George v. Stonebridge Mortgage Company LLC, 1:13-cv-11884

Plaintiffs Paul and Tami George own Raynham and Taunton properties in Massachusetts and allege multiple mortgage loans were created and foreclosed unlawfully.
On November 15, 2005, Raynham mortgage with Stonebridge Mortgage (loan $397,000) and 30-year term; monthly payment $2,850.13.
On June 30, 2006, Taunton mortgage with American Mortgage Network for $1,573.15 monthly; both loans alleged without reasonable ability to repay.
Chase allegedly acquired Taunton loan via assignment from MERS in 2012; Chase foreclosed on Taunton property in 2013.
Foreclosure sale on Taunton occurred May 28, 2013, with Freddie Mac purchasing the property; plaintiffs challenge authority and validity of assignments.
Court granted motions to dismiss, finding no viable claims against those defendants and preemption/staute limitations barred claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Notice to cure requirement under §35A	George claim §35A violation.	Chase/others argue preemption and lack of foreclose action by non-accelerating party.	§35A claim against Chase dismissed as preempted; others not applicable.
Predatory lending under PHLPA	Taunton mortgage may be high-cost loan.	No facts show high-cost loan or principal dwelling eligibility.	PHLPA claims dismissed for lack of proof of high-cost loan or principal dwelling.
Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing	Chase denied modification in bad faith.	No contract-based duty to modify; no injury shown.	Dismissed for failure to plausibly allege breach or injury.
Unfair or deceptive mortgage practices under 940 CMR 8.00	Regulations create private rights and are violated.	Regulations provide no private action; potential Chapter 93A claims time-barred.	Regulations claims dismissed; Chapter 93A accrual and statute of limitations issues noted.
Unlawful assignment/standing to foreclose	MERS lacked authority to assign Taunton mortgage; foreclosure notices void.	Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services supports MERS authority; proper chain to Chase.	No viable unlawful-foreclosure claim; complaint fails to state a recoverable theory of unlawful foreclosure.

Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servs. of Nebraska, 708 F.3d 282 (1st Cir. 2013) (authority of MERS to assign interest; foreclose through agent)
Eaton v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 462 Mass. 569 (Mass. 2012) (foreclosing mortgagee must hold mortgage and note; agent may stand in shoes)
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (Mass. 2011) (notes and mortgagee relationship required for foreclosure)