Dooling v. James B. Nutter & Company
1:13-cv-11844
| D. Mass. | Oct 15, 2015Background
- Plaintiff James A. Dooling, III obtained a reverse mortgage from James B. Nutter & Co. in 2008 on 32 Roundy Street (the Roundy Property); the City of Beverly condemned the property in 2009 and Dooling moved to a rest home (Monument Square).
- Nutter sent a Notice of Intent to Foreclose in October 2011 to the Roundy Property and published notice; it held a foreclosure sale July 2, 2012, purchased the property, and deeded it to Fannie Mae on August 15, 2012.
- After Fannie Mae obtained title, personal belongings in the residence, including Dooling’s, were discarded.
- Dooling sued in Massachusetts Housing Court, later adding Fannie Mae and removing to federal court, alleging (inter alia) insufficient notice, breach of good faith, fraud/misrepresentation, IIED, and Chapter 93A violations; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Court found the statutory and contractual notice requirements satisfied (notice to last address on mortgage records), rejected claims of inadequate sale process/price and bad faith absent evidence of fraud or improper conduct, and granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreclosure notice complied with Mass. law and mortgage (Count I) | Dooling: notice should have been sent to his Monument Square address because Nutter mailed other communications there | Nutter: sent notice to Roundy Street, the last address on its records; statutory mailing satisfied; receipt not required | Court: Notice satisfied Mass. Gen. Laws c. 244 § 14 and mortgage; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether foreclosure and sale breached covenant of good faith (Count III) | Dooling: Nutter acted in bad faith by foreclosing while property condemned, buying at low price, and failing to fund repairs | Nutter: complied with statutory notice and mortgage; purchase price disparity alone is insufficient absent fraud/bad faith | Court: No evidence of bad faith or fraud; statutory compliance and circumstances (condemnation, time lapse) defeat claim; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether alleged oral promise to delay foreclosure supports fraud/negligent misrepresentation (Counts IV–V) | Dooling: an agent (Madden) promised no foreclosure until Sept. 1, 2012; he relied on that promise | Nutter: denies conversation; no admissible evidence of promise in record or affidavit | Court: Plaintiff offered no evidentiary support for the alleged oral promise; claims fail as a matter of law |
| Whether defendants’ conduct supports IIED or Chapter 93A claims (Counts VI–VII) | Dooling: foreclosure and disposal of possessions were extreme, caused hospitalization, and were unfair/deceptive | Defendants: foreclosure and disposal were lawful (statutorily compliant foreclosure; property assumed abandoned when title transferred); no unfair practice shown | Court: No extreme/outrageous conduct or causation proven; 93A allegations are conclusory or legally unsupported; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Rojas-Ithier v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 394 F.3d 40 (1st Cir.) (summary judgment purpose and standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (party bearing burden must show essential element absence at summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S.) (record viewed as whole could not lead a rational trier of fact supports summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S.) (improbable inferences cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Young v. Wells Fargo, 717 F.3d 224 (1st Cir.) (elements and high threshold for breach of implied good faith in mortgage context)
- Sandler v. Silk, 292 Mass. 493 (Mass.) (mortgagee must exercise power of sale in good faith; facts showing intent to defeat interests may invalidate sale)
- Hull v. Attleboro Sav. Bank, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 18 (Mass. App. Ct.) (post-possession conduct short of fraud often insufficient to show breach of good faith)
- Montague v. Dawes, 96 Mass. 369 (Mass.) (when mortgagee purchases at foreclosure, held to strictest good faith)
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Elder Care Services, Inc., 82 F.3d 524 (1st Cir.) (disparity in sale price alone insufficient to show bad faith)