972 F. Supp. 2d 147
D. Mass.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Mark and Tammy LaRace are Massachusetts residents who own property at 6 Brookburn Street and have a mortgage chain involving multiple entities.
- The mortgage originated May 19, 2005, with Option One; subsequent assignments moved the mortgage through Bank of America, ABFC, and Wells Fargo as trustee for the ABFC 2005-OPT1 Trust.
- Wells Fargo foreclosed in 2007, purchasing the property in 2007 for a price well below market value; a 2008 assignment, recorded in 2008 but effective April 18, 2007, was involved.
- In 2008-2009, Wells Fargo sought to quiet title in Land Court, which found the foreclosure invalid for failure to establish proper holder at the time of notice/sale; SJC Ibanez affirmed the invalidity of Wells Fargo’s foreclosure process but not necessarily all post-foreclosure assignments.
- On June 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a petition to try title in the Massachusetts Land Court; Defendants removed to federal court on August 20, 2012 and motions followed, with Lemelson controlling the outcome.
- This federal action involves removal based on diversity and a request to dismiss or remand the petition to try title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under federal diversity jurisdiction | LaRace argues remand is proper due to lack of amount in controversy. | Defendants contend the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and diversity exists. | Removal proper; amount in controversy satisfied; remand denied. |
| Whether Massachusetts Land Court has exclusive jurisdiction over try title petitions | Bevilacqua-type exclusive jurisdiction claim; Land Court should keep the matter. | Diversity and federal jurisdiction may supersede state exclusive jurisdiction. | Not exclusive; federal jurisdiction exists where diversity and amount in controversy requirements are met. |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ try title claim states a cognizable adverse-interest claim | Argues adverse claim exists due to contested mortgage assignments and trust terms. | Lemelson requires an adverse claim; plaintiffs lack legal title and cannot allege adversity against mortgagees. | Plaintiffs fail to allege an adverse claim; complaint fails to state a claim; dismissal granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (Mass. 2011) (foreclosure process must comply with statutory requirements; holder status at time of notice/sale matters)
- Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 460 Mass. 762 (Mass. 2011) (two jurisdictional requirements for a try title petition; exclusive jurisdiction not absolute)
- Lemelson v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 721 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2013) (controls; adverse-interest requirement defeats try title claim where plaintiffs lack legal title)
- Monogram Indus., Inc. v. Zellen, 467 F.Supp. 122 (D. Mass. 1979) (decision recognizing limits of state proceedings in the face of federal jurisdiction)
- Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 310 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2002) (plaintiff must demonstrate basis for recovery and viable theory in complaint)