t comi ngs i n an

    assi gnment t hat r ender i t mer el y voi dabl e at t he el ect i on of one

    par t y but other wi se ef f ect i ve t o pass l egal t i t l e. " Cul hane, 708

    F. 3d at 291.

    The under l yi ng r easoni ng behi nd t hi s di st i nct i on i s

    st r ai ght f orward. A homeowner i n Massachuset t s- - even when not a

    par t y to or t hi r d par t y benef i ci ar y of a mor t gage assi gnment - - has

    st andi ng t o chal l enge t hat assi gnment as voi d because success on

    t he mer i t s woul d pr ove t he pur por t ed assi gnee i s not , i n f act , t he

    mor t gagee and t her ef or e l acks any r i ght t o f or ecl ose on t he

    mor t gage. I d. ; see al so U. S. Bank Nat ' l Ass' n v. I banez, 458 Mass.

    637, 647 ( 2011) ( "Any ef f or t t o f or ecl ose by a par t y l acki ng

    ' j ur i sdi ct i on and aut hor i t y' t o car r y out a f or ecl osur e under t hese

    [ Massachuset t s] st at ut es i s voi d. " ) ( quot i ng Chace v. Mor se, 189

    Mass. 559, 561 ( 1905) ) . That same homeowner , t hough, l acks

    st andi ng t o cl ai m t he assi gnment i s voi dabl e because the assi gnee

    st i l l woul d have r ecei ved l egal t i t l e vi s- a- vi s t he homeowner .

    -13-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    14/31

    Thus, even successf ul l y provi ng t hat t he ass i gnment was voi dabl e

    woul d not af f ect t he r i ght s as bet ween t hose t wo par t i es or pr ovi de

    t he homeowner wi t h a def ense t o t he f orecl osur e act i on.

    Her e, t he di st r i ct cour t - - whi ch di d not have t he benef i t

    of Cul hane or Woods- - err oneousl y concl uded t hat , as a mat t er of

    l aw, "par t i es cannot chal l enge mort gage assi gnment s t o whi ch t hey

    wer e nei t her a par t y nor a t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar y. " I n t he wake

    of Cul hane and Woods, however , a t r i al cour t conf r ont ed wi t h t he

    st andi ng i ssue i n t hi s t ype of case must conduct an i nqui r y t o

    det er mi ne whet her a pl ai nt i f f ' s al l egat i ons are t hat a mor t gage

    assi gnment was voi d, or mer el y voi dabl e. We now t ur n t o t hi s t ask.

    1. Void vs. Voidable Assignments

    Bef or e del vi ng i nt o t he meat of t he Wi l sons' al l egat i ons,

    a wor d on t he di st i nct i on bet ween "voi d" and "voi dabl e. " "Voi d"

    cont r act s or agr eement s ar e " t hose . . . t hat ar e of no ef f ect

    what soever ; such as ar e a mer e nul l i t y, and i ncapabl e of

    conf i r mat i on or rat i f i cat i on. " Al l i s v. Bi l l i ngs, 47 Mass. 415,

    417 ( 1843) . By cont r ast , "voi dabl e" r ef er s t o a cont r act or

    agr eement t hat i s " i nj ur i ous t o t he r i ght s of one par t y, whi ch he

    may avoi d at hi s el ect i on. " Bal l v. Gi l ber t , 53 Mass. 397, 404

    ( 1847) . Thus, whi l e t he par t y i nj ur ed by a voi dabl e cont r act has

    t he opt i on of avoi di ng i t s obl i gat i ons, i t may choose i nst ead t o

    r at i f y t he agr eement and hol d t he ot her par t y t o i t . See Cabot

    Corp. v. AVX Corp. , 448 Mass. 629, 637- 43 ( 2007) .

    -14-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    15/31

    The Massachuset t s cour t s have provi ded exampl es of

    voi dabl e assi gnment s i n ot her cont ext s. Cabot t eaches t hat a

    cont r act ent er ed i nt o under dur ess, whet her economi c i n nat ur e or

    ot her wi se, i s voi dabl e by t he vi ct i m. I d. ( di scussi ng el ement s of

    economi c dur ess wi t h r espect t o a commer ci al suppl y cont r act ) .

    Agr eement s i nduced by f r audul ent mi sr epr esent at i ons are voi dabl e as

    wel l . See Shaw' s Super mar ket s, I nc. v. Del gi acco, 410 Mass. 840,

    842 ( 1991) ( not i ng empl oyer woul d have been ent i t l ed t o resci nd

    empl oyment cont r act t hat had been i nduced by t he appl i cant ' s f al se

    r epr esent at i ons) . Where t he part i es have made a mut ual mi st ake

    wi t h regard t o an essent i al el ement of an agr eement , t hat agr eement

    i s voi dabl e by t he adver sel y af f ect ed par t y. See LaFl eur v. C. C.

    Pi er ce Co. , 398 Mass. 254, 257- 58 (1986) ( addr essi ng an at t empt t o

    set asi de a wor ker s' compensat i on l ump- sum agr eement ) . Fur t her ,

    when a cor por at e of f i cer act s beyond t he scope of hi s aut hor i t y,

    "[ h] i s act s i n excess of hi s aut hor i t y, al t hough voi dabl e by t he

    cor por at i on, l egal l y coul d be r at i f i ed and adopt ed by i t . "

    Commi ss i oner of Banks v. Tremont Trust Co. , 259 Mass. 162, 179- 80

    ( 1927) ( f i ndi ng an ul t r a vi r es pur chase of st ock by t he

    cor por at i on' s pr esi dent was voi dabl e, but t hat t he cor por at i on

    r at i f i ed t he act i on by accept i ng t he di vi dends) ; see al so Gl ovi n v.

    Eagl e Cl ot hi ng Co. , 247 Mass. 215, 217- 18 ( 1924) ( hol di ng a

    corporat i on may r at i f y and become bound by obl i gat i ons i ncur r ed on

    -15-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    16/31

    i t s behal f by i t s pr esi dent wher e t he pr esi dent act ed out si de t he

    scope of hi s aut hor i t y) .

    A voi d cont r act , on t he ot her hand, i s one t hat i s of no

    ef f ect what soever and whose t er ms a cour t wi l l not enf or ce. See,

    e. g. , Bal l , 53 Mass. at 401- 04 ( r ef usi ng t o enf or ce a cont r act

    where t he part i es pl aced a wager on t he out come of an el ect i on) .

    Speci f i c t o t he mort gage cont ext , a voi d mort gage assi gnment i s one

    i n whi ch t he put at i ve assi gnor "never pr oper l y hel d t he mor t gage

    and, t hus, had no i nt er est t o assi gn. " Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 291.

    We have al so f ound t hat a par t y who chal l enges a mor t gage

    assi gnment on t he gr ounds t hat t he ass i gnor was but a nomi nee f or

    t he mor t gage hol der and "never possessed a l egal l y t r ansf er abl e

    i nt er est " i n t he mor t gage al l eges a voi d, as opposed t o mer el y

    voi dabl e, assi gnment . Woods, 733 F. 3d at 354 ( appl yi ng

    Massachuset t s l aw) .

    The common t hread r unni ng t hrough Cul hane and Woods i s

    t he al l egat i on t hat t he f or ecl osi ng ent i t y had no r i ght t o

    f or ecl ose, as i t had never become the mor t gage hol der i n the f i r st

    pl ace. I n ot her wor ds, t he homeowner s sought t o est abl i sh t hat t he

    mor t gage t r ansf er f r om t he assi gnor t o the assi gnee- - who i n t ur n

    at t empt ed t o f or ecl ose- - was voi d at t he out set . Thr ough t hi s

    al l egat i on, t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t hose cases est abl i shed st andi ng

    because they chal l enged t he f or ecl osi ng ent i t y' s st at us as

    mor t gagee of t hei r pr oper t y. Si mi l ar l y, we must deter mi ne whet her

    -16-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    17/31

    t he Wi l sons have set f or t h a cl ai m t hat t he 2009 Ass i gnment was

    voi d and, t her ef or e, t hat HSBC i s not t hei r mor t gagee.

    2. Have the Wilsons alleged a void or voidable mortgage

    assignment?

    As we ar e concerned wi t h st andi ng i n t hi s case, we do not

    t ake t he Wi l sons' concl usor y char act er i zat i on of t hei r al l egat i ons

    as bei ng about a "voi d" assi gnment as gospel . I nst ead, we r evi ew

    t he mat er i al s bef or e us, i ncl udi ng t he text of t he 2009 Assi gnment ,

    i n l i ght of Massachuset t s l aw t o det er mi ne whet her t he Wi l sons'

    Compl ai nt sets f or t h al l egat i ons t hat t he 2009 Assi gnment i s voi d,

    or mer el y voi dabl e.

    The par t i es, havi ng t aken st andi ng f or grant ed wi t h

    r espect t o t he 2009 Ass i gnment , have not pr esent ed any ext ensi ve

    ar gument wi t h r espect t o t hat i ssue. They have, however , pr ovi ded

    t hei r vi ews on t he 2009 Assi gnment ' s val i di t y under Massachuset t s

    l aw as par t of t hei r t r eat ment of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r esol ut i onof t he mot i on t o di smi ss. Whi l e pr esent ed f or a di f f er ent pur pose,

    t hese ar gument s never t hel ess hi ghl i ght i ssues i mpor t ant t o the

    st andi ng anal ysi s.

    The Wi l sons i nsi st t hei r Compl ai nt al l eges t hat t he 2009

    Assi gnment i s voi d. The basi s f or t hi s asser t i on i s t hei r cl ai m

    t hat HSBC assi gned t hei r mor t gage t o i t sel f because St r auss

    execut ed i t on behal f of HSBC, not MERS. They ur ge us t o f i nd t hi s

    i s so f r omt he f ace of t he 2009 Assi gnment i t sel f . HSBC di sagr ees

    ent i r el y, ar gui ng t hat t he 2009 Assi gnment not onl y ef f ect i vel y

    -17-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    18/31

    t r ansf err ed t he mort gage i nt erest f r omMERS t o HSBC but , moreover ,

    i s unassai l abl e under Massachuset t s l aw. Havi ng consi der ed t he

    ar gument s of counsel and i n l i ght of t he mat er i al s bef or e us, we

    concl ude t hat t he Wi l sons' Compl ai nt does not al l ege t hat t he 2009

    Assi gnment i s voi d. We expl ai n.

    The r easoni ng behi nd t he Wi l sons' ar gument t hat t he 2009

    Assi gnment i s voi d r uns as f ol l ows: St r auss i s an empl oyee of

    HSBC; St r auss execut ed t he 2009 Assi gnment ; when St r auss execut ed

    t he ass i gnment , she di d so as an empl oyee of HSBC; t her ef ore, MERS

    never assi gned t he mort gage t o HSBC. The Wi l sons' own Compl ai nt ,

    however , f l at l y cont r adi ct s t hi s posi t i on, as i t expl i ci t l y al l eges

    t hat " [ t ] he March 19, 2009 assi gnment f r om MERS t o [ HSBC] was

    execut ed by Shel ene St r auss , as Vi ce Presi dent of MERS. " Thus, t he

    Compl ai nt act ual l y al l eges t hat St r auss wor e mul t i pl e hat s, ser vi ng

    bot h as an empl oyee of HSBC and an of f i cer of MERS. Si gni f i cant l y,

    t he Compl ai nt does not al l ege t hat such dual agency vi ol at es t he

    common l aw or any st at ut e or appl i cabl e regul at i on. 6 Accor di ngl y,

    t he f act s set f or t h i n t he Compl ai nt act ual l y descr i be a val i d

    ass i gnment f r om MERS t o HSBC.

    Whi l e t hi s def ect i ve pl eadi ng i s l i kel y enough on i t s own

    t o doom t he Wi l sons' f i r st si x count s, i t i s not t he onl y t hi ng we

    have t o go on. We al so have avai l abl e f or consi der at i on t he t ext

    6 I ndeed, t he Wi l sons acknowl edge the val i di t y of such dualagency i n a f oot not e t o t hei r br i ef .

    -18-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    19/31

    of t he 2009 Assi gnment . Accor di ng t o t he Wi l sons, " t her e i s no

    i ndi cat i on t hat Ms. St r aus[ s] execut ed t he assi gnment wi t h

    pur por t ed aut hor i t y f r om MERS. " Thi s st at ement i s si mpl y

    i ncor r ect : t he 2009 Assi gnment cl ear l y i dent i f i es MERS as t he

    assi gnor and HSBC as t he assi gnee.

    The 2009 Assi gnment ' s si gnat ure bl ock, r eproduced supr a,

    br ooks no ar gument as t o t he i dent i t y and r ol es of t he par t i es

    t her et o. MERS i s l i st ed as the assi gnor and HSBC t he assi gnee. To

    make mat t ers even more cl ear , Shel ene St r auss ' s s i gnatur e and

    posi t i on of vi ce pr esi dent appear i n t he si gnat ur e bl ock. Not abl y,

    her si gnat ur e i s f ound under neat h pr i nt ed t ext st at i ng t he

    assi gnment was bei ng made "by" MERS. I n sum, t he f our cor ner s of

    t he document show i n no uncer t ai n t erms t hat St r auss execut ed i t i n

    her capaci t y as a vi ce pr esi dent of MERS. The Wi l sons' cl ai m t hat

    t hi s i nst r ument was execut ed on behal f of HSBC i s whol l y wi t hout

    mer i t .

    Never t hel ess, t he Wi l sons pr ess on, ar gui ng t hat an

    af f i davi t f r om HSBC Vi ce Pr esi dent J ef f r ey Davi s est abl i shes

    St r auss execut ed t he 2009 Assi gnment on behal f of HSBC, not MERS. 7

    The af f i davi t does no such t hi ng. Davi s' s af f i davi t , whi ch HSBC

    or i gi nal l y f i l ed i n t he Massachuset t s Land Cour t , st at es onl y that

    St r auss has been an HSBC empl oyee si nce J anuar y 2005, and t hat she

    7 Al t hough not i ncor por at ed i nt o t he Compl ai nt , i t i sappr opr i at e f or us t o consi der t hi s af f i davi t as par t of ourst andi ng anal ysi s. See McI nni s- Mi senor , 319 F. 3d at 67.

    -19-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    20/31

    ser ved as a vi ce pr esi dent of HSBC on March 19, 2009. The

    af f i davi t i s si l ent as t o t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t he 2009

    Assi gnment ' s execut i on. Cont r ar y t o what t he Wi l sons set f or t h i n

    t hei r br i ef , t he af f i davi t i s ent i r el y consi st ent wi t h and does

    not hi ng t o di spr ove t he Compl ai nt ' s al l egat i ons t hat St r auss was a

    dual agent of both HSBC and MERS.

    I ndeed, t he most t hat can be gl eaned f r om t he af f i davi t

    and Compl ai nt i s t hat St r auss was an empl oyee or agent of both HSBC

    and MERS on March 19, 2009. The Wi l sons t hemsel ves admi t t hi s sor t

    of ar r angement i s ut i l i zed "many t i mes" i n assi gni ng mor t gages.

    The Wi l sons do not ar gue t her e i s anyt hi ng i l l egal or unt owar d

    about St r auss act i ng i n such a dual capaci t y.

    Thi s i s j ust as wel l . I n Cul hane we det er mi ned t he

    appl i cabl e Massachuset t s s t at ut e, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, 54B,

    "nei t her pl aces r est r i ct i ons on who may be el ect ed as an of f i cer of

    t he assi gnor nor i mposes speci al r equi r ement s ( say, r egul ar

    empl oyment ) on who may ser ve as a vi ce pr esi dent of an ass i gnor

    cor por at i on. " 708 F. 3d at 294. Si gni f i cant l y, we concl uded t hat

    a remarkabl y si mi l ar mor t gage assi gnment was val i d under

    Massachuset t s l aw, even t hough t he i ndi vi dual execut i ng t he

    assi gnment was appoi nt ed "a vi ce pr esi dent of MERS . . . pur el y as

    a mat t er of admi ni st r at i ve conveni ence. " I d.

    Ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d her e as t o t he nat ure

    or l engt h of St r auss' s associ at i on wi t h MERS. Yet , even had she

    -20-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    21/31

    been appoi nt ed as a vi ce pr esi dent sol el y f or pur poses of t hi s

    assi gnment , t hi s woul d make no di f f erence. We sai d i n Cul hane t hat

    whi l e t hi s t ype of pr act i ce "can be di spar aged on pol i cy gr ounds,

    such pol i cy j udgment s ar e f or t he l egi sl at ur e, not t he cour t s. "

    I d. Thus, t he Wi l sons' al l egat i on t hat St r auss was al so a vi ce

    pr esi dent of HSBC at t he t i me of t hi s assi gnment does not hi ng t o

    cal l i nt o quest i on t he l egal i t y or val i di t y of her execut i ng i t on

    MERS' s behal f .

    Moreover , Massachuset t s st atut ory l aw has somethi ng t o

    say about t hi s mor t gage assi gnment . Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, 54B

    ( "Sect i on 54B") pushes t he Wi l sons' posi t i on, al r eady mor i bund i n

    l i ght of our hol di ngs i n Cul hane and Woods, over t he br i nk.

    Sect i on 54B pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t , t hat

    [ an] assi gnment of [ a] mor t gage . . . i fexecut ed bef or e a not ar y publ i c . . . by aper son pur por t i ng t o hol d t he posi t i on of. . . vi ce pres i dent . . . of t he ent i t yhol di ng such mor t gage . . . shal l be bi ndi ngupon such ent i t y.

    Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, 54B.

    Recogni zi ng t he danger Sect i on 54B poses t o t hei r

    posi t i on, t he Wi l sons at t empt t o get out f r om under i t s shadow by

    ur gi ng us t o f i nd i t i nappl i cabl e t o t he 2009 Assi gnment . The

    Wi l sons begi n t hei r st r uggl e by rei t er at i ng t hei r cont ent i on t hat

    t he 2009 Assi gnment was voi d at t he out set because i t was no more

    t han HSBC' s at t empt t o ass i gn t he mor t gage t o i t sel f . They t hen

    argue si mpl y t hat Sect i on 54B "does not make an otherwi se i nval i d

    -21-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    22/31

    assi gnment val i d" and, t her ef or e, has no ef f ect on t he 2009

    Assi gnment . I n r ebut t al , HSBC t ur ns the Wi l sons' ar gument on i t s

    head and takes t he posi t i on t hat Sect i on 54B act ual l y r ender s t he

    assi gnment "unassai l abl e" because St r auss execut ed i t i n her

    capaci t y as a vi ce pr esi dent of MERS, i n accordance wi t h t he

    st at ut or y l anguage.

    Nei t her part y ar gues Sect i on 54B i s ambi guous, and t he

    st at ut or y l anguage st r i kes us as qui t e cl ear . I n Cul hane, t oo, we

    f ound no need t o depar t f r om i t s pl ai n l anguage. 708 F. 3d at 293-

    94. Fur t her mor e, t he Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t recent l y

    addr essed Sect i on 54B i n two r ecent unpubl i shed opi ni ons i n whi ch

    t he Appeal s Cour t s i mpl y appl i ed t he st at ut e as wr i t t en. See

    general l y J ones v. Bank of New Yor k, 84 Mass. App. Ct . 1123 ( 2013)

    ( f i ndi ng t hat because an assi st ant vi ce pr esi dent of Count r ywi de

    Home Loans, I nc. had been aut hor i zed by a MERS cor porate r esol ut i on

    t o execut e assi gnment s on i t s behal f , she "had aut hor i t y to assi gn

    [ a] mor t gage on behal f of MERS as a mat t er of l aw pur suant t o G. L.

    c. 183, 54B") ; Adao v. Feder al Nat ' l Mor t g. Ass' n, 84 Mass. App.

    Ct . 1121 ( 2013) ( ci t i ng Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, 54B) ( f i ndi ng

    t hat a mort gage hol der t hat execut es an assi gnment t hr ough a vi ce

    pr esi dent " i s bound by i t " ) . Because Sect i on 54B i s "unambi guous,

    our f unct i on i s t o enf or ce t he st at ut e accor di ng t o i t s t er ms. "

    -22-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    23/31

    See Readi ng Co- Op. Bank v. Suf f ol k Const r . Co. , 464 Mass. 543, 547-

    48 ( 2013) . 8

    As we have sai d, t he 2009 Ass i gnment cl ear l y shows t hat

    St r auss si gned i t on behal f of MERS as i t s vi ce pr esi dent . The

    i nst r ument f ur t her demonst r at es St r auss execut ed i t i n the pr esence

    of a not ar y. Even t he Wi l sons admi t t hat Sect i on 54B "say[ s] t hat

    once a person wi t h pur port ed aut hor i t y execut es a document i n f r ont

    of t he not ar y . . . t he document can be r ecorded and i s ' bi ndi ng on

    [ such] ent i t y. ' " See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, 54B.

    Her e, t he r ecor d l eaves no doubt t hat St r auss pur por t ed

    t o execut e t he 2009 Ass i gnment pur suant t o her aut hor i t y as a vi ce

    pr esi dent of MERS. The pl ai n l anguage of Sect i on 54B, f r om al l

    t hat appear s t o us i n t hi s r ecor d, woul d r ender t hat assi gnment

    bi ndi ng upon MERS. See Cul hane, 704 F. 3d at 294 ( concl udi ng a

    mort gage ass i gnment t hat "adhered t o" Sect i on 54B' s r equi r ement s

    was val i d under Massachuset t s l aw) . An assi gnment bi ndi ng on t he

    assi gnor i s not , by def i ni t i on, voi d. The Wi l sons have si mpl y

    f ai l ed t o come f or war d wi t h anythi ng t hat i ndi cat es t o us t hat

    Sect i on 54B shoul d oper at e any di f f er ent l y her e t han i t di d i n

    Cul hane, or t hat cal l s t he 2009 Assi gnment ' s val i di t y i nt o quest i on

    under Massachuset t s l aw.

    8 The Wi l sons have not ar gued t hat Sect i on 54B i s i nval i d ort hat i t s oper at i on her e woul d depr i ve t hem of any r i ght pr ot ect edby the Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on or t he Massachuset t s Decl ar at i onof Ri ght s.

    -23-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    24/31

    Fi nal l y, t he Wi l sons' al l egat i ons t hat t he 2009

    Assi gnment i s " f r audul ent " and t hus, voi d, because i t was " r obo-

    si gned" are of no moment . The Wi l sons have not def i ned t he t ermor

    ci t ed any aut hor i t y showi ng i t has any l egal si gni f i cance under

    Massachuset t s l aw. Thi s Cour t ' s own r esearch has f ound none i n

    Massachuset t s or i n our Ci r cui t . Mor eover , i t does not appear t hat

    ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons have assi gned a si ngl e def i ni t i ve meani ng t o i t

    ei t her . Compar e Rei nagel v. Deut sche Bank Nat ' l Trust Co. , 735

    F. 3d 220, 223- 24 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ( "' Robo- si gni ng' i s t he col l oqui al

    t er m t he medi a, pol i t i ci ans, and consumer advocat es have used t o

    descr i be an ar r ay of quest i onabl e pr act i ces banks depl oyed t o

    per f ect t hei r r i ght t o f or ecl ose i n t he wake of t he subpr i me

    mor t gage cr i si s, pr act i ces t hat i ncl uded havi ng bank empl oyees or

    t hi r d- par t y cont r act or s: ( 1) execut e and acknowl edge t r ansf er

    document s i n l ar ge quant i t i es wi t hi n a shor t per i od of t i me, of t en

    wi t hout t he pur por t ed assi gnor ' s aut hor i zat i on and out si de of t he

    pr esence of a notary cer t i f yi ng t he acknowl edgment , and ( 2) swear

    out af f i davi t s conf i r mi ng t he exi st ence of mi ssi ng pi eces of l oan

    document at i on, wi t hout personal knowl edge and of t en out si de t he

    pr esence of t he not ar y. " ) , wi t h Ohi o v. GMAC Mor t g. , LLC, 760 F.

    Supp. 2d 741, 743 ( N. D. Ohi o 2011) ( "Several nat i onal banks have

    been accused of usi ng r obosi gner s- - l oosel y def i ned as bank

    empl oyees t asked wi t h r api dl y si gni ng l ar ge number s of af f i davi t s

    and l egal document s asser t i ng t he bank' s r i ght t o f or ecl ose wi t hout

    -24-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    25/31

    t he empl oyees act ual l y checki ng t he document s t o ensure thei r

    accur acy- - t o f r audul ent l y f or ecl ose on homeowner s dur i ng t he r ecent

    f i nanci al downt ur n. " ) , and At t orney Gr i evance Comm' n of Maryl and v.

    Doe, 433 Md. 685, 688- 89 ( 2013) ( "Robo- si gni ng i s a term t hat most

    of t en r ef er s t o t he pr ocess of mass- pr oduci ng af f i davi t s f or

    f or ecl osur es wi t hout havi ng knowl edge of or ver i f yi ng t he f act s. " )

    ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . We decl i ne t o

    specul at e on the meani ng the Wi l sons ascr i be t o t he t er m.

    Accor di ngl y, t he bar e al l egat i on of " r obo- si gni ng" does not hi ng t o

    undermi ne t he val i di t y of t he 2009 Ass i gnment or r ender Sect i on 54B

    i nappl i cabl e.

    Summi ng i t al l up, t her e i s no quest i on t hat MERS hel d

    t he Wi l sons' mor t gage on March 19, 2009, as t he Wi l sons have not

    chal l enged i t s acqui si t i on of t he mor t gage t hr ough the 2004

    Ass i gnment . The Compl ai nt and other r ecor d mater i al s demonst r ate

    t hat t he Wi l sons have al l eged, at most , t hat t he 2009 Ass i gnment i s

    potent i al l y voi dabl e under Massachuset t s common l aw. 9 Af t er

    consi der at i on of t he ent i r e r ecor d, we f i nd t hat t he Wi l sons have

    not al l eged any f act s whi ch, i f pr oven, woul d l ead t o a f i ndi ng

    t hat t he 2009 Ass i gnment was voi d. Accor di ngl y, t he Wi l sons do not

    have st andi ng t o asser t t hei r cl ai ms wi t h r espect t o t he 2009

    Assi gnment . Fi nal l y, because t he r ecor d demonst r at es t he 2009

    9 As t he r ecor d i ndi cates t hat t he 2009 Ass i gnment compl i eswi t h Sect i on 54B, i t i s l i kel y t hat i t i s val i d and bi ndi ng uponMERS, whi ch woul d f or ecl ose even t he cl ai m t hat i t i s voi dabl e.

    -25-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    26/31

    Ass i gnment i s not voi d, t he 2011 Ass i gnment i s superf l uous and of

    no l egal ef f ect or si gni f i cance wi t h r espect t o t hi s case. 10 We

    t hus af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal of Count s I t hr ough VI .

    C. Promissory Estoppel (Count VII)

    Count VI I al l eges pr omi ssory est oppel agai nst HSBC.

    Massachuset t s l aw i s cl ear wi t h r espect t o the el ement s of t hat

    cl ai m. A pl ai nt i f f must al l ege and pr ove "( 1) a r epr esent at i on

    i nt ended t o i nduce r el i ance on t he par t of a per son t o whom t he

    r epr esent at i on i s made; ( 2) an act or omi ssi on by that per son i n

    r easonabl e r el i ance on t he r epr esent at i on; and ( 3) det r i ment as a

    consequence of t he act or omi ssi on. " Sul l i van v. Chi ef J ust i ce f or

    Admi n. & Mgmt . of Tr i al Cour t , 448 Mass. 15, 27- 28 ( 2006) . The

    di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed t hi s count i n accor dance wi t h Rul e

    12( b) ( 6) af t er det er mi ni ng t he Wi l sons " f ai l [ ed] t o pr of f er even

    t he basi c el ement s of pr omi ssory est oppel , most notabl y some sor t

    of pr omi se and det r i ment al r el i ance. " 11 On appeal , t he Wi l sons

    10The Wi l sons i nt i mat e i n t hei r br i ef t hat t he 2011 Assi gnmentcan onl y be expl ai ned by HSBC' s r ecogni t i on t hat t he 2009Ass i gnment was i nval i d, as t hey note t hat t he 2011 Ass i gnment doesnot i ndi cat e t hat i t "i s conf i r mat or y i n any r espect . " However , i tseems r easonabl y cl ear t o t hi s Cour t t hat t he 2011 Ass i gnment wasmade as a pr ophyl act i c " bel t and suspenders" r esponse t o t he 2011

    Consent Or der and was i ntended t o assure t hat HSBC had acqui r edgood t i t l e by cur i ng any pot ent i al def ect i n t he 2009 Assi gnment .

    11 The cour t al so not ed t hat t he Wi l sons wer e at t empt i ng t oground t hei r cause of act i on i n an agr eement bet ween HSBC and t hegover nment , r ender i ng t he Wi l sons i nci dent al benef i ci ar i es who donot have st andi ng t o sue f or an al l eged br each of t hat agr eement .

    -26-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    27/31

    cont end t hey have suf f i ci ent l y set f or t h t he el ement s of pr omi ssory

    est oppel .

    Fi r st , t he Wi l sons argue t hat HSBC di d not compl y wi t h

    t he requi r ement s cont ai ned wi t hi n t he St at ut or y Power of Sal e wi t h

    r espect t o t hei r mor t gage. I n t hei r vi ew, HSBC vi ol at ed t hose

    t er ms when i t at t empt ed t o f or ecl ose wi t hout act ual l y hol di ng t he

    mor t gage. Thi s ar gument may be qui ckl y di sposed of , as i t cl ear l y

    depends ent i r el y on t he supposi t i on t hat t he 2009 Assi gnment i s

    voi d. Havi ng al r eady consi der ed and r ej ect ed t hi s pr oposi t i on, t he

    ar gument i s si mi l ar l y unavai l i ng her e.

    The Wi l sons' r emai ni ng ar gument , as set f or t h i n t hei r

    br i ef , i s t hat HSBC r epr esent ed t o t hem i t woul d r evi ew t hei r

    appl i cat i on f or a mor t gage modi f i cat i on i n accor dance wi t h "HAMP-

    l i ke pr ocedur es, " but i nst ead of f er ed t hem a "non- HAMP- l i ke

    modi f i cat i on r equi r i ng a 40% downpayment [ si c] . " Rat her t han

    al l egi ng an expl i ci t pr omi se or r epr esent at i on f r om HSBC, t he

    Compl ai nt br i ngs up t he 2011 Consent Or der , cl ai mi ng i t i s

    " [ i ] mpl i ci t i n" t he Or der t hat HSBC woul d " r evi ew l oan modi f i cat i on

    appl i cat i ons i n accor dance wi t h HAMP- l i ke pr ocedur es, " and t hat a

    40% down payment i s "not r equi r ed under HAMP procedur es. "12 The

    12 The Wi l sons al so al l ege t hat HSBC vi ol at ed HAMP by f ai l i ngt o i nf or m t hem of any act i on t aken wi t h r espect t o t hei r l oanmodi f i cat i on appl i cat i on. Thi s al l egat i on i s cur i ous i n l i ght oft hei r cl ai m t hat HSBC i s r equi r i ng a 40% down payment as acondi t i on of any modi f i cat i on. Regar dl ess, we f ai l t o see how t hi sal l egat i on l ends any suppor t t o t he Wi l sons' aver ment t hat CountVI I adequat el y al l eges t he el ement s of pr omi ssory est oppel .

    -27-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    28/31

    Wi l sons' ul t i mat e posi t i on appear s t o be t hat t he Consent Or der i s

    a pr omi se f r om HSBC t o t he gover nment , whi ch i s f unct i onal l y

    equi val ent t o a di r ect promi se f r om HSBC t o t hem. Under t hi s

    l ogi c, t hei r argument must be that HSBC i s bound t o ext end a l oan

    modi f i cat i on of f er t hat compl i es wi t h HAMP requi r ement s and i s

    est opped f r om r equi r i ng a 40% down payment as a pr econdi t i on f or

    l oan modi f i cat i on. 13

    For i t s par t , HSBC ur ges us t o uphol d t he di st r i ct

    cour t ' s di smi ssal of Count VI I . I n i t s vi ew, t he Wi l sons' cl ai m

    f or pr omi ssor y est oppel i s based upon ei t her t he Consent Or der , t he

    pr ocedur es of HAMP i t sel f , or bot h. Wi t h r espect t o t he Consent

    Or der , HSBC cont ends i t may not ser ve as t he basi s f or a pr omi ssory

    est oppel cl ai m because t he Or der , by i t s ver y t er ms, does not

    conf er "any benef i t or any l egal or equi t abl e r i ght , r emedy or

    cl ai m" upon any per son or ent i t y t hat i s not a par t y t her et o. As

    f or t he Wi l sons' at t empt t o rel y on HAMP, HSBC ar gues f i r st t hat

    t her e i s not hi ng i n t he Compl ai nt t o i ndi cat e whet her t he Wi l sons'

    l oan i s subj ect t o HAMP at al l and, f ur t her , t hat homeowner s do not

    13 The Wi l sons' br i ef al so r ei t er at es al l egat i ons f r om one oft hei r ear l i er count s addr essi ng t he 2009 Assi gnment whi ch al l egesHSBC agr eed to "conduct t he f or ecl osure sal e on the t er ms of t hePower of Sal e i n t he mor t gage" and t hat " [ i ] mpl i ct i n t hi s cont r act

    i s an agr eement by [ HSBC] t hat al l document s r ecor ded by [ HSBC]r el at i ve t o t hi s [ m] or t gage shal l be f r ee f r om f r aud and shal l ber el i abl e. " These al l egat i ons have not hi ng t o do wi t h and ar ei r r el evant t o t he Wi l sons' r equest f or a l oan modi f i cat i on i n 2012.They r el at e onl y t o t he Wi l sons' cl ai ms about t he 2009 Assi gnment ,whi ch we have al r eady determi ned t he Wi l sons l ack st andi ng topur sue.

    -28-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    29/31

    have a pr i vat e cause of act i on under HAMP. 14 At bot t om, HSBC posi t s

    t hat t he Compl ai nt "si mpl y f ai l s t o i dent i f y any pr omi se made by

    [ HSBC] t o t he [ Wi l sons] r el at i ve t o t he [ Wi l sons' ] ef f or t s t o

    obt ai n a l oan modi f i cat i on" and, t her ef or e, t hey have f ai l ed t o set

    f or t h a cl ai m f or pr omi ssor y est oppel .

    Our r evi ew of t he Compl ai nt shows t hat none of t he

    al l egat i ons cont ai n even the bar est hi nt t hat HSBC made any sor t of

    pr omi se or r epr esent at i on t o t he Wi l sons as t o how i t woul d handl e

    t hei r appl i cat i on f or a l oan modi f i cat i on. Thi s i s f at al t o t he

    Wi l sons' pr omi ssor y est oppel cl ai munl ess t hey ar e abl e t o ut i l i ze

    HSBC' s agr eement wi t h t he government as set f or t h i n t he Consent

    Or der as a st and- i n f or a di r ect r epr esent at i on made t o t hem by

    HSBC. The Wi l sons do not ci t e any aut hor i t y- - and we can f i nd

    none- - i n suppor t of t hi s novel pr oposi t i on. Accor di ngl y, we need

    not di scuss t he subst ance of t he Consent Or der beyond not i ng t hat

    t he Wi l sons ar e not a par t y t o i t . Put si mpl y, "bor r ower s ar e not

    t hi r d- par t y benef i ci ar i es of agr eement s bet ween mor t gage l ender s

    and t he government . " MacKenzi e v. Fl agst ar Bank, FSB, 738 F. 3d

    486, 491 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( adopt i ng t hi s r easoni ng f r om t he

    Massachuset t s Di st r i ct Cour t ) . Ther ef or e, t he Wi l sons may not

    14 We need not and do not consi der whether HAMP i mposes anyr equi r ement s wi t h r espect t o t he Wi l sons' mort gage because t heWi l sons have not r ai sed or ar gued t hi s i ssue t hemsel ves. Any suchpot ent i al ar gument , t her ef or e, has been wai ved.

    -29-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    30/31

    ut i l i ze t he Consent Or der t o make up f or t he absence of any pr omi se

    or r epr esent at i on t o t hem by HSBC.

    I n t he absence of any al l egat i on of a pr omi se or

    r epr esent at i on t o t hemby HSBC, t he Wi l sons' Compl ai nt f ai l s t o set

    f or t h a cl ai m f or pr omi ssor y est oppel . The di st r i ct cour t di d not

    er r i n di smi ssi ng Count VI I .

    D. Injunctive Relief (Count VIII)

    Count VI I I i s styl ed as a r equest f or i nj uncti ve r el i ef .

    The di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed t hi s count as wel l , char act er i zi ng i t

    as "merel y a r emedi al measure di sgui sed as a cause of act i on whi ch

    woul d onl y be r el evant i f t hi s Cour t hel d i n Pl ai nt i f f s' f avor on

    any of t he pr evi ous count s enumerated herei n. " On appeal , t he

    Wi l sons make onl y a cur sor y argument t hat t he count shoul d be

    r ei nst at ed al ong wi t h t he r est of t he compl ai nt , as t he r equest f or

    i nj uncti ve r el i ef f l ows f r omt he al l egat i ons t her ei n. I t i s enough

    t o say that we agr ee whol ehear t edl y wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

    r at i onal e f or di smi ssal . As we uphol d t he di smi ssal of t he f i r st

    seven count s, i t i nevi t abl y f ol l ows t hat t he Wi l sons ar e not

    ent i t l ed t o an i nj unct i on under any ci r cumst ances, and t he di st r i ct

    cour t cor r ect l y di smi ssed t hi s count .

    CONCLUSION

    Under Massachuset t s l aw, homeowners i n t he Wi l sons'

    posi t i on onl y have st andi ng t o chal l enge a pr i or assi gnment of

    t hei r mort gage on t he l i mi t ed gr ounds t hat t he ass i gnment was voi d.

    -30-

  • 7/26/2019 Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., 1st Cir. (2014)

    31/31

    Af t er car ef ul r evi ew, we concl ude t he Wi l sons have not set f or t h

    any pot ent i al l y mer i t or i ous cl ai mt hat t he 2009 Assi gnment i s voi d.

    I ndeed, ever ythi ng t he Wi l sons have put bef or e us gi ves us no

    r eason t o quest i on t he val i di t y of t he 2009 mor t gage t r ansf er f r om

    MERS t o HSBC. We al so concl ude t hat t he Wi l sons' Compl ai nt f ai l s

    t o set out a cl ai m f or pr omi ssor y est oppel , and t hat t hei r cl ai m

    f or i nj unct i ve rel i ef f ai l s as wel l .

    Al t hough t he Wi l sons set f or t h t r oubl i ng al l egat i ons t hat

    HSBC di d not f ol l ow pr oper f or ecl osur e pr ocedur es even af t er ent r y

    of t he Consent Or der and the 2011 Assi gnment , we have no cause t o

    conduct an i nqui r y i nt o t hose act i vi t i es wi t hi n t he cont ext of t hi s

    case. Fur t her , i f t he Wi l sons have compl ai nt s about t he mor t gage

    assi gnment pr ocedur es used here, any r equest s f or r edr ess must be

    di r ect ed t o t he Legi sl at ur e.

    For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal

    of t he Wi l sons' Compl ai nt i s af f i r med.

    -31-