8/11/2019 Hsbc v Norris

1/2

HSBC BANK USA, N.A. v. NORRIS

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., trustee, 1

vs.

PAUL L. NORRIS & another. 2

No. 11-P-191 .

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Entered: February 28, 2013.

By the Court Cypher, !ub"n # $oloho%"an, &&.'

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The plaintiff (here referred to as HSBC as a convenient shorthand) brought theunderlying summary process action in the Housing Court, pursuant to G. . c. !"#, $%, to evict the defendants, and summary &udgment 'as entered in its favor. nappeal, the defendant aul *orris (*orris) argues that (%) summary &udgment 'asimproperly granted for a number of reasons and (!) the &udge abused his discretion indenying additional discovery and denying the defendants+ motion for reconsideration.

e vacate the &udgment.

Discussion.

*orris argues that the summary &udgment record 'as not sufficient to establish thatHSBC had a superior right to possession. -The purpose of summary process is toenable the holder of the legal title to gain possession of premises 'rongfully 'ithheld.ight to possession must be sho'n and legal title may be put in issue. . . . egal titleis established in summary process by proof that the title 'as ac/uired strictlyaccording to the po'er of sale provided in the mortgage0 and that alone is sub&ect tochallenge.+ Bank of N.Y. v. Baile ! 123 4ass. "!5 , """ (!3%%), /uoting from "a ne#n$. %o&'. v. A((o))! "63 4ass. 556, 556 (%#22). -To prevail on its motion forsummary &udgment, 7HSBC8+ had the burden of sho'ing that there are no materialfacts in dispute regarding its legal title to the property.9 Bank of N.Y.! su'&a at ""1,/uoting from Me)&o'oli)an %&e*i) Union $. Ma))+es! 12 4ass.:pp.Ct. "!2 , ""3 (%###).e revie' a decision to grant summary &udgment de novo. -The standard of revie'of a grant of summary &udgment is 'hether, vie'ing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the nonmoving party, all material facts have been established and themoving party is entitled to a &udgment as a matter of la'.+ Au,a)! #nc. v. Li(e&) Mu).#ns. %o.! 1%3 4ass. %%5 , %!3 (%##%). Here, the summary &udgment record sho'edthat *orris obtained a home mortgage loan from ;irst *ational Ban< of :ri=ona and,as security for the loan, granted a mortgage to 4ortgage >lectronic egistrationSystems, ?nc. (4> S). *orris defaulted on the mortgage payments. n 4arch @,

!3%3, the mortgage 'as assigned to HSBC, 'hich then ac/uired a foreclosure deed tothe property through a foreclosure sale that too< place on September !#, !3%3. :n

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20MACO%2020130228348.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR#FN_1http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20MACO%2020130228348.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR#FN_2http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=460%20Mass.%20327http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=46%20Mass.App.Ct.%20326http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=410%20Mass.%20117http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20MACO%2020130228348.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR#FN_2http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=460%20Mass.%20327http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=46%20Mass.App.Ct.%20326http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=410%20Mass.%20117http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20MACO%2020130228348.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR#FN_1

8/11/2019 Hsbc v Norris

2/2

attorney+s affidavit filed 'ith the registry of deeds, pursuant to G. . c. !11, $ %6,stated that the re/uirements of the po'er of sale and of G. . c. !11 had beensatisfied. Ho'ever, the summary &udgment record did not establish that HSBC heldthe note at the time of foreclosure or that it 'as the authori=ed agent of the noteholder.Ander Ea)on $. -e*e&al Na)l. Mo&). Assn.! 12! 4ass. 62# , 65%, 6@1 6@2 (!3%!),foreclosure by sale pursuant to G. . c. !11, $ %1, re/uires that the mortgagee alsohold the mortgage note or be the authori=ed agent of the note holder. The fact thatHSBC had been assigned the mortgage is not enough to effect a valid foreclosure bysale pursuant to G. . c. !11, $ %1. :s noted above, HSBC did not present anyevidence in the summary &udgment record as to 'ho held the note at the time of theforeclosure by sale, or 'hether it 'as acting as the authori=ed agent of the noteholder. " :s a result, the motion &udge in this case should have denied HSBC+s motionfor summary &udgment and also re/uired that *orris receive the discovery he soughtconcerning the note and the servicing and pooling agreement.HSBC argues, ho'ever, that 'e should affirm the motion &udge+s rulingbecause Ea)on applies only prospectively to mortgage foreclosure sales for 'hich themandatory notice of sale 'as given after une !!, !3%!. See Ea)on! 12! 4ass. at 62#,

6@@ 6@#. e are not persuaded. *orris is factually and procedurally in the identicalsituation as 'as >aton at the time of the Supreme udicial Court+s decisionin Ea)on. :mong other things, *orris advanced the same arguments to this court atthe same time those arguments 'ere being considered by the Supreme udicial Court.?t is certainly not *orris+s fault that the issue 'as first decided favorably in >aton+scase rather than in his, and it 'ould be ine/uitable to deprive him of its sameresolution. See S+a'i&o $. "o&ces)e&! 121 4ass. !2%, !2@ !2# (!3%"). ;or the samereason that the Supreme udicial Court applied its ruling retroactively to >atonhimself, 'e apply it to *orris. Ea)on! 12! 4ass. at 6@# (-:lthough 'e apply the rulearticulated in this case prospectively, 'e nonetheless apply it to 7this8 appeal becauseit has been argued to this court by >aton+). To do other'ise 'ould re/uire us toconclude that the Supreme udicial Court+s retroactive application to >aton 'asarbitrary. This, 'e are naturally loath to do.The summary &udgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedingsconsistent 'ith this decision, including permitting discovery regarding the holder ofthe note at the time of the foreclosure sale and regarding the servicing and poolingagreement. Deciding as 'e do, 'e need not (and do not) reach any of *orris+s otherarguments on appeal.

(o )rdered.

%. ;or *omura :sset :cceptance Corporation 4ortgage ass Through Certif icates Series !336 : ".

!. :nnette *orris, the 'ife of aul . *orris. aul . *orris proceeds on appeal pro se0 :nnette *orris hasnot participated on appeal.

". HSBC+s arguments on appeal regarding foreclosure by entry have been 'aived because HSBC+s onlyargument made belo' 'as that it had established its superior right of possession as a result of a validforeclosure by sale. See %a&e $. Ne En,lan* O&,an Bank! 112 4ass. !53 , !@6 (!332).

http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=462%20Mass.%20569http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20MACO%2020130228348.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR#FN_3http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=446%20Mass.%20270http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=462%20Mass.%20569http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20MACO%2020130228348.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR#FN_3http://www.leagle.com/xmlcontentlinks.aspx?gfile=446%20Mass.%20270