Thompson, et al v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 12

Judge Rya W. Zobel: ORDER entered granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint with prejudice. (Urso, Lisa)

Download PDF
Case 1:18-cv-10131-RWZ Document 12 Filed 05/11/18 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-10131-RWZ MARK R. THOMPSON and BETH A. THOMPSON v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. ORDER MAY 11, 2018 ZOBEL, S.D.J. Plaintiffs seek to void the foreclosure sale of their Massachusetts home, alleging that defendant failed strictly to comply with the notice requirements for default and acceleration set forth in paragraphs 22 and 19 of the mortgage agreement. Specifically, they claim that paragraph 19 required defendant to notify them that their postacceleration reinstatement rights would expire five days prior to foreclosure, and that the notice merely informing plaintiffs that they could avoid foreclosure by making payment “before a foreclosure sale takes place” was thus defective. Defendant moves to dismiss. In support, it has produced a Default and Acceleration Notice strictly complies with paragraph 22 and advises plaintiffs of their post-acceleration reinstatement rights, together with plaintiff’s receipt thereof. Because no more is required, the motion to dismiss (Docket # 8) is allowed. See Pinti v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., Inc., 33 N.E.3d 1213, 1221, 1226 (Mass. 2015) (holding that strict compliance with paragraph 22 notice of default language is condition of valid 1 Case 1:18-cv-10131-RWZ Document 12 Filed 05/11/18 Page 2 of 2 foreclosure sale, and voiding foreclosure in which plaintiffs given notice of right to defend, rather than to initiate, legal action; but without discussion of paragraph 19, noting that valid foreclosure does not require a mortgagee to demonstrate “punctilious performance of every single mortgage term,” and explicitly distinguishing between notice requirements for foreclosure versus acceleration); see also U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Schumacher, 5 N.E.3d 882, 890 (Mass. 2014) (statutory right to cure default before acceleration not part of foreclosure process itself and thus does not require strict compliance). Judgment may be entered dismissing the complaint with prejudice. May 11, 2018 DATE __________/s/Rya W. Zobel _ RYA W. ZOBEL SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?