Bank of New York v. Bailey
460 Mass. 327
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Bailey owned a West Selden Street home in Boston; mortgage held by MERS as nominee for lender.
- Foreclosure by sale was instituted on March 6, 2007; MERS as nominee was highest bidder at sale.
- Bailey later claimed lack of legally sufficient notice and sought to set aside the foreclosure in Superior Court (dismissed for failure to serve timely).
- BNY, as trustee, served Bailey with notice of intention to terminate occupancy in 2008 and filed a summary process action in Housing Court in 2009.
- Bailey answered asserting the foreclosure was invalid due to defective notice; BNY moved for summary judgment asserting title and entitlement to possession.
- Trial judge granted summary judgment for BNY; Bailey appealed; Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) transferred for decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Housing Court has jurisdiction to address title validity defenses in a summary process after foreclosure | BNY argues Housing Court cannot adjudicate title validity raised by Bailey. | Bailey contends the court may consider whether the plaintiff holds valid title as a defense to possession. | Housing Court has jurisdiction to decide title validity as a defense. |
| Whether BNY proved possession prima facie based on the foreclosure deed and notice | BNY contends deed recorded before service to quit proves possession. | Bailey argues BNY failed to provide adequate proof of compliance with power of sale and recording requirements. | BNY failed to make a prima facie showing of possession; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| What is the proper evidentiary showing to establish possession after foreclosure by sale | BNY asserts recorded foreclosure deed and affidavit of sale suffice. | Bailey argues proof must show strict compliance with power of sale and statute, beyond mere prior recording. | Plaintiff must prove title via deed and compliant affidavit of sale; mere prior recording is insufficient. |
| Whether the judgment should be vacated and remanded for further proceedings | BNY seeks affirmance of summary judgment. | Baileys seeks reconsideration in light of jurisdiction to address title defenses. | Summary judgment vacated; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011) (foreclosure by sale and title defenses central to eviction actions)
- Wayne Inv. Corp. v. Abbott, 350 Mass. 775 (1966) (title may be Put in issue in summary process; possession required)
- New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wing, 191 Mass. 192 (1906) (title may be put in issue in purchaser-at-foreclosure summary process)
- Sheehan Constr. Co. v. Dudley, 299 Mass. 51 (1937) (summary process allows challenge to plaintiff's right of possession and title)
- Lewis v. Jackson, 165 Mass. 481 (1896) (prima facie showing of possession and title required in summary process)
- Bech v. Cuevas, 404 Mass. 249 (1989) (concurrent jurisdiction over summary process among courts; housing court context)
- Duggan v. Gonsalves, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 250 (2005) (housing court jurisdiction for summary process)
- Metropolitan Credit Union v. Matthes, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 326 (1999) (summary process burden on showing title and compliance with statute)
- Page v. Dwight, 170 Mass. 29 (1897) (historical roots of the summary remedy and possession rights)
- Tedford v. Massachusetts Hous. Fin. Agency, 390 Mass. 688 (1984) (Housing Court jurisdiction expansion)