167 F. Supp. 3d 250
D. Mass.2016Background
- In 2006 Klevisha executed a note for $283,200 secured by a mortgage later assigned to Provident Funding; the note was endorsed and ultimately owned by Freddie Mac.
- Klevisha defaulted in 2013; Provident sent statutorily required default/curative notices and pursued foreclosure after multiple modification attempts and notice exchanges in 2014–2015.
- Multiple foreclosure sales were scheduled, postponed, or rescinded; litigation and a preliminary injunction briefly halted sales; the injunction was later dissolved after the SJC decision in Pinti clarified Massachusetts law.
- A non-judicial foreclosure sale occurred on November 9, 2015; Freddie Mac purchased the property for $323,293.36 and recorded a foreclosure deed and post-sale affidavit.
- The total debt at sale was $329,790.92, producing a deficiency of $6,497.56.
- Provident Funding and Freddie Mac moved for summary judgment on Provident’s counterclaims; Klevisha did not meaningfully oppose the motion and her original complaint was dismissed for failure to litigate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to deficiency judgment (Counts I & IV) | Klevisha challenged foreclosure process/notice compliance (arguing irregularities could bar a deficiency) | Provident/Freddie Mac showed compliance with M.G.L. c.244 §§14 and 17B and established the deficiency amount | Judgment for Freddie Mac on deficiency of $6,497.56; statutory notice requirements met so deficiency claim allowed |
| Unjust enrichment (Count II) | Klevisha sought equitable relief alleging unjust enrichment | Provident/Freddie Mac argued an adequate legal remedy (deficiency judgment) exists, making equitable relief unnecessary | Unjust enrichment claim need not be reached/dismissed as moot because legal remedy prevailed |
| Foreclosure claim (Count III) | Klevisha sought to challenge foreclosure validity | Provident/Freddie Mac pointed to completed sale and recorded deed/affidavit | Foreclosure claim is moot (sale completed) |
| Possession and Writ of Assistance (Counts V & VI) | Klevisha contested possession | Freddie Mac produced recorded foreclosure deed and post-sale affidavit showing statutory compliance and record title | Freddie Mac entitled to possession; Writ of Assistance granted to enforce possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinti v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 472 Mass. 226 (Mass. 2015) (SJC clarified requirement of strict compliance with mortgage notice provision but applied prospectively)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard—movant’s burden and when judgment is appropriate)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (summary judgment when record could not lead a rational trier of fact for nonmovant)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and improbable inferences cannot defeat motion)
- Bank of New York v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327 (Mass. 2011) (prima facie showing of right to possession after foreclosure by producing recorded deed and affidavit of sale)
- U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Schumacher, 467 Mass. 421 (Mass. 2014) (summary process is appropriate vehicle to recover possession after foreclosure)