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


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-


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-


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-


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 obosi 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 obosi 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 obosi 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 obosi 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-


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-


7/31

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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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 obosi 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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-


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-

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

Documents

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