Lemelson v. U.S. Bank National Association
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13455
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Lemelsons filed a Massachusetts try title petition seeking to invalidate the March 2011 assignment to U.S. Bank and to enjoin foreclosure; they had not paid mortgage since April 2010.
- Action was removed to federal court; district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a try title claim, without prejudice.
- Petition alleged numerous defects in the March 2011 assignment to create an adverse claim but did not show concrete actions by U.S. Bank.
- Massachusetts follows a title theory: a mortgage splits title into legal (mortgagee) and equitable (mortgagor) interests, with the legal title defeasible and redeemable.
- Because the petition alleged only that U.S. Bank claimed legal title through foreclosure activity, the alleged adverse claim was not sufficiently pleaded to cloud title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an adverse claim required to plead a try title claim? | Lemelsons contend Bevilacqua permits pleading possession and record title only. | U.S. Bank argues adverse claim is necessary under the statute and Bevilacqua is about standing, not pleading. | Adverse claim is required to plead a try title claim. |
| Do Lemelsons' allegations show an adverse claim by U.S. Bank? | U.S. Bank's purported legal title through the assignment constitutes an adverse claim. | Merely asserting U.S. Bank's interest as mortgagee does not establish an adverse claim clouding title. | No adverse claim alleged; petition fails to state a claim. |
| Does Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez control whether pleading must allege an adverse claim? | Bevilacqua supports conceding possession and record title and shifting to the lender's duty to disclaim or sue. | Bevilacqua concerns standing, not the pleading requirement under Rule 12(b)(6). | Bevilacqua does not permit dismissal without an adverse claim; adverse claim pleading is necessary. |
| Does the Massachusetts title theory affect whether foreclosure efforts alone constitute an adverse claim? | Foreclosure efforts by U.S. Bank show adversity to Lemelsons' title. | Foreclosure activity alone does not create an adverse claim clouding title under the try title statute. | Foreclosure efforts do not create an adverse claim in the absence of pleaded adversity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 955 N.E.2d 884 (Mass. 2011) (standing requires in possession and record title; adversity not shown by mortgagee's interest)
- Eaton v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 969 N.E.2d 1118 (Mass. 2012) (mortgage splits title; equitable title remains with mortgagor; redemption rights exist)
- Ibanez v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011) (title theory; mortgagee holds legal title; mortgage splits title against mortgagor)
- Blanchard v. Lowell, 59 N.E. 114 (Mass. 1901) (early articulation of title and mortgage interplay under Massachusetts law)
- Dewey v. Bulkley, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 416 (1854) (comparative authority on estate interests where mortgage implications exist)