Bank of America, N.A. v. Rosa
466 Mass. 613
Mass.2013Background
- Multiple consolidated post-foreclosure summary process actions: banks (plaintiffs) sought possession after purchasing title at foreclosure sale; former homeowners (defendants) raised various defenses and counterclaims challenging title and seeking damages or reinstatement.
- No landlord-tenant relationship; actions arose under G. L. c. 239 summary process for possession after foreclosure.
- Defenses/counterclaims included: failure to comply with mortgage power of sale, equitable challenges to foreclosure, G. L. c. 93A claims, discrimination (G. L. c. 151B), failure to consider loan modifications, implied warranty of habitability and quiet enjoyment claims, and emotional distress damages.
- Housing Court judge struck landlord-tenant-specific defenses but denied banks’ motions as to other defenses/counterclaims, concluding Housing Court jurisdiction extends beyond strict power-of-sale challenges.
- Banks sought interlocutory review; Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review and affirmed: Housing Court may hear title-challenging defenses/counterclaims (including equitable claims) and may award damages where authorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 239, § 8A is the exclusive source authorizing defenses/counterclaims in all summary process actions | § 8A limits counterclaims to residential landlord-tenant cases and thus precludes other counterclaims in summary process | § 8A governs only tenant counterclaims; it does not preclude other defenses/counterclaims in non-§8A summary process matters | § 8A is not exclusive; it applies to residential tenant counterclaims but does not bar other defenses/counterclaims in post-foreclosure summary process actions |
| Whether defendants may raise title challenges in Housing Court beyond strict noncompliance with the mortgage power of sale | Banks: historical precedents limited summary process challenges to strict power-of-sale defects (Abbott/Wing) and other challenges must be brought in equity | Defendants: statutory and procedural changes, unified civil procedure, and expanded Housing Court jurisdiction permit broader title and equitable defenses/counterclaims | Housing Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate title challenges that historically required a separate equity action, not limited to strict power-of-sale defects |
| Whether Housing Court has equitable power to grant affirmative relief (e.g., set aside foreclosure, injunction, reinstatement) in these summary process cases | Banks: Housing Court lacks general equity jurisdiction and cannot grant equitable relief that Supreme Judicial Court precedent reserved for Superior Court | Defendants: G. L. c. 185C grants Housing Court concurrent jurisdiction and the powers of the Superior Court in matters within its jurisdiction, enabling equitable relief in summary process | Housing Court has limited equitable authority (via G. L. c. 185C) to grant affirmative equitable relief in summary process when foreclosure validity affects possession/title |
| Whether statutory claims (c. 93A, c. 151B) and damages may be raised as counterclaims in Housing Court in post-foreclosure summary process | Banks: allowing such claims will expand summary process scope and prolong litigation beyond intended summary nature | Defendants: c. 185C and Rule 13 permit such counterclaims when they relate to possession/title; Housing Court may award damages/fees where authorized | If the statutory claim relates to title/possession and falls within Housing Court’s limited subject-matter scope, c. 93A and c. 151B counterclaims (and damages/fees) may be heard and awarded in Housing Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Wayne Inv. Corp. v. Abbott, 350 Mass. 775 (discussed historical rule limiting summary process title challenges to strict power-of-sale defects)
- New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wing, 191 Mass. 192 (early precedent requiring separate equity action to set aside foreclosure)
- Bank of N.Y. v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327 (recognized Housing Court jurisdiction to consider strict power-of-sale affirmative defense in post-foreclosure summary process)
- Fafard v. Lincoln Pharmacy of Milford, Inc., 439 Mass. 512 (interpretation that § 8A authorizes counterclaims only in residential tenant cases)
- Boston Hous. Auth. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184 (availability of implied warranty of habitability defenses/counterclaims in summary process apart from § 8A)