Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Providence Business Loan Fund, Inc., f/k/a Providence Economic Development Corporation, 200 A.3d 153

In 1992 Norris Waldron granted a mortgage to Providence Economic Development Corporation (now Providence Business Loan Fund, PBLF) recorded June 3, 1992; the mortgage stated a ten-year term but no maturity date.
In 1996 Waldron and PBLF executed a modification agreement reducing the debt and providing a 108-month repayment term; that modification agreement was not recorded.
On January 3, 1997 an amendment to the 1992 mortgage was recorded; the amendment referenced the unrecorded modification agreement and said it extended the maturity date, but it did not itself state a term or maturity date.
The property was later encumbered by other mortgages and conveyed; Bayview Loan Servicing acquired a mortgage interest and sued declaratory judgment in 2017 seeking a ruling that PBLF’s 1992 mortgage had been discharged under the ancient mortgages statute, G.L. 1956 § 34-26-7.
The Superior Court granted Bayview’s summary-judgment motion holding the 1992 mortgage expired (ten-year term plus five years per § 34-26-7), and that the 1997 amendment did not validly extend the mortgage because the instrument(s) required by statute were not properly recorded.
The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the unrecorded modification did not meet § 34-26-7 recording requirements and the mortgage was discharged before PBLF began foreclosure in 2017.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1992 mortgage expired under § 34-26-7 and is discharged	The mortgage stated a ten-year term, so it expired ten years after recording plus the statutory five-year grace period (total 15 years); therefore discharged in 2007	Argued alternatively that absence of a stated maturity date produces a 35-year validity or that the 1997 amendment created a new 35-year period	Held: The statute applies to a mortgage stating a term; the 1992 mortgage (10-year term) expired 15 years after recording and was discharged before 2017
Whether the 1997 amendment validly extended the mortgage period despite referencing an unrecorded modification	Bayview: The extension failed because the actual modification containing the term was not recorded as § 34-26-7 requires; recorded amendment referencing an unrecorded agreement is insufficient	PBLF: The recorded 1997 amendment (which referenced an extension) should control, or at least trigger a new 35-year period because it did not state a term	Held: The 1997 amendment did not satisfy § 34-26-7 because the modification that set the term was not recorded; therefore it did not extend the mortgage’s life

Rein v. ESS Group, Inc., 184 A.3d 695 (interpret statutory language by plain meaning)
Pineda v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 186 A.3d 1054 (summary-judgment review de novo)
Cancel v. City of Providence, 187 A.3d 347 (nonmoving party bears burden to show genuine factual dispute)
Newstone Development, LLC v. East Pacific, LLC, 140 A.3d 100 (summary-judgment standard)
In re Tetreault, 11 A.3d 635 (statutory interpretation review de novo)
Earle v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Warwick, 191 A.2d 161 (words 'and' and 'or' given distinct meanings)