Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2798
1st Cir.2014Background
- Mortgage granted to Ameriquest (2004) to secure promissory note; 2004 assignment to MERS recorded 2005; HSBC enters picture via 2009 Assignment from MERS to HSBC executed by Shelene Strauss as MERS VP and notarized on March 19, 2009; 2011 Assignment records later; Wilsons allege robo-signing and improper foreclosures; district court dismissed for lack of standing and no viable promissory estoppel claim; appeal focuses on standing and related claims.
- Wilsons allege HSBC did not hold the mortgage in 2009; they challenge the 2009 Assignment as void; district court held lack of standing to contest an assignment not party/beneficiary; complaint includes eight counts including injunctive relief.
- Consent Order with OCC and HAMP background referenced; 2010-2012 procedural history shows alleged deficiencies in foreclosure process, but no direct HSBC promise to Wilsons.
- Main issue is whether Massachusetts law grants standing to mortgagors to challenge a mortgage assignment as void or voidable; 2009 Assignment’s validity analyzed under Section 54B; 2011 Assignment treated as superfluous.
- Court ultimately affirms dismissal: Wilsons lack standing to attack the 2009 Assignment as void; promissory estoppel and injunctive relief claims fail.
- Court notes legislative-policy considerations and that any redress for mortgage-assignment procedures should be directed to legislature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge 2009 Assignment | Wilsons contend 2009 Assignment void; HSBC robo-signed. | Assignment valid; Rossi/HSBC factual basis supports foreclose rights. | Wilsons have no standing to challenge 2009 Assignment as void; dismissal affirmed. |
| Void vs voidable status of 2009 Assignment | Assignment void because Strauss acted for HSBC, not MERS. | Document shows MERS as assignor; Strauss acted as MERS VP; valid. | Assignment not void; valid under Massachusetts law (54B) so no standing to challenge. |
| Promissory estoppel (Count VII) | Consent Order or HAMP-like promises create estoppel. | No direct HSBC promise to Wilsons; third-party beneficiary issue with government agreement. | Promissory estoppel claim fails; district court correct. |
| Injunctive relief (Count VIII) | Injunction flowing from prior counts should be granted. | Relief unavailable absent a viable underlying claim. | Injunction denied as Counts I-VII rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servs. of Neb., 708 F.3d 282 (1st Cir. 2013) (standing to challenge mortgage assignments; void vs voidable; §54B analysis)
- Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 733 F.3d 349 (1st Cir. 2013) (standing—mortgage assignment challenges; void vs voidable)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (Mass. 2011) (foreclosure void if the foreclosing party lacks jurisdiction/authority)
- MacKenzie v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 738 F.3d 486 (1st Cir. 2013) (third-party beneficiary/consent order; promissory estoppel limitations)
- Reading Co-Op. Bank v. Suffolk Constr. Co., 464 Mass. 543 (Mass. 2013) (statutory interpretation of Massachusetts law in contract/obligations)
- Cabot Corp. v. AVX Corp., 448 Mass. 629 (Mass. 2007) (illustrates voidable vs void contract concepts (economic duress, misrepresentation))