U.S. Bank National Association v. Bolling
90 Mass. App. Ct. 154
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Wendy Bolling was tenant at property in Springfield; plaintiff U.S. Bank, as trustee for RASC 2006KS9, obtained title via foreclosure sale following an assignment of the mortgage into the trust.
- Bolling moved for summary judgment in the Housing Court eviction action, arguing the assignment to the trust violated the trust's pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) — specifically, it was not made within the PSA's required time period.
- Bolling relied on the PSA’s choice-of-law clause selecting New York law and argued under New York law the defective assignment was void, giving her standing to challenge the foreclosure and possessory rights.
- The trial judge agreed the assignment was void under New York law, found Bolling had standing, and granted summary judgment for Bolling; the trust appealed.
- The Appeals Court analyzed choice-of-law principles for real property claims, Massachusetts’s interest as situs, and whether PSA-based defects render assignments void or merely voidable for third parties like Bolling.
- The court concluded Massachusetts law governs standing to challenge conveyances of Massachusetts real property and that PSA noncompliance is a latent defect rendering an assignment voidable, not void, so Bolling lacked standing; judgment vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which law governs whether a challenge to an assignment affects title/standing? | Trust: Massachusetts law applies to real property matters (implicit). | Bolling: PSA chosen New York law should govern assignment validity and standing. | Massachusetts law governs situs real property disputes; PSA choice-of-law does not determine Bolling's standing. |
| Does failure to comply with PSA render the assignment void or voidable? | Trust: PSA noncompliance (by a nonparty) does not void assignment; at most voidable. | Bolling: PSA-timed assignment requirement violated, making assignment void under New York law. | Under Massachusetts law, defects arising from PSA noncompliance are latent and render the assignment voidable, not void. |
| Does Bolling, a nonparty to the PSA, have standing to challenge the assignment based on PSA noncompliance? | Trust: No; nonparty cannot use PSA defects to defeat foreclosure title/possession. | Bolling: Yes, if the assignment is void she may challenge it and defeat trust’s possession. | No; because the defect is voidable (not void) and Bolling is not a party or intended beneficiary, she lacks standing. |
| Would applying New York law change the result (if it governed)? | Trust: Even under New York precedent, mortgagors lack standing to challenge PSA noncompliance. | Bolling: New York law would deem the assignment void for failure to meet PSA timing. | Court noted New York authorities reach same practical result — nonparty mortgagor lacks standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243 (establishes lex situs for real property law)
- Sullivan v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 85 Mass. App. Ct. 202 (describing nature of mortgagor’s claim to challenge foreclosure as real property dispute)
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp. v. Wain, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 498 (latent assignment defects are voidable; nonparty lacks standing)
- Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servs. of Neb., 708 F.3d 282 (First Circuit: challenges to PSA noncompliance generally barred for lack of standing)
- Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 733 F.3d 349 (First Circuit: procedural infirmities in assignment do not confer standing on mortgagors)
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Schumacher, 467 Mass. 421 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision affecting related statutory arguments)
- Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (Second Circuit: mortgagors lack standing to enforce PSA provisions)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erobobo, 127 A.D.3d 1176 (App. Div. N.Y.) (New York authority concluding nonparty mortgagor lacks standing to challenge PSA noncompliance)