Brian Pellerin v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, 2018-0630

Brian Pellerin sued to enjoin a scheduled foreclosure sale of his property; Superior Court (Schulman, J.) held a hearing and entered judgment for Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, validating the sale.
Pellerin filed his complaint and request for injunctive relief two days before the scheduled sale and moved for reconsideration after an initial denial; a temporary restraining order was granted after reconsideration.
The defendant asserted it had standing to foreclose based on a 2004 assignment that was later corrected by assignments in 2013 and 2015 (and a 2017 assignment appearing in the chain of title).
Pellerin alleged the 2004 assignment was defective, accused defense counsel of committing fraud by not disclosing a 2017 assignment at the hearing, and contended the foreclosure sale was invalid because a temporary restraining order had been issued before the sale.
The trial court found the 2013 and 2015 corrective assignments made the defendant the mortgagee with standing, found no fraud by counsel, and concluded the September 26, 2018 sale was valid because the defendant did not receive notice of the restraining order prior to the sale.
Pellerin did not attend the hearing; the trial court found he had received timely notice of the hearing and that additional arguments were either not preserved or insufficiently developed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to foreclose	2004 assignment defective; defendant lacked standing	Corrective assignments (2013, 2015) and chain of title establish defendant as mortgagee	Court: defendant had standing based on corrective assignments; finding supported by record
Failure to disclose 2017 assignment / fraud on court	Defense counsel committed fraud by not disclosing a 2017 assignment	2017 assignment was unnecessary given earlier corrective assignments; chain of title included it	Not preserved at trial; court would have found 2017 assignment unnecessary; no fraud shown
Validity of foreclosure sale despite TRO	TRO issued before sale—sale should be enjoined	Sale occurred before defendant received service or informal notice of TRO; sale therefore valid	Sale validated; plaintiff failed to prove defendant received notice prior to sale
Notice of hearing / due process	Plaintiff did not attend because court failed to issue separate order granting TRO pending hearing	Plaintiff received timely summons notifying hearing date and time	Court found plaintiff received notice; no due process violation

Pike v. Deutsche Bank, Nat’l Trust Co., 168 N.H. 40 (2015) (standard of review for injunctions and equitable discretion)
Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248 (2004) (issues not raised in trial court are not preserved on appeal)
In the Matter of Costa & Costa, 156 N.H. 323 (2007) (appellate courts assume trial court made subsidiary findings necessary to support its decision)
State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47 (2003) (arguments insufficiently developed will not be reviewed)
Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321 (1993) (issues that warrant no further consideration)
In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51 (2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by procedural rules)