SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

NO. SJC-10694
_____________________________________________________________
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES
CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006-Z,
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
v.

ANTONIO IBANEZ,
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.
______________________________________________________________
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
AS TRUSTEE FOR ABFC 2005-OPT 1 TRUST, ABFC ASSET
BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-OPT 1,
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
v.

MARK A. LARACE AND TAMMY L. LARACE,
DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.
________________________________________________________________
ON DIRECT APPELLSTE REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE LAND COURT
________________________________________________________________

BRIEF OF ANTONIO IBANEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
________________________________________________________________

Paul R. Collier, III, Esq.
Attorney at Law
675 Massachusetts Ave., 11th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 441-3303

Max W. Weinstein, Esq.
WilmerHale Legal Services Center
Of the Harvard Law School
122 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02130
617-522-3003

- i -

Tabl e of Cont ent s
I .   QUESTI ONS PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
I I .  STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
A.   Fact s bef or e t he Land Cour t at Ent r y of
Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
B.   Fact s pr esent ed t o t he Land Cour t i n t he Post -
Judgment Pr oceedi ngs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
1.   Document s pr omi sed, but never pr oduced by
Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
2.   Secur i t i zat i on Evi dence bef or e t he Cour t . . . . . . . . . . 6 
a)   Ti t l e and Conveyance Evi dence ................................................. 9 
b)   For ecl osur e Evi dence .................................................................... 12 
I I I .   SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
I V.  PLAI NTI FF- APPELLANT MI SSTATED THE STANDARD
GOVERNI NG REVI EWOF U. S. BANK’ S RULE 59 AND 60
MOTI ONS TO VACATE JUDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 
V.   MASSACHUSETTS FORECLOSURE STATUTES PERMI T ONLY A
NARROWCATEGORY OF PERSONS —PRI MARI LY, THE
MORTGAGEE —TO CONDUCT A FORECLOSURE SALE. . . . . . . . . . . . 17 
A.   A l ender can onl y obt ai n t he st at us and r i ght s
of a “ mor t gagee, ” i ncl udi ng t he r i ght t o
conduct a f or ecl osur e sal e, by means of a
wr i t t en cont r act wi t h t he mor t gagor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
B.   A par t y who i s not t he or i gi nal l ender and
mor t gagee under t he mor t gage cont r act can onl y
obt ai n t he st at us and cont r act ual r i ght s of t he
or i gi nal mor t gagee by means of a val i d, wr i t t en
assi gnment t o t hat par t y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 
C.   Non- mor t gagees possessi ng mer e “ f i nanci al
i nt er est s, ” “ spl i nt er ed r i ght s” or “ i ndi ci a of
owner shi p” cannot conduct a f or ecl osur e sal e
under G. L. c. 244, § 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 
D.   Nei t her REBA Ti t l e St andar d 58 nor i t s doomsday
scenar i o al t er s t he st at ut or y command t hat onl y
mar t gagees may f or ecl ose by sal e under G. L. c.
244 § 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 
- i i -
VI .  AT THE TI ME OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE, APPELLANT HAD
NOT OBTAI NED A WRI TTEN, VALI D ASSI GNMENT OF THE
MORTGAGEE’ S RI GHTS UNDER THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT. . . . . . . 30 
A.   U. S. Bank was not t he hol der of t he I banez
mor t gage when t he f or ecl osur e not i ces wer e
publ i shed and t he auct i on was conduct ed. . . . . . . . . . 32 
B.   Despi t e i t s unsuppor t ed r epr esent at i ons
r egar di ng an al l eged “ Tr ust Agr eement , ” U. S.
Bank submi t t ed no val i d wr i t i ng ef f ect uat i ng an
assi gnment of t he mor t gagee’ s r i ght s pr i or t o
conduct i ng a f or ecl osur e auct i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 
C.   The Pr i vat e Pl acement Memor andum di d not and
coul d not Convey t he I banez Mor t gage t o U. S.
Bank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 
D.   Even under I n r e Samuel s, t he l one
Massachuset t s deci si on on whi ch U. S. Bank
r el i es, t he al l eged t r ust agr eement cannot
demonst r at e U. S. Bank’ s aut hor i t y t o conduct a
f or ecl osur e sal e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 
E.   An “ Assi gnment i n Bl ank” Conveys Not hi ng . . . . . . . . 38 
F.   The Assi gnment f r om Rose Mor t gage t o Opt i on One
i s Voi d, as i t was al t er ed af t er i t s Execut i on
and Not ar i zat i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 
G.   The Post - For ecl osur e Assi gnment “ conf i r med”
Not hi ng. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 
H.   The Undat ed and Conf l i ct i ng Al l onges Make
doubt f ul Whet her U. S. Bank Possessed t he Not e
at t he Ti me of t he For ecl osur e Sal e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 
I .   Evi dence t hat t he I banez Mor t gage i s not
i ncl uded i n t he onl y avai l abl e l i st i ng of
Tr ust - hel d Mor t gages i s r eason enough t o deny
t he Bank’ s Mot i on t o Vacat e Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 
VI I .   U. S. BANK’ S ARGUMENT THAT THE LAND COURT ERRED
I N NOT APPLYI NG THE PROSPECTI VE APPLI CATI ON
DOCTRI NE TO A THI RTY FI VE YEAR OLD STATUTE I S
MERI TLESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 
VI I I .   THE COURT SHOULD DI SREGARD AND STRI KE FACTS AND
ARGUMENTS NOT PRESENTED BELOW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 
I X.  CONCLUSI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

- i i i -
Tabl e of Aut hor i t i es
Feder al Cases 
Adams v. Madi son Real t y & Devel opment , I nc. , 853
F. 2d 163 ( 3d Ci r . 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Est at e of Cowar t v. Ni ckl os Dr i l l i ng Co. , 505
U. S. 469 ( 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
I n r e Samuel s, 415 B. R. 8 ( Bankr . D. Mass. 2009) 37, 38, 44
I n Re Schwar t z, 366 B. R. 265 ( Bankr . D. Mass.
2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 35
Ni chol s v. Cadl e Cor p. , 139 F. 3d 59 ( 1st Ci r .
1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Saf f r an v. Novast ar Mor t gage, I nc. , No. 4: 07- cv-
40257- PBS ( D. Mass. Oct . 18, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 25
St at e Cases 
Bar nes v. Boar dman, 149 Mass. 106 ( 1889) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Beaupr e v. Cl i f f Smi t h & Assoc. , 50 Mass. App.
Ct . 480 ( 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Bost on Edi son Co. v. Br ookl i ne Real t y & I nv.
Cor p. , 10 Mass. App. Ct . 63 ( 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 50
Bot t oml y v. Kabachni ck, 13 Mass. App. Ct . 480
( 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 18, 20, 49
Bur ns v. Lynde, 6 Al l en 305 ( 1863) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 39, 40
Cor nwal l v. For ger , 27 Mass. App. Ct . 336 ( 1989) . . . . . . . . 29
Count r ywi de Home Loans, I nc. v. Hovanec, 15
Mi sc. 3d 1115( A) ( N. Y. Sup. Ct . , 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Count r ywi de Home Loans, I nc. v. Tayl or , 17
Mi sc. 3d 595 ( N. Y. Sup. Ct . , 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Cousbel i s v. Al exander , 315 Mass. 729 ( 1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Cul l en Ent er s. v. Mass. Pr oper t y I ns.
Under wr i t i ng Ass’ n, 399 Mass. 886, ( 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Des Br i say v. Foss, 264 Mass. 102 ( 1928) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Deut sche Bank Tr ust Co. Amer i cas v. Peabody, 866
N. Y. S. 2d 91 ( N. Y. Sup. Ct . 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
- i v-
East man v. Wr i ght , 6 Pi ck. 316 ( 1828) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 41
Fl avi n v. Mor r i sey, 327 Mass. 217 ( 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Goul d v. Wagner , 196 Mass. 270 ( 1907) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Hur l ey v. Br own, 98 Mass. 545 ( 1868) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Lamson & Co. v. Abr ams, 305 Mass. 238 ( 1940) . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Macur da v. Ful l er , 225 Mass. 341 ( 1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 42
Madsen v. I r wi n, 395 Mass 715 ( 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
McGr eevey v. Char l est own Fi ve Cent s Sav. Bank,
294 Mass. 480 ( 1936) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Nor t on v. Joseph, 2009 WL 58896, Docket No.
374733 ( CWT) ( Mass. Land. Ct . Jan. 12, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Phel ps v. Sul l i van, 140 Mass. 36 ( 1885) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Pi neo v. Execut i ve Counci l , 412 Mass. 31 ( 1992) . . . . . . . . . 48
Power s v. Or r , 10 Land Cour t Rpt r . 137 ( 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Power s v. Wi l ki nson, 399 Mass. 650 ( 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Roche v. Far nswor t h, 106 Mass. 509 ( 1871) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
S. Kembl e Fi scher Real t y Tr ust v. Boar d of
Appeal s, 9 Mass. App. Ct . 477 ( 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 50
Sahi n v. Sahi n, 435 Mass. 396 ( 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Scapl en v. Bl anchar d, 187 Mass. 73 ( 1904) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Ser vi ce Publ i cat i ons, I nc. v. Gover man, 396 Mass.
567 ( 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 50
Si t uat i on Mgmt . Sys. v. Mal ouf , I nc. , 430 Mass.
875 ( 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Sout hwest er n Resol ut i on Cor p. v. Wat son, 964
S. W. 2d 262 ( Tex. Comm’ n App. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Sul l i van v. Leonar d, 13 Land Cour t Rpt r . 482
( 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Town of Fr eepor t v. Ri ng, 727 A. 2d 901 ( Me. 1999) . . . . . . . 46
Tur ner v. Gr eenaway, 391 Mass. 1002 ( 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
- v-
U. S. Bank Nat ’ l Ass’ n v. I banez, 17 Mass. Land
Cour t Rpt r . 202 ( Mar . 26, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
U. S. Bank Nat ’ l Ass’ n v. I banez, 17 Mass. Land
Cour t Rpt r . 679 ( Oct . 14, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
U. S. Bank Nat ’ l . Ass’ n v. Kosak, 16 Mi sc. 3d
1133( A) ( N. Y. Sup. Ct . 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Uni t ed Technol ogi es Cor p. v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns.
Co. , 407 Mass. 591 ( 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
War den v. Adams, 15 Mass 233 ( 1818) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 41
St at e St at ut es 
Est . Power s & Tr ust s § 7- 2. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Massachuset t s Gener al Laws
Chapt er 106 § 3- 204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Massachuset t s Gener al Laws
Chapt er 183, § 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 19, 20, 21
Massachuset t s Gener al Laws
Chapt er 183, § 6C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Massachuset t s Gener al Laws
Chapt er 244, § 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Massachuset t s Gener al Laws
Chapt er 244, § 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passi m
Massachuset t s Gener al Laws
Chapt er 259, § 1( 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Rul es 
Massachuset t s Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60 ( b) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Tr eat i ses 
ARTHUR L. ENO, JR. , WI LLI AM V. HOVEY, ET AL, 28B
MASSACHUSETTS PRACTI CE: REAL ESTATE LAW, REBA Ti t l e
St andar d No. 58 ( 4
t h
Ed. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 
- 1-
I . QUESTI ONS PRESENTED
1. Whet her a Land Cour t j udge cor r ect l y ent er ed
j udgment agai nst U. S. Bank on t he gr ound
t hat G. L. c. 244, § 14, aut hor i zes a
f or ecl osur e onl y by t he hol der of t he
mor t gage, wher e t he r ecor d est abl i shed t hat
U. S. Bank di d not become t he hol der of t he
mor t gage unt i l f our t een mont hs af t er t he
f or ecl osur e sal e.

2. Whet her a Land Cour t j udge abused hi s
di scr et i on i n denyi ng U. S. Bank’ s Rul e 60( b)
mot i on t o vacat e j udgment on t he gr ounds
t hat U. S. Bank l acked a val i d, f or ecl osabl e
i nt er est at t he t i me of i t s f or ecl osur e
sal e, wher e U. S. Bank f ai l ed t o pr oduce
t i t l e document s as pr omi sed and as or der ed
pr oduced, and wher e t he Rul e 60( b) mot i on
was based upon cl ai med t i t l e obt ai ned by
mor t gage assi gnment s “ i n bl ank, ” a post -
f or ecl osur e mor t gage assi gnment , possessi on
of t he not e, and “ f i nanci al i nt er est [ s] ” ,
“ spl i nt er ed r i ght s” or “ i ndi ci a of
owner shi p?”

3. Whet her U. S. Bank can pr evai l on appeal on
t he basi s of ar gument s whi ch U. S. Bank
f ai l ed t o make i n t he Land Cour t
pr oceedi ngs?

I I . STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Fact s bef or e t he Land Cour t at Ent r y of
Judgment .
1

Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant U. S. Bank Nat i onal
Associ at i on ( “ Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant ” , “ Bank” or “ U. S.
Bank” ) , as Tr ust ee f or t he St r uct ur ed Asset Secur i t i es
Cor por at i on Mor t gage Pass- Thr ough Cer t i f i cat es, Ser i es
2006- Z ( t he “ Tr ust ” ) f i l ed a Compl ai nt t o Remove Cl oud
f r om Ti t l e ( “ Compl ai nt ” ) i n t he Land Cour t on
Sept ember 10, 2008. RA 9. As t o t he t i t l e i ssues

1
The st andar d of r evi ew f or t he Land Cour t ’ s t wo
deci si ons var i es mar kedl y. See Sect i on I V, i nf r a.
- 2-
r ai sed i n t hi s appeal , t he r ecor d bef or e t he Land
Cour t at t he ent r y of j udgment i n t hi s act i on was
l i mi t ed, consi st i ng of t he al l egat i ons of t he
Compl ai nt and st at ement s and admi ssi ons made by U. S.
Bank counsel at t he hear i ng on t he Mot i on f or Ent r y of
Def aul t Judgment . The Compl ai nt , at RA 18- 19, ¶¶ 3, 5
and 8, st at es si mpl y:
¶ 3. By vi r t ue of an Assi gnment f r om Amer i can
Home Mor t gage Ser vi ci ng Company …t o U. S. Bank
made on Sept ember 11, 2008 …by U. S. Bank became
t he hol der of a mor t gage f r om I banez t o Rose
Mor t gage …;

¶ 5. U. S. Bank caused a “ Not i ce of Mor t gagee’ s
Sal e of Real Est at e” t o be publ i shed on June 14,
2007, June 21, 2007, and June 28, 2007 …t hat t he
Pr oper t y woul d be sol d at auct i on on Jul y 5,
2007…;

¶ 8. On Jul y 5, 2007, t he Pr oper t y was dul y sol d
at auct i on t o U. S. Bank as t he hi ghest bi dder f or
Ni net y Four t housand Thr ee Hundr ed Fi f t y and
00/ 000 Dol l ar s ( $94, 350. 00) .

At t he hear i ng on t he mot i on f or ent r y of def aul t
j udgment ,
2
t he Land Cour t quest i oned t he l awf ul ness of
U. S. Bank’ s conduct i ng a f or ecl osur e sal e at a t i me
when U. S. Bank l acked any assi gnment of t he mor t gage:
The Cour t : Wel l , r i ght , but what I ’ m aski ng i s
why not do t hat , f i l e t he t hi ng [ pr oper

2
The t r anscr i pt s of t he Januar y 5, Febr uar y 11, and
Apr i l 27, 2009 Land Cour t hear i ngs bel i e U. S. Bank’ s
suggest i on, Appel l ant ’ s Br i ef ( “ App. Br . ” ) at 19 n. 6,
t hat i t f ai l ed t o submi t avai l abl e evi dence because of
t he Land Cour t ’ s “ sua spont e” act i on. To t he cont r ar y,
t he Land Cour t r ai sed t he t i t l e i ssues i n i t s f i r st
hear i ng on Januar y 5, and i n Apr i l ent er ed a wr i t t en
or der seeki ng pr oduct i on of f ur t her evi dence –
i ncl udi ng t he Tr ust Agr eement now “ pr of f er ed” by t he
bank. RA 692- 697.

- 3-
assi gnment ] and t hen pr oceed wi t h your
[ f or ecl osur e] not i ce

U. S. Bank: …I t was never r eal l y i dent i f i ed as a
pr obl em …admi t t edl y, i t ’ s t hei r own f aul t , t he
secur i t i zed i ndust r y, you know, has been caught
wi t h t hei r “ pant s down” so t o speak because t hey
haven’ t done a ver y good j ob of keepi ng on t op of
t he paper wor k, keepi ng ever ybody i nf or med, and
maki ng sur e al l t her e “ I s” wer e dot t ed and t hei r
“ Ts” wer e cr ossed.
And I t hi nk t her e’ s been a r i ppl e af f ect [ si c]
comi ng out of t hat , you know, at t or neys see t hat
happeni ng, t hey st ar t t o chal l enge t he st at us of
t i t l e. The t i t l e compani es see i t happeni ng, t hey
st ar t t o chal l enge t he st at us of t i t l e …I t el l
you f or our l aw f i r m we do j ust what you say. We
have changed our pr act i ce …and we don’ t st ar t
t he Not i ce of Sal e pr ocess unt i l we do t he
assi gnment and get i t of r ecor d.

RA 498- 501. Al so, U. S. Bank counsel t ol d t he
cour t t hat banks “ i nvar i abl y have us bi d t he val ue of
t he mor t gage …[ so] at l east f or t he bor r ower s t her e’ s
no def i ci ency. ” RA 502. The Land Cour t ’ s r evi ew of t he
f or ecl osur e sal e r ecor ds act ual l y f i l ed by U. S. Bank
est abl i shed, t o t he cont r ar y, t hat t he bank’ s pur chase
was “ $16, 437. 27 l ess t han t he amount of t he
out st andi ng l oan and 15% l ess t han t he bank’ s
cal cul at i on of t he pr oper t y’ s mar ket val ue. ” RA 579.
At t he cl ose of t he Febr uar y 11, 2009 hear i ng,
t he Land Cour t i nvi t ed U. S. Bank t o addr ess i t s
concer ns t hat G. L. c. 244, § 14 r equi r ed t hat t he
t hen- cur r ent hol der of t he mor t gage conduct t he
- 4-
f or ecl osur e sal e. RA 511.
3
The cour t t hen ent er ed
Judgment agai nst t he bank, hol di ng t hat :
To al l ow a f or ecl osi ng par t y, wi t hout any
i nt er est i n t he mor t gage at t he t i me of t he sal e
( r ecor ded or unr ecor ded) , t o conduct t he sal e i n
t hese ci r cumst ances, bi d and t hen acqui r e good
t i t l e by l at er assi gnment i s compl et el y cont r ar y
t o G. L. c. 244, § 14’ s i nt ent and commands.
U. S. Bank Nat ’ l Ass’ n v. I banez, 17 Mass. Land Cour t
Rpt r . 202, 207 ( Mar . 26, 2009) ( her ei naf t er I banez I , )
B. Fact s pr esent ed t o t he Land Cour t i n t he
Post - Judgment Pr oceedi ngs.
U. S. Bank t hen moved t o vacat e t he Land Cour t ’ s
j udgment , and a hear i ng was hel d on t hat mot i on on
Apr i l 27, 2009. At t hat hear i ng, U. S. Bank counsel
af f i r mat i vel y r epr esent ed t hat t he bank woul d pr oduce
document s “ t o r ef l ect t hat t hi s par t i cul ar not e and
mor t gage at some poi nt pr i or t o t he f or ecl osur e wer e
sol d and assi gned i nt o a secur i t i zed t r ust . ” RA691.
Upon i nqui r y, U. S. Bank speci f i ed t he evi dence whi ch
i t woul d pr oduce i n suppor t of i t s mot i on t o vacat e
j udgment , whi ch i ncl uded t he “ document s t hat cr eat ed
t he secur i t i zed t r ust , ” and document s i dent i f yi ng t he
“ bl ocks of mor t gages sol d i nt o t he t r ust …whi ch wi l l
i ncl ude t hese mor t gages. ” RA 692- 93. The Land Cour t
emphasi zed t hat U. S. Bank’ s f i l i ng i n suppor t of t he

3
The Land Cour t j udge ci t ed Bot t oml y v. Kabachni ck, 13
Mass. App. Ct . 480, 483- 84 ( 1982) , whi ch hel d t hat
“ t he f i r st not i ce of sal e was def ect i ve because i t
f ai l ed t o i dent i f y t he hol der of t he mor t gage, t her eby
r ender i ng t he f i r st f or ecl osur e sal e voi d as a mat t er
of l aw. ”
- 5-
mot i on t o vacat e j udgment was t o r ef l ect t he r ecor ds
“ at t he t i me of t he f or ecl osur e sal e. ” RA 734.
The Cour t ent er ed a docket or der on Apr i l 27,
2009, whi ch aut hor i zed f i l i ng of onl y t he f ol l owi ng:
( 1) t he document s whi ch cr eat ed t he secur i t i zed
t r ust and gover n i t s oper at i ons, ( 2) t he
document s i dent i f yi ng t he “ bl ocks of mor t gages
sol d i nt o t hat t r ust , ” whi ch pur por t edl y i ncl ude
t he mor t gage at i ssue i n t hi s case, ( 3) t he
“ col l at er al f i l e” f or t he mor t gage as i t exi st ed
at t he t i me t he f or ecl osur e sal e was not i ced and
conduct ed, whi ch was r epr esent ed t o i ncl ude t he
or i gi nal not e, t he or i gi nal ( or a copy) of t he
mor t gage, endor sement s or assi gnment s “ i n bl ank, ”
“ ot her document s, ” and per haps a t i mel y
assi gnment i n r ecor dabl e f or m, [ and} ( 4) t he
mast er ser vi ci ng agr eement , showi ng t he
r el at i onshi p bet ween t he t r ust and t he l oan
ser vi cer ( whi ch appar ent l y was t he ent i t y
i nst r uct i ng and super vi si ng t he at t or neys who
not i ced and conduct ed t he f or ecl osur e) …, The
cour t has concer ns about t he appar ent pr act i ce of
assi gnment s “ i n bl ank, ” what pl ai nt i f f means by
t hat t er m, t he l egal suf f i ci ency of such a
pr act i ce i n t he cont ext of mor t gage assi gnment s
and G. L. c. 244, § 14, and t he possi bi l i t y t hat
names may have been pl aced on t hose document s
post - not i ce and post - sal e. Accor di ngl y, al l
document s r ef l ect i ng or pur por t i ng t o r ef l ect an
assi gnment of t he pr omi ssor y not e or mor t gage
must be pr oduced i n t he f or m t hey exi st ed at t he
t i me t he f or ecl osur e sal e was not i ced and
conduct ed, al ong wi t h an af f i davi t f r om a wi t ness
wi t h di r ect per sonal knowl edge so at t est i ng. That
wi t ness must al so be avai l abl e f or exami nat i on at
an evi dent i ar y hear i ng i f t he cour t so di r ect s.

RA 742- 3. The Cour t Or der ed t hese document s f i l ed
no l at er t han May 27, 2009. I d.
1. Document s pr omi sed, but never pr oduced
by Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant s.
Most r emar kabl y, and despi t e a f ur t her ext ensi on
of t i me al l owed by t he Land Cour t , U. S. Bank never
pr oduced any document i dent i f yi ng t he mor t gages hel d
- 6-
by U. S. Bank, even t hough t he secur i t i zat i on r ecor ds
whi ch U. S. Bank pr ovi ded expr essl y r equi r ed t hat
“ [ e] ach Mor t gage Loan wi l l be i dent i f i ed i n a schedul e
appear i ng as an exhi bi t t o t he Tr ust Agr eement ” . RA
1295, 1522 ( Lar ace PSA r equi r i ng l i st i ng of “ each
Mor t gage i dent i f i ed on t he Mor t gage Loan schedul es” ) .
U. S. Bank al so f ai l ed t o pr oduce any of t he document s
cr eat i ng t he Tr ust ,
5
and never pr oduced an “ af f i davi t
f r om a wi t ness wi t h di r ect per sonal knowl edge…
at t est i ng ( t hat ) al l document s r ef l ect i ng or
pur por t i ng t o r ef l ect an assi gnment of t he pr omi ssor y
not e or mor t gage ( wer e) pr oduced i n t he f or m t hey
exi st ed at t he t i me t he f or ecl osur e sal e was not i ced
and conduct ed” ; i nst ead, U. S. Bank’ s f i l i ngs wer e
accompani ed by af f i davi t s mer el y st at i ng t hat U. S.
Bank had pr oduced what ever document s i t f ound i n i t s
cust odi an’ s f i l es i n May, 2009. RA 1071- 82.
2. Secur i t i zat i on Evi dence bef or e t he
Cour t .
Al t hough i t di d not compl y wi t h ei t her i t s
r epr esent at i ons t o t he Land Cour t , or wi t h t he Land

5
I n what can onl y be char act er i zed as del i ber at e
di st or t i on, U. S. Bank f i r st ci t es an al l eged Tr ust
Agr eement i t f ai l ed t o pr oduce as oper at i ng as a
conveyance, and t hen cl ai ms t hat t he same Tr ust
Agr eement was not pr oduced because “ t he par t i es never
engaged i n di scover y r el at ed t o t he secur i t i zat i on
agr eement s” . See App. Br . at 19- 20, n. 6.
Unsur pr i si ngl y, t he Bank does not di scl ose t hat i t
pr omi sed t o pr oduce t hat ver y Tr ust Agr eement , or t hat
t he Land Cour t ent er ed an or der memor i al i zi ng t he U. S.
Bank’ s r epr esent at i ons. I d.
- 7-
Cour t ’ s Apr i l 27, 2009 or der , U. S. Bank di d pr oduce
some secur i t i zat i on r ecor ds i n t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow:
i ncl udi ng a “ Pr i vat e Pl acement Memor andum” ( “ PPM” )
dat ed December 26, 2006, whi ch pur por t ed t o descr i be
act i ons whi ch “ wi l l ” be t aken at a f ut ur e dat e t o f or m
t he “ St r uct ur ed Asset Secur i t i es Cor por at i on Mor t gage
Loan Tr ust , 2006- Z” ( “ SASC” ) , RA 1169- 1441, and t o
convey asset s t o t hat Tr ust .
6
That Pr i vat e Pl acement
Memor andum expr essl y st at es t hat :
Each Mor t gage Loan hel d …wi l l be i dent i f i ed i n a
schedul e appear i ng as an exhi bi t t o t he Tr ust
Agr eement whi ch wi l l speci f y wi t h r espect t o each
Mor t gage Loan, among ot her t hi ngs, t he or i gi nal
pr i nci pal bal ance and t he Schedul ed Pr i nci pal
Bal ance as of cl ose of busi ness on t he cut - of f
dat e
RA 1295 The PPM r equi r ed t hat “ [ a] s t o each mor t gage
l oan” , U. S. Bank shal l al so r ecei ve “ an or i gi nal
assi gnment of t he mor t gage t o [ U. S. Bank] or i n bl ank
i n r ecor dabl e f or m. ” I d.
7
The PPM al so pr ovi des t hat
Lehman Br ot her s Hol di ngs, I nc. ( “ Lehman Br ot her s” )
wi l l sel l t he mor t gage l oans t o t he par t y t hat woul d


6
The pr ecat or y nat ur e of t he PPM i s si gni f i cant i n
l i ght of U. S. Bank’ s newl y asser t ed cl ai m t hat t he PPM
pr oves a l egal l y ef f ect i ve conveyance. App. Br . at 10-
11, and 19- 20.
7
The Lar ace PSA i s even st r i ct er i n i t s assi gnment
r equi r ement s: r equi r i ng bot h “ an or i gi nal Assi gnment
of Mor t gage ( whi ch may be i n bl ank) , i n f or m and
subst ance accept abl e f or r ecor di ng” and “ an or i gi nal
copy of any i nt er veni ng assi gnment of Mor t gage showi ng
a compl et e chai n of assi gnment s” . RA 1522- 1523.
Obvi ousl y, no such r ecor ds wer e pr oduced i n t he
r el at ed Lar ace act i on.

- 8-
ul t i mat el y sel l t he l oans t o U. S. Bank, RA 1179, t hat
“ [ a] ppr oxi mat el y 46. 28%…of t he Mor t gage Loans wer e
acqui r ed by [ Lehman Br ot her s] f r om Opt i on One Mor t gage
Cor por at i on, ” RA 1242 ( emphasi s added) , and t hat
“ [ a] ppr oxi mat el y 46. 28% …of t he Mor t gage Loans wer e
or i gi nat ed gener al l y i n compl i ance wi t h t he Opt i on One
Under wr i t i ng Gui del i nes” , RA 1250: mer i t i ng t he
concl usi on t hat al l of t he l oans whi ch Lehman Br ot her s
pur chased f r om Opt i on One Mor t gage Cor por at i on
( “ Opt i on One” ) wer e or i gi nat ed by Opt i on One. I d.
Fi nal l y, U. S. Bank pr oduced a “ bai l ee l et t er ” dat ed
May 11, 2009 aut hor i zi ng i t s counsel t o “ commence and
pr osecut e a f or ecl osur e act i on” as t o t he I banez l oan,
wi t h “ For ecl osur e St ar t Dat e of 04- 09- 07. ” RA 959.
I n cont r ast , t he r ecor d cont ai ns publ i c f i nanci al
r epor t i ng dat a f r om t he Tr ust —submi t t ed t o t he Land
Cour t by I banez —whi ch i ndi cat es t hat t he I banez
mor t gage i s not an asset of t he Tr ust . I banez
Suppl ement al Appendi x ( “ I SA” ) 22- 54 The “ Mor t gage
Pass- Thr ough Cer t i f i cat es” i ssued by t he Tr ust wer e
appar ent l y “ not r egi st er ed under t he Secur i t i es Act …
or any st at e secur i t i es or bl ue sky l aws, but wer e
i nst ead …of f er ed f or sal e i n one or mor e pr i vat el y
negot i at ed t r ansact i ons. ” RA 1173. Dat a f r om such
“ Pr i vat e Of f er i ngs” i s avai l abl e, however , t hr ough
- 9-
Bl oomber g Pr of essi onal Ser vi ce.
8
I SA 19- 21. Thr ough
Bl oomber g, a sear ch obt ai ned a r epor t i dent i f yi ng
mor t gage- asset s backi ng t he St r uct ur ed Asset
Secur i t i es Cor por at i on Mor t gage Pass- Thr ough
Cer t i f i cat es Ser i es 2006- Z.
9
I SA 22- 54. No Ser i es 2006-
Z ent r y i n t he Bl oomber g r epor t i dent i f i ed any
mor t gage l oan hel d by U. S. Bank i n t he I banez l oan
amount ; no Ser i es 2006- Z ent r y showed such a
Massachuset t s “ mor t gage l oan i n f or ecl osur e” or “ i n
REO” . I d. I ndeed, t he Bl oomber g r epor t evi dences t hat
t he I banez l oan i s not owned by U. S. Bank i n i t s
capaci t y as Tr ust ee. I d.
a) Ti t l e and Conveyance Evi dence
U. S. Bank pr oduced a December 1, 2005 Rose
Mor t gage Not e and Mor t gage t o suppor t t he cont ent i on
t hat i t owned t he I banez mor t gage pr i or t o t he
f or ecl osur e sal e. RA 960, 967. The t er ms of t he I banez
mor t gage pr ovi de, i nt er al i a, t hat :
Lender i s Rose Mor t gage, I nc. . . Lender i s t he
mor t gagee under t hi s Secur i t y I nst r ument …
[ To secur e hi s per f or mance] Bor r ower does her eby
mor t gage, gr ant and convey t o Lender and Lender ’ s
successor s and assi gns, wi t h power of sal e, t he
[ Pr oper t y] …
Lender …may i nvoke t he STATUTORY POWER OF SALE…
and t he Pr oper t y shal l be sol d i n t he manner
pr escr i bed by Appl i cabl e Law.


8
See Af f i davi t of Thomas A. Tar t er , I SA 55, t o t he
ef f ect t hat Bl oomber g f i nanci al dat a compi l at i ons ar e
r out i nel y r el i ed upon by t he publ i c, and by t hose
engaged i n f i nanci al and banki ng ser vi ce sect or s f or
t hei r act i vi t i es.
9
See Af f i davi t of Max Wei nst ei n, I SA 19.
- 10-
RA 967, 968, 977 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .
10


Fol l owi ng t he execut i on of t he i ni t i al mor t gage,
on December 8, 2005, Rose Mor t gage execut ed and had
not ar i zed t he or i gi nal Assi gnment of t he I banez
Mor t gage, t o no one ( or “ i n bl ank” – i . e. , wi t h no
assi gnee named) .
11
The or i gi nal Assi gnment t hen
r eappear s, wi t h t he same si gnat ur es, dat es and
not ar i zat i ons, i dent i f i ed t hi s t i me as a “ Cer t i f i ed
Tr ue Copy” ; however , when i t r eappear s, t he “ Cer t i f i ed
Tr ue Copy” had been al t er ed i n mul t i pl e ways: one of
whi ch was t he post - not ar i zat i on addi t i on, by cor por at e
st amp, of an assi gnee – “ Opt i on One Mor t gage
Cor por at i on, a Cal i f or ni a Cor por at i on. ” RA 999. That
same document , wi t h t he exact same si gnat ur e and t he
exact same not ar i zat i on i n t he exact same l ocat i on on
t he document , was t hen al t er ed yet anot her t i me: t hi s
t i me, as t he “ or i gi nal Assi gnment ” upon whi ch U. S.
Bank r el i es f or i t s owner shi p of t he I banez mor t gage.
RA 987. By t hi s i t er at i on, t he al t er or has added by
yet anot her r ubber st amp an addr ess f or Opt i on One –
“ 3 ADA, I r vi ne, CA 92618, ” al ong wi t h al t er ed mai l i ng
and di f f er ent r ecor di ng i nf or mat i on. I d. And,

10
Not abl y, t he I banez mor t gage expr essl y di st i ngui shes
bet ween t he “ Lender ” and “ any pur chaser of t he Not e” .
RA 973, ¶ 3. Onl y t he Lender i s aut hor i zed t o “ i nvoke
t he STATUTORY POWER OF SALE. ” RA 977.
11
Thi s assi gnment was pr oduced by U. S. Bank, was f i l ed
i n t he cour t bel ow, and i s i ncl uded i n t he I banez
Suppl ement al Appendi x, ( “ I SA” ) at 1.

- 11-
f ol l owi ng t hese r epeat edl y al t er ed assi gnment s of t he
Rose mor t gage, U. S. Bank has yet anot her assi gnment of
t he I banez mor t gage: once agai n t o no one ( “ i n
bl ank” ) , but t hi s t i me execut ed by Opt i on One, and
dat ed Januar y 23, 2006, but never r ecor ded. RA 989.
Si mi l ar f l aws i mpeach t he i nt egr i t y of t he
“ Al l onges” U. S. Bank cl ai ms br i ng t he Not e i nt o t he
Tr ust . Compar e RA 965 and I SA 5. Speci f i cal l y, U. S.
Bank’ s “ Col l at er al Fi l e” cont ai ns not onl y t he post -
not ar i zat i on- adul t er at ed Mor t gage Assi gnment , but an
“ Al l onge t o Not e” endor sed t o “ Opt i on One Mor t gage
Cor por at i on” by Ral ph Vi t i el l o, “ Chi ef Execut i ve
Of f i cer , ” succeeded by a Not ar i zat i on t hat on December
8, 2005, Ral ph Vi t i el l o …Execut i ve Vi ce Pr esi dent of
Rose Mor t gage, I nc. “ execut ed t hi s i nst r ument ” .
However , i n t he Loan Or i gi nat i on f i l e appear s an
“ Al l onge t o Not e” , i n i dent i cal f or m, handwr i t t en,
endor sed “ Pay t o t he or der of [ bl ank] , WI THOUT
RECOURSE” , and execut ed by “ Mi chael Pet t r ucel l i , Vi ce
Pr esi dent ” I SA 4. Nei t her was dat ed. I d. And, t o r ound
out t he i nt egr i t y of t i t l e mi sst eps, U. S. Bank’ s t i t l e
cl ai m depends upon an “ Al l onge t o ( t he Rose Mor t gage)
Not e ( I nvest or ) ” execut ed by “ Opt i on One Mor t gage
Cor por at i on, a Cal i f or ni a Cor por at i on” on December 1,
2005 – or t he same day as t he l oan cl osed and one week
bef or e t he Rose Mor t gage al l onge conveyi ng t he Not e t o
Opt i on One was execut ed. RA 966.
- 12-
Then, on Sept ember 2, 2008, f our t een mont hs af t er
t he f or ecl osur e sal e, Amer i can Home Mor t gage
Ser vi ci ng, I nc. ( “ Amer i can Home” ) “ as successor i n
i nt er est t o Opt i on One Mor t gage Cor por at i on, ”
pur por t ed t o execut e an Assi gnment of t he I banez
Mor t gage t o U. S. Bank, as Tr ust ee. RA 1066- 67.
b) For ecl osur e Evi dence
I n June 2007, U. S. Bank publ i shed t hr ee Not i ces
of Mor t gagee’ s Sal e of Real Est at e, asser t i ng t hat
U. S. Bank, as Tr ust ee “ i s t he cur r ent hol der ” of t he
I banez mor t gage. RA 1065. Cl ai mi ng t o be t he t hen-
mor t gage hol der , U. S. Bank sol d t he I banez pr oper t y t o
i t sel f on Jul y 5, 2007, f or si gni f i cant l y l ess t han
t he f ai r mar ket val ue of t he pr oper t y and t he mor t gage
i ndebt edness. RA 579, 1064. Ten mont hs l at er , U. S.
Bank r ei t er at ed i t s “ hol der ” st at us i n i t s r ecor ded
f or ecl osur e deed and af f i davi t . RA 1063- 64. Four
mont hs af t er t hat , U. S. Bank obt ai ned, f or t he f i r st
t i me, an assi gnment of t he I banez Mor t gage execut ed by
Amer i can Home, pur por t edl y as successor i n i nt er est t o
Opt i on One Mor t gage Cor por at i on. RA 1066- 67.
I I I . SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
I n some r espect s, t hi s appeal i s si mpl e and
st r ai ght f or war d. Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant U. S. Bank
f or ecl osed on a mor t gage by sal e on Jul y 2, 2007, and
r ecei ved i t s assi gnment of t he f or ecl osed mor t gage
f our t een mont hs l at er . ( pp. 16- 30) Thi s f or ecl osur e
- 13-
sal e was under t aken pur suant t o st at ut or y pr ovi si ons
whi ch r equi r ed t hat non- j udi ci al f or ecl osur e sal es be
conduct ed onl y by mor t gagees, or t hei r assi gnees. ( pp.
17- 18) The f or ecl osur e sal e was aut hor i zed by a power
of sal e i n t he mor t gage bei ng f or ecl osed, whi ch
al l owed onl y t he or i gi nal l ender and i t s assi gnees t o
exer ci se t he power , and U. S. Bank was nei t her . ( pp.
16- 17) Judi ci al pr ecedent est abl i shes t hat
f or ecl osur es under such power s of sal e must st r i ct l y
compl y wi t h t he t er ms of t he power – and i nval i dat es
f or ecl osur e sal es whi ch do not name t he mor t gagee at
t he t i me of sal e. ( pp. 18- 40) Consequent l y, i t seems
unr emar kabl e t hat t he Land Cour t i nval i dat ed t he U. S.
Bank f or ecl osur e sal e, and deni ed i t s mot i on t o vacat e
j udgment ; a hol di ng whi ch shoul d be af f i r med, gi ven
t he def er ence af f or ded t r i al cour t s’ Rul e 60
deci si ons. ( pp. 16- 17)
The appeal t akes on gr eat er si gni f i cance,
however , because Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant U. S. Bank i nsi st s
t hat r equi r i ng f or ecl osi ng ent i t i es t o possess l egal l y
suf f i ci ent and val i d document s est abl i shi ng t i t l e
bef or e f or ecl osur e over - bur dens secur i t i zed
conveyances. ( pp. 30- 44) U. S. Bank ar gues t hat t hi s
Cour t shoul d di scar d t he r equi r ement t hat onl y
ent i t i es wi t h t hen- val i d assi gnment s of mor t gagees’
r i ght s may l awf ul l y f or ecl ose upon an under l yi ng
mor t gage; and t hat t hi s Cour t shoul d hol d t hat an
- 14-
ent i t y wi t h mer e “ f i nanci al i nt er est s[ s] ” or
“ spl i nt er ed r i ght s” may conduct f or ecl osur e
sal es. ( pp. 23- 33) However , t he r ul e t hat U. S. Bank asks
t hi s Cour t t o cr eat e i s cont r ar y t o bot h st at ut or y
commandment s and expl i ci t cont r act ual agr eement s
bet ween t he bor r ower s and l ender s t hemsel ves, and,
mor eover , l i kel y t o add uncer t ai nt y and i naccur acy t o
f or ecl osur e t i t l es.
The conf l i ct act ual l y pr esent ed by t hi s appeal
i s, i ndeed, a si gni f i cant one. ( pp. 30- 46) For
l i t er al l y hundr eds of year s, our syst em of
conveyanci ng and r ecor di ng of t i t l es, deeds, and
assi gnment s has pr ovi ded cer t ai nt y and doct r i nes
devel oped t o pr ot ect i nt egr i t y of t i t l e have ser ved
wel l . ( pp. 30- 46) The secur i t i zat i on document s – and
speci f i cal l y, t he secur i t i zat i on document s f or t he
secur i t i zed t r ust s at i ssue i n t hi s appeal –
i ncor por at e, and r equi r e compl i ance wi t h, appl i cabl e
t i t l e and assi gnment r ecor di ng r ul es f or t he
secur i t i zed mor t gages hel d by t hem. ( pp. 35- 36)
However , nei t her t r ust has pr ovi ded evi dence t hat i t
compl i ed wi t h t he r ecor di ng r equi r ement s of t hei r own
t r ust document s, or t he f or ecl osur e st at ut es and
cont r act ual t er ms whi ch gover n conveyance and
owner shi p of t hese mor t gages. I d. I nst ead, U. S. Bank
ar gues t hat t hi s Cour t shoul d do what U. S. Bank’ s own
gover ni ng r ul es do not : r el ax or abr ogat e r equi r ement s
- 15-
whi ch ensur e t hat t i t l e t o r eal pr oper t y i s publ i c and
t r anspar ent , and al l ow undi scl osed and pr i vat e
conveyance of mor t gages, and even non- j udi ci al
f or ecl osur e sal es based on pr i vat e and undi scl osed
conveyance, i n t he name of expedi ency. ( pp. 23- 44)
The r ecor d her e evi dences r epeat ed i nst ances of
car el ess – even r eckl ess – t r eat ment of l ong- st andi ng
r ul es gover ni ng t he i nt egr i t y of conveyanci ng
document s, and car el ess – even r eckl ess – di sr egar d of
st at ut or y and cont r act ual obl i gat i ons gover ni ng non-
j udi ci al pr oper t y f or ecl osur es. ( pp. 41- 46) I ndeed,
t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d whi ch l ends conf i dence
t o t he i nt egr i t y t hat pr i vat e, undi scl osed and
unr ecor ded secur i t i zed conveyances woul d have, wer e
t he Cour t t o accept t he i nvi t at i on t o abr ogat e t he
t i t l e pr ot ect i ons cont ai ned i n mor t gages and
f or ecl osur e st at ut es. I d. Mor e i mpor t ant l y, t he
st at ut or y pr ot ect i ons U. S. Bank vi ol at ed ar e cl ear and
unequi vocal , and i t s r emedy, i f any, l i es i n t he
l egi sl at ur e. ( pp. 17- 32)
Fi nal l y, U. S. Bank f ai l ed t o even pr esent t he
cl ai ms and evi dence upon whi ch i t r el i es on appeal
dur i ng t he t r i al cour t pr oceedi ngs. ( pp. 47- 50) I t s
i mpr oper at t empt s t o asser t t hese mat er i al s f or t he
f i r st t i me i n t hi s appeal shoul d be r ej ect ed, as
shoul d i t s mer i t l ess i nsi st ence t hat decades- ol d
- 16-
st at ut or y r equi r ement s shoul d be appl i ed onl y t o
f ut ur e conveyances. ( pp. 47- 49)
I V. PLAI NTI FF- APPELLANT MI SSTATED THE STANDARD
GOVERNI NG REVI EWOF U. S. BANK’ S RULE 59 AND 60
MOTI ONS TO VACATE JUDGMENT
Def endant - Appel l ee concur s t hat r evi ew of t he
Land Cour t ’ s ent r y of def aul t j udgment i s de novo.
However , U. S. Bank mat er i al l y mi sst at ed t he st andar d
f or r evi ew of t he deni al of U. S. Bank’ s Rul e 59 and
60( b) ( 1) and ( 2) Mot i ons t o Vacat e Judgment , as t he
Cour t wi l l r ever se t he deni al of U. S. Bank ‘ s mot i on
onl y f or “ cl ear abuse of di scr et i on” - wi t h “ mar ked
def er ence t o t he l ower cour t ’ s r esol ut i on” :
I n a mot i on under subsect i on ( 1) of r ul e 60 ( b) ,
t he movi ng par t y bear s t he bur den of j ust i f yi ng
t he mot i on …and “ must make some showi ng of why
he was j ust i f i ed i n f ai l i ng t o avoi d mi st ake or
i nadver t ence” . Rel i ef i s not j ust i f i ed f or “ any
ki nd of gar den- var i et y over si ght ” …I nst ead,
“ [ t ] he i nadver t ence, mi st ake or sur pr i se as wel l
as negl ect must be excusabl e…. The movi ng par t y
may pr evai l onl y i f “ t he evi dence r el i ed on was
not avai l abl e …f or i nt r oduct i on at t he or i gi nal
[ pr oceedi ng] by t he exer ci se of r easonabl e
di l i gence …” I f t he movi ng par t y f ai l s t o show
why he di d not have t he evi dence at t he t i me of
t he or i gi nal pr oceedi ng, t he par t y wi l l not
pr evai l …
Resol ut i on of a r ul e 60 ( b) mot i on r est s i n t he
di scr et i on of t he t r i al j udge, and we “ wi l l show
mar ked def er ence t o t he l ower cour t ’ s r esol ut i on
of such a mot i on. ” A deni al of a r ul e 60 ( b)
mot i on “ wi l l be set asi de onl y on a cl ear showi ng
of an abuse of di scr et i on. ”

Cul l en Ent er s. v. Mass. Pr oper t y I ns. Under wr i t i ng
Ass’ n, 399 Mass. 886, 893- 94 ( 1987)

( i nt er nal ci t at i ons
omi t t ed) ; accor d Sahi n v. Sahi n, 435 Mass. 396, 399
- 17-
( 2001) ( “ The j udge’ s det er mi nat i on under r ul e 60( b)
wi l l not be di st ur bed absent abuse of di scr et i on. ” ) .
V. MASSACHUSETTS FORECLOSURE STATUTES PERMI T ONLY A
NARROWCATEGORY OF PERSONS —PRI MARI LY, THE
MORTGAGEE —TO CONDUCT A FORECLOSURE SALE.
The Massachuset t s f or ecl osur e sal e st at ut e i s
cl ear and unambi guous; onl y t he f ol l owi ng may conduct
a f or ecl osur e pur suant t o a power of sal e:
[ t ] he mor t gagee or per son havi ng hi s est at e i n
t he l and mor t gaged, or a per son aut hor i zed by t he
power of sal e, or t he at t or ney dul y aut hor i zed by
a wr i t i ng under seal , or t he l egal guar di an or
conser vat or of such mor t gagee or per son act i ng i n
t he name of such mor t gagee or per son, may, upon
br each of condi t i on and wi t hout act i on, do al l
t he act s aut hor i zed or r equi r ed by t he power …

G. L. c. 244, § 14. Thi s l i mi t at i on of per sons l egal l y
aut hor i zed t o exer ci se t he power of sal e r epeat s
t hr oughout t he Massachuset t s f or ecl osur e st at ut es:
A mor t gagee may, af t er br each of condi t i on of a
mor t gage of l and, r ecover possessi on of t he l and
mor t gaged by an open and peaceabl e ent r y t her eon
…G. L c. 244, § 1;
…upon any def aul t …t he mor t gagee or hi s
execut or s, admi ni st r at or s, successor s or assi gns
may sel l t he mor t gaged pr emi ses. G. L. c. 183,
§ 21
Massachuset t s cour t s have uni f or ml y enf or ced t hi s
unequi vocal r equi r ement i n appl yi ng G. L. c. 244, § 14:
I t i s f ami l i ar l aw t hat one who sel l s under a
power must f ol l ow st r i ct l y i t s t er ms. I f he f ai l s
t o do so t her e i s no val i d execut i on of t he power
and t he sal e i s whol l y voi d …The manner i n whi ch
t he not i ce of t he pr oposed sal e shal l be gi ven i s
one of t he i mpor t ant t er ms of t he power , and a
st r i ct compl i ance wi t h i t i s essent i al t o t he
val i d exer ci se of t he power …A pur chaser under a
power of sal e must see t o i t at hi s per i l t hat
t her e has been a compl i ance wi t h t he l egal and
essent i al t er ms of t he power . I f t her e has not
- 18-
been, t hen he i s not pr ot ect ed whet her act i ng i n
good f ai t h or not .
McGr eevey v. Char l est own Fi ve Cent s Sav. Bank, 294
Mass. 480, 484 ( 1936) ; accor d, Bot t oml y v. Kabachni ck,
13 Mass. App. Ct . 480 ( 1990) ; Lamson & Co. v. Abr ams,
305 Mass. 238 ( 1940) ; Roche v. Far nswor t h, 106 Mass.
509, 513 ( 1871) . Mor eover , t he power of sal e must be
exer ci sed accor di ng t o t he expr ess t er ms of t he
under l yi ng cont r act , and t he I banez mor t gage
aut hor i zes onl y t he mor t gagee, or an ent i t y t hen-
hol di ng a val i d assi gnment f r om t he mor t gagee, t o
f or ecl ose under t he cont r act ual power of sal e:
[ T] he onl y per son aut hor i zed by t he I banez
mor t gage t o i nvoke t he power of sal e i s t he
“ Lender ” , def i ned i n t he mor t gage as Rose
Mor t gage, I nc. i n i t s capaci t y as mor t gagee …
Thus, i n f ul l accor dance wi t h Massachuset t s l aw…,
t he mor t gage aut hor i zes onl y t he mor t gagee or a
val i d assi gnee of t he mor t gagee t o i nvoke t he
st at ut or y power of sal e. Thi s does not i ncl ude a
per son or ent i t y whi ch onl y hol ds t he not e. See
Mor t gage at 7, t hi r d f ul l par agr aph
( di st i ngui shi ng bet ween “ Lender ” and “ any
pur chaser of t he Not e” ) .

U. S. Bank Nat ’ l Ass’ n v. I banez, 17 Mass. Land Cour t
Rpt r . 679, 688 n. 53 ( Oct . 14, 2009) ( her ei naf t er
“ I banez I I ” ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Not hi ng i n
t he mor t gage aut hor i zes a power of sal e f or ecl osur e by
an ent i t y t hat possesses onl y “ f i nanci al i nt er est [ s] ” ,
“ spl i nt er ed r i ght s” or “ i ndi ci a of owner shi p. ” App.
Br . ( “ App. Br . ” ) at 34- 37.
- 19-
A. A l ender can onl y obt ai n t he st at us and
r i ght s of a “ mor t gagee, ” i ncl udi ng t he r i ght
t o conduct a f or ecl osur e sal e, by means of a
wr i t t en cont r act wi t h t he mor t gagor .
A mor t gage l ender does not become a “ mor t gagee”
mer el y by maki ng a l oan t o a homeowner . Pr omi ssor y
not es, i ncl udi ng t he I banez pr omi ssor y not e, cont ai n
no power of sal e and do not aut hor i ze a l ender t o
conduct a f or ecl osur e. RA 890- 93, 960- 63.
I nst ead, a l ender becomes a mor t gagee and obt ai ns
t he r i ght s of a mor t gagee onl y when a mor t gagor
conf er s t hat st at us upon a l ender by means of separ at e
mor t gage cont r act . I n Massachuset t s, a “ t i t l e- t heor y”
st at e, t hat mor t gage cont r act act s as a conveyance t o
t he l ender of l egal t i t l e t o t he mor t gaged pr oper t y.
See, e. g. , Lamson & Co. , 305 Mass. at 240 ( An
assi gnment of mor t gage “ convey[ s] a l egal est at e i n
t he mor t gaged pr emi ses. ” ) . Accor di ngl y, a par t y’ s
r i ght , i f any, t o sel l a mor t gaged pr oper t y at a
f or ecl osur e auct i on pur suant t o a power of sal e i s
conf er r ed by a par t i cul ar mor t gagor upon a par t i cul ar
mor t gagee by t he t er ms of t hat mor t gage cont r act . The
I banez mor t gage aut hor i zes no one ot her t han t he
l ender ( and i t s assi gns) t o conduct a f or ecl osur e
sal e.
Mor t gagees conduct t he vast maj or i t y of
f or ecl osur es i n Massachuset t s pur suant t o t he
“ st at ut or y power of sal e, ” codi f i ed at G. L. c. 183,
§ 21. I n or der f or a mor t gagee t o exer ci se t he
- 20-
st at ut or y power of sal e, i t must be an expl i ci t t er m
i n t he mor t gage cont r act bet ween t he mor t gagor and
mor t gagee. Nor t on v. Joseph, 2009 WL 58896 at * 3,
Docket No. 374733 ( CWT) ( Mass. Land. Ct . Jan. 12,
2009) ( “ The st at ut or y power i s not appl i ed by def aul t
i n t he event of i t s omi ssi on; f ai l ur e t o i nvoke t he
power i n some way [ i n a cont r act ] r esul t s i n no such
power . ” ) . I f i ncor por at ed, t he st at ut or y power of sal e
aut hor i zes a mor t gagee “ upon any def aul t ” t o “ sel l t he
mor t gaged pr emi ses …by publ i c auct i on on or near t he
pr emi ses …. ” G. L. c. 183, § 21.
15
Wher e, and onl y
wher e, t her e i s aut hor i t y t o f or ecl ose pur suant t o a
cont r act ual power of sal e does G. L. c. 244, § 14 set
out addi t i onal st at ut or y pr ot ect i ons whi ch suppl ement
t he st at ut or y power of sal e, and whi ch must be
st r i ct l y f ol l owed f or a f or ecl osur e sal e t o be val i d.
Bot t oml y v. Kabachni ck, 13 Mass. App. Ct . at 484;
McGr eevey v. Char l est own Fi ve Cent Savi ngs Bank, 294
Mass. 480, 484 ( 1936) .
B. A par t y who i s not t he or i gi nal l ender and
mor t gagee under t he mor t gage cont r act can
onl y obt ai n t he st at us and cont r act ual
r i ght s of t he or i gi nal mor t gagee by means of
a val i d, wr i t t en assi gnment t o t hat par t y.
Under t he def aul t common l aw r ul e, a par t y may
f r eel y assi gn i t s cont r act r i ght s. However , i f a par t y

15
The st at ut or y shor t f or m pr ovi des onl y t he cont ent
f or a t er m of a cont r act bet ween a par t i cul ar
mor t gagor and a par t i cul ar mor t gagee.

- 21-
ot her t han t he or i gi nal mor t gagee seeks t o f or ecl ose
pur suant t o t he st at ut or y power of sal e, t hat par t y
must have obt ai ned an assi gnment of t he mor t gage. See
G. L c. 83, § 21 ( “ [ T] he mor t gagee or hi s execut or s,
admi ni st r at or s, successor s or assi gns may sel l t he
mor t gaged pr emi ses …” ) . Whi l e a mor t gagee may assi gn
t o anot her par t y i t s r i ght s i n a mor t gage cont r act ,
i ncl udi ng t he cont r act ual r i ght t o f or ecl ose, such an
assi gnment i s i t sel f a cont r act f or t he conveyance of
an i nt er est i n l and. Accor di ngl y, under wel l - set t l ed
Massachuset t s l aw, t he assi gnment of a mor t gagee’ s
cont r act r i ght s must be i n wr i t i ng. Onl y t he wr i t t en,
execut ed assi gnment of a mor t gage cont r act can
ef f ect i vel y t r ansf er owner shi p of t hat mor t gage. See
War den v. Adams, 15 Mass 233, 236 ( 1818) ( “ No i nt er est
passes by a mer e del i ver y of a mor t gage deed, wi t hout
an assi gnment i n wr i t i ng and by deed. ” ) ; see al so G. L.
c. 259, § 1( 4) .
Mor eover , and as U. S. Bank concedes, a wr i t t en
assi gnment of a mor t gage cont r act must “ adequat el y set
f or t h t he agr eement . ” See Cousbel i s v. Al exander , 315
Mass. 729, 730 ( 1944) ( quot i ng Hur l ey v. Br own, 98
Mass. 545, 546 ( 1868) ) ; see al so App. Br . at 18. Thi s
Cour t has l ong hel d t hat such a wr i t t en agr eement
“ must cont ai n t he t er ms of t he cont r act agr eed upon –
t he par t i es, t he l ocus ( i f an i nt er est i n r eal est at e
i s deal t wi t h) , i n some ci r cumst ances t he pr i ce, and
- 22-
i t must be si gned by t he par t y t o be char ged or by
someone aut hor i zed t o si gn on hi s behal f . ” Cousbel i s,
315 Mass. at 730 ( quot i ng Des Br i say v. Foss, 264
Mass. 102, 109 ( 1928) ) . Our Gener al Laws codi f y t hese
r equi r ement s, i nt er al i a, by pr ecl udi ng t he r ecor di ng
of any assi gnment t hat does not speci f i cal l y name t he
assi gnee. G. L. 183, § 6C.
A par t y has no r i ght t o exer ci se a mor t gagee’ s
power of sal e unl ess and unt i l i t has obt ai ned t he
mor t gagee’ s cont r act ual r i ght t o f or ecl ose by a
wr i t t en, execut ed assi gnment :
[ T] he assi gnment …pr ovi ded t o t he Cour t was not
si gned unt i l af t er t he f or ecl osur e sal e.
Acqui r i ng t he mor t gage af t er t he ent r y and
f or ecl osur e sal e does not sat i sf y t he
Massachuset t s st at ut e. Whi l e “ mor t gagee” has been
def i ned t o i ncl ude assi gnees of a mor t gage …
t her e i s not hi ng t o suggest t hat one who expect s
t o r ecei ve t he mor t gage by assi gnment may
under t ake any f or ecl osur e act i vi t y.
I n r e Schwar t z, 366 B. R. 265, 269 ( Bankr . D. Mass.
2007) .
16

Numer ous cour t s
17
have r ej ect ed supposedl y
“ r et r oact i ve” assi gnment s, i n whi ch a mor t gagee

16
The Schwar t z deci si on i nval i dat i ng post - f or ecl osur e
sal e assi gnment s i ssued on Apr i l 19, 2007, t wo and a
hal f mont hs bef or e t he I banez f or ecl osur e sal e.
17
See, e. g. , Count r ywi de Home Loans, I nc. v. Tayl or , 17
Mi sc. 3d 595 ( N. Y. Sup. Ct . , 2007) ( “ Language i n t he
pur por t ed assi gnment t o Count r ywi de st at es t hat t he
‘ [ a] ssi gnment shal l be deemed ef f ect i ve as of August
1, 2006. ’ Such at t empt at r et r oact i vi t y, however , i s
i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh Count r ywi de’ s owner shi p
i nt er est at t he t i me t he act i on was commenced. I ndeed,
f or ecl osur e of a mor t gage may not be br ought by one
who has no t i t l e t o i t …” ) ; Deut sche Bank Tr ust Co.
- 23-
at t empt s t o j ust i f y an i nval i d f or ecl osur e i t
conduct ed pr i or obt ai ni ng t he r i ght t o f or ecl ose by
wr i t t en, val i d assi gnment .
18

C. Non- mor t gagees possessi ng mer e “ f i nanci al
i nt er est s, ” “ spl i nt er ed r i ght s’ or “ i ndi ci a
of owner shi p” cannot conduct a f or ecl osur e
sal e under G. L. c. 244, § 14.
I n an at t empt t o avoi d t he consequences of t he
absence of an assi gnment at t he t i me of t he I banez
f or ecl osur e sal e, U. S. Bank i nsi st s t hat a non-
mor t gagee may never t hel ess conduct a f or ecl osur e i f
t hat ent i t y possesses mer e “ f i nanci al i nt er est [ s] , ”
“ spl i nt er ed r i ght s, ” or “ i ndi ci a of owner shi p. ” App.
Br . at 34- 37. Adopt i on of t hese asser t i ons woul d,
qui t e l i t er al l y, abr ogat e t he t er ms of t he st at ut or y

Amer i cas v. Peabody, 866 N. Y. S. 2d 91 ( N. Y. Sup. Ct .
2008) ( “ The cr uci al i ssue t hen i s whet her t he wr i t t en
assi gnment , dat ed af t er t he commencement of t he act i on
but st at ed t o be ef f ect i ve on a dat e bef or e t he
commencement , was ef f ect i ve t o gi ve pl ai nt i f f t he
r equi si t e i nt er est i n t he mor t gage and t hus st andi ng
t o commence an act i on t o f or ecl ose i t . Recent l y,
f i ndi ng such post - commencement dat ed assi gnment s
i nef f ect i ve, sever al t r i al l evel cour t s have sai d
“ no” . ” ) ; U. S. Bank Nat ’ l . Ass’ n v. Kosak, 16 Mi sc. 3d
1133( A) ( N. Y. Sup. Ct . 2008) ; Count r ywi de Home Loans,
I nc. v. Hovanec, 15 Mi sc. 3d 1115( A) ( N. Y. Sup. Ct . ,
2007) .
18
For bot h t he Lar ace and I banez mor t gages, Appel l ant s
obt ai ned post - f or ecl osur e “ assi gnment s” t hat wer e
execut ed l ong af t er t he f or ecl osur e auct i ons at i ssue
– mor e t han a year l at er , i n t he case of t he I banez
mor t gage. Bel ow, U. S. Bank i nsi st ed t hat bot h of t hese
“ assi gnment s” had r et r oact i ve f or ce. Appel l ant s
appar ent l y no l onger cl ai m t hat t hey wer e ent i t l ed t o
conduct f or ecl osur es by vi r t ue of t hese post -
f or ecl osur e assi gnment s; Appel l ant s now ar gue t hat
t hese post - f or ecl osur e assi gnment s mer el y “ conf i r m …
t he pr i or assi gnment t hat has occur r ed t hr ough
secur i t i zat i on. ” App. Br . at 46 – 47 ( emphasi s added) .
- 24-
power of sal e i n t he I banez mor t gage cont r act and
annul G. L. c. 244, § 14, whi ch per mi t onl y a
“ mor t gagee” t o exer ci se a power of sal e. I t woul d al so
cr eat e undesi r abl e uncer t ai nt y as t o t he val i di t y or
i nval i di t y of a f or ecl osur e; di sput es about t he
adequacy of t he f or ecl oser ’ s f i nanci al i nt er est s or
spl i nt er ed r i ght s woul d be i nevi t abl e.
U. S. Bank ci t es i n suppor t of i t s di r ect assaul t
on t he Massachuset t s st at ut e and Massachuset t s
deci si onal l aw onl y t wo f eder al deci si ons, Saf f r an v.
Novast ar Mor t gage, I nc. , No. 4: 07- cv- 40257- PBS ( D.
Mass. Oct . 18, 2007)
19
and Ni chol s v. Cadl e Cor p. , 139
F. 3d 59, 62 ( 1st Ci r . 1998)
20
, nei t her of whi ch


19
I n Saf f r an, t he mor t gagor ’ s or i gi nal l ender and
or i gi nal mor t gagee, Novast ar , sought t o est abl i sh i t s
aut hor i t y t o conduct a f or ecl osur e auct i on of t he
mor t gagor ’ s home. I n t he mor t gage cont r act , Novast ar
had desi gnat ed a t hi r d par t y as i t s “ nomi nee” f or
cer t ai n pur poses. However , i n t he mor t gage cont r act ,
Novast ar expl i ci t l y r eser ved f or i t sel f t he r i ght t o
conduct a f or ecl osur e pur suant t o t he power of sal e.
The cour t f ound t hat Novast ar was ent i t l ed t o conduct
a f or ecl osur e as t he or i gi nal mor t gagee and pur suant
t o t he expl i ci t t er ms of t he mor t gage, whi ch
aut hor i zed Novast ar by name t o exer ci se t he power of
sal e.
20
I n Ni chol s, i t was uncont r over t ed t hat t he
f or ecl osi ng mor t gagee, Cadl e Co. , had been assi gned
t he subj ect not e and mor t gage cont r act by t he FDI C.
Cadl e ent er ed i nt o a wr i t t en “ l oan agr eement ” wi t h a
t hi r d par t y, but t hat agr eement “ r eser ve[ d] t o Cadl e
t he r esponsi bi l i t y t o col l ect on t he not e and ( i f
necessar y) t o f or ecl ose on t he mor t gage. ” Ni chol s, 139
F. 3d at 61. The Ni chol s cour t i nt er pr et ed “ t he l oan
agr eement as l eavi ng Cadl e as t he mor t gagee, ” and
t her eby hel d t hat Cadl e had aut hor i t y as t he mor t gagee
t o exer ci se t he mor t gage cont r act ’ s power of sal e
pur suant t o G. L. c. 244, § 14. I d. at 62.
- 25-
act ual l y st ands f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat a non-
mor t gagee possessi ng mer e “ f i nanci al i nt er est s[ s] ” or
“ spl i nt er ed r i ght s” may conduct a f or ecl osur e. I n
f act , i n bot h cases, t he cour t s f ound t hat t he
f or ecl osi ng ent i t y possessed t he power of sal e
pur suant t o t he expl i ci t wr i t t en t er ms of t he
oper at i ve cont r act . Accor di ngl y, U. S. Bank asks t hi s
Cour t j udi ci al l y t o amend t he pl ai n l anguage of t he
Massachuset t s f or ecl osur e sal e st at ut e t o cr eat e f r om
whol e cl ot h a new cat egor y of per sons who may sel l a
bor r ower ’ s home i n a f or ecl osur e auct i on, sur el y an
i l l - advi sed r equest .
Fi nal l y, U. S. Bank advances t he posi t i on t hat i t
was ent i t l ed t o conduct a f or ecl osur e sal e because i t
had “ equi t abl e owner shi p of t he i nci dent s of t he
mor t gage” as t he pur por t ed “ hol der [ s] ” of t he I banez
and Lar ace pr omi ssor y not es. App. Br . at 35. What ever
t he st at us of t he mul t i pl e al l onges and t he or i gi nal
Not e ( but see VI . H i nf r a) , t he concept of an
“ equi t abl e hol der ” or “ f or ecl oser ” of a mor t gage
cont r act si mpl y does not exi st i n Massachuset t s l aw.
To t he cont r ar y, by st at ut or y command and deci si onal
enf or cement , i t i s wel l set t l ed i n Massachuset t s t hat

Accor di ngl y, i n bot h Ni chol s and Saf f r an, t he
f or ecl osi ng par t y was t he pr esent mor t gagee pur suant
t o a wr i t t en, val i d cont r act . Nei t her case pr ovi des
any suppor t f or al l owi ng a non- mor t gagee – t he mer e
possessor of “ f i nanci al i nt er est s” or “ spl i nt er ed
r i ght s” – t o exer ci se a mor t gagee’ s power of sal e.
- 26-
t he l ast assi gnee of a mor t gage cont r act i s t he hol der
of t hat mor t gage – even i f onl y a hol der of i n t r ust :
I n some j ur i sdi ct i ons i t i s hel d t hat t he mer e
t r ansf er of t he debt wi t hout any assi gnment or
even ment i on of t he mor t gage, car r i es t he
mor t gage wi t h i t , so as t o enabl e t he assi gnee t o
asser t hi s t i t l e i n an act i on at l aw. Thi s
doct r i ne has not pr evai l ed i n Massachuset t s, and
t he t endency of t he deci si ons her e has been t hat
i n such case t he mor t gagee woul d hol d t he l egal
t i t l e i n t r ust f or t he pur chaser of t he debt , and
t hat t he l at t er mi ght obt ai n a conveyance by a
bi l l i n equi t y.
Bar nes v. Boar dman, 149 Mass. 106, 114 ( 1889) ; see
al so I banez I I , at 687, ( “ [ A] ct ual l y hol di ng somet hi ng
and havi ng onl y t he r i ght t o be i t s hol der ar e t wo
ver y di f f er ent t hi ngs …The hol der of t he not e may
have an equi t abl e r i ght t o obt ai n assi gnment of t he
mor t gage by f i l i ng an act i on i n equi t y, but t hat i s
al l i t has. ” ) . The mer e possessor of a pr omi ssor y not e
i s not t he mor t gagee, absent t he wr i t t en, val i d
assi gnment of t he mor t gage cont r act . G. L. c. 244, § 14
si mpl y does not aut hor i ze a non- mor t gagee t o conduct a
f or ecl osur e auct i on, even i f t hat non- mor t gagee has
bar e possessi on of a pr omi ssor y not e.
21

Despi t e U. S. Bank’ s campai gn t o expand and
obscur e t he ent i t i es aut hor i zed t o t ake pr oper t y by
f or ecl osur e sal e wi t hout j udi ci al act i on, G. L. c. 244,


21
See al so Young v. Mi l l er , 72 Mass. 152 ( 1856) ,
hol di ng t hat wher e owner shi p of a mor t gage and an
under l yi ng ar e separ at ed, t he not e- hol der cannot br i ng
a f or ecl osur e act i on.
- 27-
§ 14 ( and t he r el at ed st at ut es) ar e si mpl e and di r ect :
onl y a mor t gagee may exer ci se a mor t gagee’ s
cont r act ual power t o conduct a f or ecl osur e sal e.
“ [ W] hen a st at ut e speaks wi t h cl ar i t y t o an i ssue[ , ]
j udi ci al i nqui r y i nt o t he st at ut e’ s meani ng, i n al l
but t he most ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ance, i s f i ni shed. ”
Beaupr e v. Cl i f f Smi t h & Assoc. , 50 Mass. App. Ct .
480, 491 ( 2000) ( quot i ng Est at e of Cowar t v. Ni ckl os
Dr i l l i ng Co. , 505 U. S. 469, 475 ( 1992) ) . As t he Land
Cour t i t sel f r ecogni zed, “ [ w] hat [ U. S. Bank] t r ul y
seek[ s] i s a change i n t he f or ecl osur e sal e st at ue,
whi ch can onl y come f r om t he l egi sl at ur e. ” I banez I I ,
17 Mass. Land Cour t Rpt r at 681, RA 1141.
Ther e i s not hi ng i n t hese st at ut or y enact ment s,
or i n t he common l aw doct r i nes t hey embody, whi ch was
a sur pr i se t o U. S. Bank;

i ndeed, t he Bank’ s knowl edge
of t hese r equi r ement s i s t he onl y expl anat i on f or t he
cont ent s of t he Bank’ s f or ecl osur e not i ces.
22


22
For exampl e, i n i t s compl ai nt t o f or ecl ose, U. S. Bank
r epr esent ed i t sel f t o be “ t he owner ( or assi gnee) and
hol der of a mor t gage wi t h t he st at ut or y power of
sal e. ” RA 1060. I n U. S. Bank’ s “ Power of At t or ney”
aut hor i zi ng t he sal e, t he Bank r epr esent ed t hat “ U. S.
Bank …hol ds a mor t gage [ on t he I banez pr oper t y. ] ” RA
1061; i n i t s Cer t i f i cat e of Ent r y, U. S. Bank “ made
oat h” t hat i t was “ t he pr esent hol der of a cer t ai n
mor t gage gi ven by Ant oni o I banez, ” RA 1062; i n i t s
not i ce t o I banez and i t s publ i c not i ces of f or ecl osur e
sal e, U. S. Bank j ust i f i ed i t s f or ecl osur e upon “ t he
Power of Sal e cont ai ned i n [ t he I banez] mor t gage…of
whi ch mor t gage U. S. Bank…i s t he pr esent hol der , ” RA
1065; and i n i t s own f or ecl osur e deed t o i t sel f , U. S.
Bank r epr esent ed t hat on Jul y 5, 2007, when i t sol d
i t sel f t he I banez pr oper t y, U. S. Bank was t he “ cur r ent
- 28-
I n shor t , t he r ecor d conf i r ms t hat bot h t he Land
Cour t and U. S. Bank under st ood t hat a f or ecl osur e sal e
coul d onl y be conduct ed by t he t hen- cur r ent hol der of
a mor t gage.
D. Nei t her REBA Ti t l e St andar d 58 nor i t s
doomsday scenar i o al t er s t he st at ut or y
command t hat onl y mar t gagees may f or ecl ose
by sal e under G. L. c. 244 § 14
I n an ef f or t t o uphol d i t s post - f or ecl osur e
assi gnment , U. S. Bank asser t s t he aut hor i t y of Real
Est at e Bar Associ at i on St andar d No. 58, and, wi t hout
any f act ual basi s, st at es t hat uphol di ng t he Land
Cour t ’ s deci si on “ cr eat e[ s] ser i ous uncer t ai nt y
t hr oughout t he mor t gage and t i t l e i ndust r i es. ”
Appel l ant ’ s Br i ef at 46- 50; Eno & Hovey, 28B Mass.
Pr ac. : Real Est at e L. , REBA Ti t . St d. No. 58 ( 4t h ed.
2008) . Even wer e t hi s t r ue – whi ch t he year and a hal f
si nce t he I banez deci si on suggest i t i s not – t hi s
ar gument cannot shi el d i t f r om t he t r ut h t hat , i n t he

hol der of a mor t gage f r om Ant oni o I banez t o Rose
Mor t gage…. ” RA 1063. Yet , at t he t i me t he Land Cour t
ent er ed i t s or i gi nal j udgment i n t hi s act i on, bot h
U. S. Bank and t he Land Cour t “ knew” f r om t he
al l egat i ons i n U. S. Bank’ s Compl ai nt —whi ch wer e
bi ndi ng upon U. S. Bank —t hat U. S. Bank act ual l y
conduct ed t he For ecl osur e Sal e “ [ based on] …an
assi gnment f r om [ Amer i can Home] …t o U. S. Bank made on
Sept ember 11, 2008 …by vi r t ue of ( whi ch) U. S. Bank
became t he hol der of a mor t gage f r om I banez t o Rose
Mor t gage…” Compl ai nt , RA 18, ¶3.
I ndeed, many Massachuset t s conveyancer s wer e
nei t her sur pr i sed by, nor i n di sagr eement wi t h, t he
Land Cour t ’ s hol di ng as t o t he l egal st r uct ur e
gover ni ng f or ecl osur es. Wi l l i am H. Hovey, How Not t o
For ecl ose a Mor t gage, Mass. Lawyer ’ s Weekl y, Aug. 31,
2009.
- 29-
bl unt wor ds of t i t l e doct r i ne “ [ U. S. Bank] coul d not
convey what [ i t ] di d not own. ” Power s v. Or r , 10 Land
Cour t Rpt r . 137 ( 2002) . As U. S. Bank was not
“ mor t gagee, ” i t coul d not convey t he mor t gaged
pr emi ses even t o i t sel f , much l ess t o a publ i c bi dder
needi ng cl ear , conveyabl e t i t l e. That i s, nei t her a
not e hol der nor a f ut ur e mor t gage assi gnee hol ds a
mor t gage; consequent l y, even had U. S. Bank been a not e
hol der or a f ut ur e mor t gagee, i t coul d not conduct a
f or ecl osur e sal e and sel l t he I banez pr oper t y:
“ Del i ver y and sei si n of a deed of l and t o whi ch t he
gr ant or has no t i t l e does not ef f ect a di ssei si n. ”
Cor nwal l v. For ger , 27 Mass. App. Ct . 336, 341 ( 1989) .
And, despi t e t he vi gor ous advocacy of REBA’ s Ti t l e
St andar d 58,
24
a vol unt ar y pr i vat e associ at i on’ s
st at ement of sound pr act i ce does not amend t he
l egi sl at ur e’ s command t hat mor t gagees – and onl y
mor t gagees – may f or ecl ose by sal e. I d. , 27 Mass. App.
Ct . at 342 n. 6, 341 ( Const r ui ng a “ Mass. Conveyancer s
Assoc. Ti t l e St andar d” as a “ r ul e of t humb” ; whi l e
“ r evi si on of est abl i shed l aw …i s, however , a t ask
pr oper l y wi t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t he l egi sl at ur e. ” ) .

24
Or , as t he Land Cour t hel d i n r ej ect i ng an ef f or t t o
det er mi ne t i t l e on t he basi s of a REBA Ti t l e St andar d,
“ I n any event , t he cour t r ej ect s t he …ar gument whi ch
conf l at es a st andar d of pr of essi onal r esponsi bi l i t y
wi t h t he l aw. …” Sul l i van v. Leonar d, 13 Land Cour t
Rpt r . 482, 484 ( 2005) .
- 30-
Fi nal l y, as t he Land Cour t set out i n car ef ul det ai l ,
REBA Ti t l e St andar d No. 58 i s j ust pl ai n wr ong:
The pl ai nt i f f s' f i nal ci t at i on i s REBA Ti t l e
St andar d No. 58 …I t pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t ,
" [ a] t i t l e i s not def ect i ve by r eason of . . .
[ t ] he r ecor di ng of an Assi gnment of Mor t gage
execut ed ei t her pr i or , or subsequent , t o
f or ecl osur e wher e sai d Mor t gage has been
f or ecl osed, of r ecor d, by t he Assi gnee. " REBA
Ti t l e St andar d No. 58. The accompanyi ng not e
st at es t hat t hi s por t i on of t he st andar d " i s
based on Mont ague v. Dawes, 12 Al l en 397 ( 1866) . "
I d. ( Comment ) …I have gr eat r espect f or REBA …
[ b] ut t he l at t er por t i on [ of t he t i t l e st andar d]
( r el at i ng t o assi gnment s made af t er not i ce i s
publ i shed and sal e has occur r ed) mi sconst r ues t he
st at ut e, t he hol di ng i n Mont ague, and t he
t eachi ngs of Bot t oml y and Roche. As di scussed
above, G. L. c. 244, § 14 r equi r es publ i cat i on i n
t he name of t he hol der of t he mor t gage f or t he
f or ecl osur e sal e t o be val i d. Bot t oml y, 13 Mass.
App. Ct . at 483- 84. I t does so t o assur e
pot ent i al bi dder s t hat t he f or ecl osi ng par t y can
pr ompt l y del i ver good t i t l e and t o pr event
" oppor t uni t i es f or col l usi on and f or t aki ng
unf ai r advant age of t he mor t gagor . " See Roche,
106 Mass. at 513. …To al l ow a f or ecl osi ng par t y,
wi t hout any i nt er est i n t he mor t gage at t he t i me
of t he sal e ( r ecor ded or unr ecor ded) , t o conduct
t he sal e i n t hese ci r cumst ances, bi d, and t hen
acqui r e good t i t l e by l at er assi gnment i s
compl et el y cont r ar y t o G. L. c. 244, § 14' s i nt ent
and commands.
I banez I , at 207.
VI . AT THE TI ME OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE, APPELLANT
HAD NOT OBTAI NED A WRI TTEN, VALI D ASSI GNMENT OF
THE MORTGAGEE’ S RI GHTS UNDER THE MORTGAGE
CONTRACT.
As t o U. S. Bank’ s appeal of t he deni al of i t s
Mot i on t o Vacat e Judgment pur suant t o Mass. R. Ci v.
Pr o. 59 and 60, U. S. Bank’ s unexpl ai ned and
unj ust i f i ed f ai l ur e t o keep t he evi dent i ar y pr omi ses
i t made t o t he Land Cour t j udge was r eason enough f or
t he cour t ’ s deni al , and r eason enough t o af f i r m t hat
- 31-
deni al upon appeal . However , and mor e i mpor t ant l y, t he
mot i on pr oceedi ngs est abl i shed t hat U. S. Bank l acked
l egal aut hor i t y t o f or ecl ose upon t he I banez mor t gage
at t he t i me t hat i t sol d and bought t he I banez
pr oper t y. Speci f i cal l y, t he PPM f i l ed wi t h t he cour t
bel ow di d not and coul d not convey t he I banez mor t gage
t o U. S. Bank, t he assi gnment s “ i n bl ank” di d not and
coul d not convey t he mor t gage t o U. S. Bank, t he
assi gnment al t er ed post - execut i on and not ar i zat i on di d
not and coul d not convey t he mor t gage t o U. S. Bank,
and t he r ecor d evi dence i ndi cat es t hat t he mor t gage i s
not , i n act ual i t y, an asset of U. S Bank, as Tr ust ee.
The r eal di sput e pr esent ed i n t hi s appeal i s mor e
pr of ound t han each of U. S. Bank’ s f l awed or al t er ed
document s, i t s bel at ed or r et r oact i ve assi gnment s, and
i t s car el ess and unkept pr omi ses. What U. S. Bank i s
act ual l y seeki ng, i n t he name of secur i t i zat i on
conveni ence, i s f or t hi s cour t t o di scar d t he
t r anspar ency and cl ar i t y of our l ong- st andi ng l and
r ecor di ng doct r i nes and syst ems,
25
and r epl ace t hem
wi t h a conveyance scheme whi ch, uses so- cal l ed
“ assi gnment s i n bl ank” and post - not ar i zat i on “ f i l l ed-

25
At i t s cor e, t hi s ef f or t i s f l awed i n t he most
f undament al way: because, no mat t er how vi ewed, t i t l e
t o r eal est at e i s not , and shoul d not be t r eat ed as,
bear er paper . A Not e i s j ust a debt , car r yi ng no power
beyond t he r i ght t o cl ai m payment , and wi t h no r eal
f or ce unt i l pr esent ed t o a cour t . A mor t gage i s, i n
Massachuset t s, qui t e l i t er al l y owner shi p of a f ami l y’ s
- 32-
i n” assi gnment s t o conver t r eal est at e t i t l e document s
i nt o “ bear er paper ” – as t hough t i t l es ar e t he
equi val ent s of as $20. 00 bi l l s. Thi s syst em woul d, i t
i s t r ue, val i dat e U. S. Bank’ s I banez f or ecl osur e, by
doct r i nal l y appr ovi ng t he numer ous conveyances t hat
U. S. Bank ‘ s f i l i ngs cl ai m t ook pl ace her e – wi t hout
ver i f i cat i on, wi t hout document at i on, and wi t hout
r ecor ded conveyance of any ki nd; cer t ai nl y, such an
opaque, r ecor dl ess syst em woul d make easi er t he
i nst ant , pr i vat e t r adi ng of bor r ower s’ mor t gages whi ch
U. S. Bank desi r es.
The cost , however , woul d be subst ant i al , as t hi s
Cour t l ong- ago hel d:
The conveni ence whi ch men mi ght occasi onal l y f i nd
i n l eavi ng bl anks i n seal ed i nst r ument s t o be
f i l l ed af t er del i ver y, woul d be but a sl i ght
compensat i on f or t he evi l s whi ch woul d f ol l ow t he
abr ogat i on of t he anci ent r ul e of t he common l aw.
Bur ns v. Lynde, 6 Al l en 305, 312 ( 1863) .
A. U. S. Bank was not t he hol der of t he I banez
mor t gage when t he f or ecl osur e not i ces wer e
publ i shed and t he auct i on was conduct ed.
Al t hough t he Land Cour t gave U. S. Bank l eave t o
submi t al l t he document s i n i t s possessi on, cust ody or
cont r ol t hat “ may exi st whi ch may show a pr e- not i ce,
pr e- sal e assi gnment suf f i ci ent under G. L. c. 244,
§ 14, ” RA 742, t he pl ai n f act r emai ns t hat U. S. Bank
f i r st obt ai ned a wr i t t en assi gnment of t he I banez

home: a home whi ch, t hr ough t he power of sal e, may be
t aken wi t hout any j udi ci al act i on what soever .
- 33-
mor t gage on Sept ember 2, 2008, mor e t han a year af t er
U. S. Bank conduct ed i t s f or ecl osur e sal e. I n f act , t he
r ecor d demonst r at es t hat ( 1) Rose Mor t gage execut ed an
assi gnment “ i n bl ank” of t he I banez mor t gage on
December 8, 2005, ( 2) at some t i me subsequent t o
December 8, 2005, t he Rose Mor t gage assi gnment was
al t er ed by t he addi t i on of t he Opt i on One cor por at e
st amp, i dent i f yi ng Opt i on One as t he assi gnee – an
al t er at i on made on t he f ace of t he pr evi ousl y
not ar i zed “ or i gi nal assi gnment ” ; and ( 3) on or about
Januar y 23, 2006, Opt i on One execut ed anot her
assi gnment “ i n bl ank” . No subsequent assi gnment of t he
I banez mor t gage occur r ed unt i l Amer i can Home execut ed
t he post - f or ecl osur e assi gnment on Sept ember 2, 2008.
Ther ef or e, at t he t i me of t he June, 2007 f or ecl osur e
not i ces and Jul y f or ecl osur e sal e, t he best case f or
U. S. Bank i s t hat Opt i on One was, and r emai ned, t he
mor t gagee and hol der of t he I banez Mor t gage.
B. Despi t e i t s unsuppor t ed r epr esent at i ons
r egar di ng an al l eged “ Tr ust Agr eement , ” U. S.
Bank submi t t ed no val i d wr i t i ng ef f ect uat i ng
an assi gnment of t he mor t gagee’ s r i ght s
pr i or t o conduct i ng a f or ecl osur e auct i on.
Recogni zi ng t he i mpor t ance of a val i d, wr i t t en
pr e- f or ecl osur e assi gnment , t he Bank ar gues t hat t he
“ I banez Tr ust Agr eement …assi gned al l i nt er est i n t he
subj ect l oans ( i ncl udi ng t he [ I banez] mor t gage) t o
- 34-
U. S. Bank. ” App. Br . at 17.
28
However , U. S. Bank never
submi t t ed t hi s document t o t he Land Cour t . Mor eover ,
U. S. Bank never submi t t ed a “ schedul e” of mor t gage
l oans gover ned by t he al l eged Tr ust Agr eement , despi t e
r ecei vi ng l eave f r om t he Land Cour t t o do so.
29

Fi nal l y, U. S. Bank r epr esent s t hat Lehman Br ot her s and
SASC wer e t he ent i t i es who, by means of t he unpr oduced
Tr ust Agr eement , val i dl y assi gned t he I banez mor t gage
t o U. S. Bank – but t her e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d
t hat ei t her of t hese ent i t i es ever owned or hel d t he
I banez mor t gage. Gi ven t he Land Cour t ’ s expr ess
r equest f or t he Tr ust document s, and U. S. Bank’ s
whol esal e f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de t hem bel ow, i t i s
di f f i cul t t o i magi ne a mor e appr opr i at e occasi on f or
appl i cat i on of t he r ul e t hat t he r evi ewi ng cour t wi l l
di sr egar d and st r i ke st at ement s of counsel i n t hei r
appel l at e br i ef not based upon, and suppor t ed by
ci t at i on t o, t he r ecor d bel ow. Ser vi ce Publ i cat i ons,

28
U. S. Bank never ar gued i n t he cour t bel ow t hat t he
Tr ust Agr eement i t sel f conveyed t he I banez mor t gage t o
U. S. Bank; i n such ci r cumst ances, i t i s bar r ed f r om
t hat ar gument on appeal . S. Kembl e Fi scher Real t y
Tr ust v. Boar d of Appeal s, 9 Mass. App. Ct . 477, 480
( 1980) ( “ An at t empt …t o ar gue on appeal a poi nt of l aw
not r ai sed bef or e t he t r i al j udge…br i ngs not hi ng
bef or e t he appel l at e cour t . ” )
29
On Apr i l 17, 2009, t he Land Cour t gave U. S. Bank
l eave t o “ submi t …( 1) t he document s whi ch cr eat ed t he
secur i t i zed t r ust and gover n i t s oper at i ons, ( 2) t he
document s i dent i f yi ng t he ‘ bl ocks of mor t gages sol d
i nt o t hat t r ust , ’ whi ch pur por t edl y i ncl ude t he
mor t gage at i ssue i n t hi s case …” [ RA742] . Qui t e
si mpl y, U. S. Bank di d not submi t any document s
cor r espondi ng t o ei t her of t hese cat egor i es.
- 35-
I nc. v. Gover man, 396 Mass. 567, 580 ( 1986) ; Bost on
Edi son Co. v. Br ookl i ne Real t y & I nv. Cor p. , 10 Mass.
App. Ct . 63, 69 ( 1980)
I n sum, a document whi ch i s not pr oduced, does
not name t he mor t gaged pr oper t y or t he mor t gagor , and
names assi gnor s who ar e t hemsel ves st r anger s t o t he
I banez mor t gage cannot possi bl y est abl i sh U. S. Bank’ s
aut hor i t y t o conduct a f or ecl osur e sal e. Thi s “ j umbl e
of document s and concl usor y st at ement s” si mpl y does
not est abl i sh t hat U. S. Bank was assi gned t he I banez
mor t gage by means of a val i d, wr i t t en cont r act . See,
e. g. , Schwar t z, 366 B. R. at 267.
C. The Pr i vat e Pl acement Memor andum di d not and
coul d not Convey t he I banez Mor t gage t o U. S.
Bank.
U. S. Bank concedes t hat i t submi t t ed t o t he Land
Cour t onl y t he Pr i vat e Pl acement Memor andum ( PPM) ,
whi ch i t char act er i zes as adver t i si ng mat er i al f or
mor t gage- backed secur i t i es. App. Br . at 20 ( “ [ A] n
of f er of mor t gage- backed secur i t i es t o i nvest or s. ” ) .
Whi l e U. S. Bank appear s t o ar gue t hat t he PPM
evi dences an ef f ect i ve assi gnment of t he I banez
mor t gage, t o t he cont r ar y, t he PPM descr i bes an
i nt ended, gener i c t r ansf er of asset s pur suant t o a
t r ust agr eement t hat wi l l occur at some poi nt i n t he
f ut ur e. RA 1295 ( “ The Mor t gage Loans wi l l be assi gned
by t he Deposi t or t o t he Tr ust ee” ) ( emphasi s added) .
U. S. Bank accor di ngl y concedes t hat t he r ecor d
- 36-
cont ai ns no di r ect evi dence of t he t er ms of t he
al l eged Tr ust Agr eement ; i nst ead i t “ r epr esent s t hat
t he l anguage of assi gnment cont ai ned i n t he Tr ust
Agr eement i s i n accor d wi t h t he anal ogous l anguage
cont ai ned i n t he LaRace PSA. ” App. Br . at 20 n. 6
( emphasi s added) . But see VI . B supr a. However , t he PPM
expl i ci t l y r epr esent s t hat “ [ e] ach Mor t gage Loan [ hel d
by t he Tr ust ] wi l l be i dent i f i ed i n a schedul e
appear i ng as an exhi bi t t o t he Tr ust Agr eement . ” RA
1295. Despi t e t he PPM’ s r epr esent at i on t hat a schedul e
of mor t gage l oans gover ned by t he Tr ust Agr eement
“ wi l l ” exi st , U. S. Bank never submi t t ed such a
document , or any ot her document i n any way i ndi cat i ng
t hat t he I banez mor t gage i s one of t he mor t gage l oans
t o whi ch t he PPM r ef er s, nor any ot her evi dence t hat
U. S. Bank, as Tr ust ee owns t he I banez mor t gage.
Accor di ngl y, U. S. Bank cannot cr edi bl y cl ai m t o have
est abl i shed i t s aut hor i t y t o f or ecl ose on t he basi s of
such a document .
The onl y evi dence t hat t he mor t gage was ever
t r ansf er r ed t o U. S. Bank i s t he Sept ember , 2008 post -
f or ecl osur e assi gnment f r om Opt i on One – mor e t han a
year af t er U. S. Bank’ s f or ecl osur e sal e.
32


32
Even had U. S. Bank obt ai ned t hi s assi gnment pr i or t o
i t s f or ecl osur e sal e, such a document woul d be j ust as
pr obl emat i c f or U. S. Bank. The assi gnor named i n t hi s
document i s nei t her t he “ Sel l er ” ( Lehman Br ot her s) nor
t he “ Deposi t or ” ( SASC) named i n t he PPM. I ndeed, under
t he t er ms of t he PPM, SASC as t he “ Deposi t or ” was
- 37-
D. Even under I n r e Samuel s, t he l one
Massachuset t s deci si on on whi ch U. S. Bank
r el i es, t he al l eged t r ust agr eement cannot
demonst r at e U. S. Bank’ s aut hor i t y t o conduct
a f or ecl osur e sal e.
U. S. Bank ci t es onl y a si ngl e Massachuset t s
deci si on, I n r e Samuel s, 415 B. R. 8 ( Bankr . D. Mass.
2009) , f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat a “ secur i t i zat i on
agr eement ” can “ act [ ] t o assi gn al l i nt er est i n l oans
( i ncl udi ng t he mor t gages) t o t he secur i t i zat i on
t r ust ee. ” App. Br . at 22. I n f act , t he cour t i n
Samuel s f ound t hat t he oper at i ve “ secur i t i zat i on
agr eement ” di d not demonst r at e t he secur i t i zat i on
t r ust ee’ s owner shi p of a mor t gage, because t he t r ust ee
coul d not pr ove each l i nk i n t he “ chai n of t i t l e” f r om
t he or i gi nat i ng l ender t o t he t r ust ee:
I n or der t o est abl i sh t hat i t hol ds not onl y t he…
Not e but al so t he Mor t gage, Deut sche Bank …
r el i es on showi ng a chai n of t hr ee assi gnment s of
t he mor t gage: f r om [ Lender ] t o Amer i quest , t hen
Amer i quest t o ARSI , and t hen ARSI t o Deut sche
Bank. The pr obl em wi t h t hi s st r at egy i s t hat
Deut sche Bank has adduced no wr i t i ng evi denci ng
t he f i r st of t hese t r ansf er s, f r om Ar gent t o
Amer i quest . …Deut sche Bank has adduced evi dence
of an agr eement pur suant t o whi ch Ar gent agr eed

r equi r ed t o assi gn al l mor t gage l oans t o t he Tr ust ee.
RA 1295. Based on t he descr i pt i on of t he al l eged Tr ust
Agr eement i n t he PPM ( because t he Tr ust Agr eement was
never pr oduced) , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat U. S.
Bank, as Tr ust ee, had t he aut hor i t y t o accept asset s
f r om any par t y ot her t han t he “ Deposi t or . ” I f t hi s i s
t he case, t he accept ance of t he I banez mor t gage by
U. S. Bank pur suant t o t he post - f or ecl osur e assi gnment
woul d have been ul t r a vi r es and voi d under New Yor k
l aw, whi ch pr esumabl y gover ns t he Tr ust ( t hough
Appel l ees cannot be cer t ai n wi t hout t he Tr ust
Agr eement ) . Est . Power s & Tr ust s § 7- 2. 4 ( pr ovi di ng
t hat under New Yor k l aw, act s by a t r ust ee i n
cont r avent i on of an expr ess t r ust ar e voi d) .
- 38-
t o t r ansf er mor t gage l oans t o Amer i quest , but i t
has adduced no wr i t i ng evi denci ng t he assi gnment
of t he…Mor t gage f r om Ar gent t o Amer i quest .
Consequent l y, t he chai n of t i t l e i s i ncompl et e…
Samuel s, 415 B. R. at 20.
33


Accor di ngl y, under t he r easoni ng of Samuel s, t he
al l eged t r ust agr eement her ei n, even i f i t had been
pr oduced, coul d not possi bl y show t hat U. S. Bank owns
t he I banez mor t gage – si nce, as i n Samuel s, t he r ecor d
her ei n cont ai ns no evi dence of mul t i pl e l i nks i n t he
pur por t ed chai n of t i l e as set f or t h above.
34
Thus,
under Samuel s, t he al l eged – but not pr oduced – t r ust
agr eement woul d be i nsuf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e U. S.
Bank’ s owner shi p of t he I banez mor t gage.
E. An “ Assi gnment i n Bl ank” Conveys Not hi ng .
I n i t s next f ut i l e at t empt t o avoi d t he absence
of a val i d, pr e- f or ecl osur e assi gnment , U. S. Bank has
submi t t ed t he Opt i on One assi gnment “ i n bl ank” ,
pur por t edl y execut ed on Januar y 23, 2006, and
pur por t edl y i n t he cust ody of Wel l s Far go on May 4,
2009. Thi s assi gnment , however , does not hi ng t o

33
The Samuel s’ hol di ng demonst r at es t hat t he
mor t gagee’ s chai n- of - t i t l e pr oof ( “ f r om Ar gent t o
Amer i quest ” ) was not sat i sf i ed, even t hough…“ Ar gent
endor sed t he Not e i n bl ank and al so execut ed a wr i t t en
assi gnment i n bl ank—i . e. , wi t hout desi gnat i on of an
assi gnee—of t he Not e and Mor t gage. ” Samuel s, 415 B. R.
at 17.
34
As i n Samuel s, Appel l ant cl ai ms t hat mul t i pl e
assi gnment s of t he mor t gage occur r ed pr i or t o
assi gnment t o Appel l ant i t sel f – f r om Opt i on One t o
Lehman Br ot her s Bank, FSB t o Lehman Br ot her s Hol di ng,
I nc. t o t he St r uct ur ed Asset Secur i t i es Cor p. t o t he
Bank. App. Br . at 9- 10.
- 39-
suppor t U. S. Bank’ s al l egat i on t hat i t was t he pr e-
f or ecl osur e assi gnee of t he I banez mor t gage, because
t hi s assi gnment “ i n bl ank” i dent i f i es no assi gnee.
Massachuset t s common l aw has l ong hel d t hat a
conveyance i n l and, i n whi ch a bl ank had been l ef t f or
t he name of t he gr ant ee, i s i noper at i ve as a
conveyance. See Macur da v. Ful l er , 225 Mass. 341, 344
( 1916) ; Phel ps v. Sul l i van, 140 Mass. 36, 36- 37
( 1885) ; Bur ns, 6 Al l en at 311. Even i f U. S. Bank’ s
name had been l at er added t o t he assi gnment by par ol
aut hor i t y of Opt i on One, t he assi gnee’ s name cr eat es a
subst ant i al par t of t he i nst r ument i t sel f , and
t her ef or e r edel i ver y of t he assi gnment af t er t he
bl anks wer e f i l l ed woul d have been necessar y. See
Bur ns, 6 Al l en at 310. U. S. Bank submi t s no evi dence
i n t he June 8
t h
submi ssi on t hat r edel i ver y occur r ed;
most i mpor t ant l y t he empt y spaces r emai ned bl ank; no
assi gnee was ever named i n t hi s assi gnment .
The Opt i on One bl ank assi gnment i s al so i nval i d
on t he gr ounds t hat as a cont r act , i t l acked t he
r equi r ed t wo or mor e par t i es: Opt i on One bei ng t he
onl y par t y ment i oned. See East man v. Wr i ght , 6 Pi ck.
316, 321 ( 1828) ; see al so Si t uat i on Mgmt . Sys. v.
Mal ouf , I nc. , 430 Mass. 875, 878 ( 2000) ( t he mut ual
assent of t wo or mor e per sons t o be bound by an
exchange of pr omi ses i s t he basi s of a cont r act ) . As


- 40-
our cour t s r ecogni ze, a conveyance of r eal est at e
whi ch l acks a gr ant ee i s, qui t e si mpl y, voi d:
The deed si gned by her , i ncompl et e because of
f ai l ur e t o name t he gr ant ee, …was i nval i d…. I t
conveyed no t i t l e.
Fl avi n v. Mor r i sey, 327 Mass. 217, 219 ( 1951) . The
r easons f or t hi s r ul e wer e wel l - expl ai ned l ong ago:
Ever y deed wel l made must be wr i t t en; i . e. t he
agr eement must be al l wr i t t en bef or e t he seal i ng
and del i ver y of i t ; f or i f a man seal and del i ver
an empt y pi ece of paper or par chment , al bei t he
do t her e wi t hal gi ve commandment t hat an
obl i gat i on or ot her mat t er shal l be wr i t t en i n
i t , and t hi s be done accor di ngl y, yet t hi s i s no
good deed.
When t he paper was del i ver ed, i t had no val i di t y
or meani ng. The f i l l i ng of t he bl anks cr eat ed t he
subst ant i al par t s of t he i nst r ument i t sel f ; as
much so as t he si gni ng or seal i ng …Our st at ut es,
whi ch pr ovi de f or t he conveyance of r eal est at e
by deed, acknowl edged and r ecor ded, and f or t he
acknowl edgment and r ecor di ng of power s of
at t or ney f or maki ng deeds, ar e evi dent l y based on
t he anci ent doct r i nes of t he common l aw
r espect i ng t he execut i on of deeds; and a val uabl e
and i mpor t ant pur pose whi ch t hese doct r i nes st i l l
ser ve i s, t o guar d agai nst mi st akes whi ch ar e
l i kel y t o ar i se out of ver bal ar r angement s, f r om
mi sunder st andi ng and def ect of memor y, even wher e
t her e i s no f r aud.
The conveni ence whi ch men mi ght occasi onal l y f i nd
i n l eavi ng bl anks i n seal ed i nst r ument s t o be
f i l l ed af t er del i ver y, woul d be but a sl i ght
compensat i on f or t he evi l s whi ch woul d f ol l ow t he
abr ogat i on of t he anci ent r ul e of t he common l aw.
Bur ns, 6 Al l en at 312.
35
Thi s f l ows f r om a f i r st
pr i nci pl e of cont r act l aw: t hat one cannot cont r act

35
U, S, Bank r epeat edl y ar gues t hat assi gnment s i n
bl ank “ …ef f ect a val i d t r ansf er of t he [ I banez and
Lar ace] mor t gages, ” as “ f i l l i ng i n t he bl anks [ l at er ]
i s i mmat er i al t o t he val i di t y of t he i nst r ument . ” App.
Br . at 28- 32. The most t r oubl i ng i ssue r ai sed by t he
- 41-
wi t h hi s or her sel f . East man, 6 Pi ck. at 321. U. S.
Bank poi nt s t o no l egal aut hor i t y t hat an assi gnment
i s val i d when t her e i s no Par t y B.
36
I ndeed, nei t her
st at ut or y pr ovi si ons nor deci si onal l aw suggest t hat
t her e i s a val i d assi gnment f r om one par t y t o anot her ,
wher e “ anot her ” i s mer el y a bl ank space. I d.
F. The Assi gnment f r om Rose Mor t gage t o Opt i on
One i s Voi d, as i t was al t er ed af t er i t s
Execut i on and Not ar i zat i on.
The common l aw doct r i nes i nval i dat i ng document s
conveyi ng r eal est at e wher e no gr ant ee i s named have
yet anot her consequence i n t hi s act i on: t he
i nval i dat i on of t he assi gnment f r om Rose Mor t gage,
wher e t he gr ant ee – Opt i on One – was f i l l ed i n af t er
t he assi gnment was not ar i zed, or seal ed:
The i nst r ument del i ver ed t o [ Gr ant or ’ s agent ] was
wi t hout val i di t y and t he di r ect i on t o…t o f i l l
t he bl ank space [ f or gr ant ee] wi t h t he name…of

cont ent i on t hat assi gnment s i n bl ank ar e compl et ed
val i d t r ansf er s i s t he obvi ous quest i on: t r ansf er s t o
whom? To no one? But t he br oader i mpl i cat i ons ar e mor e
sober i ng: do we r eal l y want assi gnment s of mor t gages –
i n Massachuset t s, document s conveyi ng bot h l egal
owner shi p and t he r i ght t o non- j udi ci al f or ecl osur e –
t o be “ val i d t r ansf er s” , wher e t he owner i s j ust a
bl ank “ t o be f i l l ed i n l at er ?”
36
Onl y t he wr i t t en, execut ed assi gnment of a mor t gage
cont act can ef f ect i vel y t r ansf er owner shi p of t hat
mor t gage. See War den, 15 Mass at 236 ( “ No i nt er est
passes by a mer e del i ver y of a mor t gage deed, wi t hout
an assi gnment i n wr i t i ng and by deed. ” ) . To sat i sf y
t he st at ut e of f r auds, an assi gnment “ must cont ai n t he
t er ms of t he cont r act agr eed upon – t he par t i es, t he
l ocus ( i f an i nt er est i n r eal est at e i s deal t wi t h) ,
i n some ci r cumst ances t he pr i ce, and i t must be si gned
by t he par t y t o be char ged or by some one aut hor i zed
t o si gn on hi s behal f . ” Cousbel i s v. Al exander , 315
Mass. 729, 730 ( 1944) .

- 42-
[ t he al l eged Gr ant ee] conf er r ed…no l egal r i ght
because t he f i l l i ng i n of such a bl ank cr eat ed a
subst ant i al par t of t he deed i t sel f , “ st ood on
t he same f oot i ng as si gni ng and seal i ng and coul d
be aut hor i zed onl y by a power under seal . ”
MacUr da, 225 Mass. at 344( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
As t her e i s no val i d assi gnment f r om Rose Mor t gage t o
Opt i on One, bot h t he assi gnment “ i n bl ank” and t he
Amer i can Home conf i r mat or y assi gnment ar e i nval i d.
G. The Post - For ecl osur e Assi gnment “ conf i r med”
Not hi ng.
U. S. Bank al so i nsi st s t hat t he Land Cour t er r ed
i n concl udi ng t hat t he post - f or ecl osur e assi gnment
dat ed Sept ember 8, 2008 di d not val i dat e t he Jul y 5,
2007 f or ecl osur e sal e. The f l aws i n t hi s ar gument ar e
l egi on st ar t i ng wi t h t he pr obl em t hat t he conf i r mat or y
gr ant or had no t i t l e t o convey. See supr a.
Even di sr egar di ng t hi s f at al f l aw, f i r st , and
most obvi ousl y, an i ndependent act i s not a
conf i r mat or y conveyance, and a conf i r mat or y assi gnment
act s mer el y t o cur e a def ect i n t he assi gnment bei ng
“ conf i r med. ” A “ conf i r mabl e” er r or f r ust r at es t he
i nt ent i ons t he par t i es sought t o accompl i sh i n t he
assi gnment bei ng conf i r med:
[ C] onf i r mat i on i s t he appr obat i on or assent t o an
est at e al r eady cr eat ed [ by t he conf i r mer ] , whi ch,
as f ar as i t i s i n t he conf i r mer ’ s power , makes
i t good and val i d. So t hat t he conf i r mat i on does
not r egul ar l y cr eat e an est at e …Such a wr i t i ng
cr eat es no t i t l e, and conveys not hi ng whi ch has
come i nt o t he gr ant or ’ s owner shi p si nce t he
maki ng of t he or i gi nal [ gr ant ] . I t t akes t he
pl ace of t he or i gi nal [ gr ant ] , and i s evi dence of
t he maki ng of t he f or mer conveyance as of t he
t i me when i t was made. I f under our syst em of
- 43-
r egi st r at i on or ot her wi se, i t i s necessar y t o
gi ve i t ef f ect as i n i t sel f a conveyance, i t i s
onl y conf i r mat or y evi dence of t he t i t l e whi ch
passed by t he or i gi nal [ gr ant ] .
Scapl en v. Bl anchar d, 187 Mass. 73, 76 ( 1904) ; accor d
Goul d v. Wagner , 196 Mass. 270, 276 ( 1907) ( “ The deed
was gi ven t o cor r ect er r or s of descr i pt i on …and t o
conf i r m t he t i t l e conveyed by sai d [ Gr ant or ] …and i t
may wel l be doubt ed whet her i t oper at ed t o convey any
t i t l e on t he par t of t he pet i t i oner . ” )
No such “ conf i r mabl e” er r or occur r ed, when Opt i on
One execut ed t he so- cal l ed “ assi gnment i n- bl ank” ,
whi ch i t s al l eged successor ’ s Sept ember 2008
assi gnment i s now cl ai med t o have been i nt ended t o
cur e. That i s, when Opt i on One execut ed t he bl ank
assi gnment on Januar y 23, 2006 – i n t he l anguage of
Scal pen, 187 Mass. at 76, “ as of t he t i me when i t was
made” —i t di d not i nt end t o convey owner shi p t o U. S.
Bank, as Tr ust ; i t coul d not have, si nce t he Tr ust –
f or whi ch U. S. Bank i s t he Tr ust ee – di d not exi st
bef or e December 26, 2006. PPM, RA 1027.
Equal l y f at al l y, t he post - f or ecl osur e assi gnment
was execut ed by Amer i can Home, and not Opt i on One. At
best , t he r ecor d shows t hat Opt i on One had been t he
mor t gagee si nce t he del i ver y of t he Rose Mor t gage-
Opt i on One assi gnment dat ed December 8, 2005. However ,
t her e i s no evi dence t hat Amer i can Home ever owned t he
I banez Mor t gage, ot her t han t he concl usor y st at ement
t hat Amer i can Home was t he “ successor i n i nt er est ” t o
- 44-
Opt i on One. Wi t hout an assi gnment f r om Opt i on One t o
Amer i can Home, or wi t hout some ot her evi dence of t he
t r ansf er of Opt i on One’ s i nt er est i n t he Mor t gage t o
Amer i can Home, U. S. Bank has pr oduced no evi dence t hat
Amer i can Home had any aut hor i t y t o assi gn t he I banez
Mor t gage. Samuel s, 415 B. R. at 20.
I n shor t , what ever t he Sept ember 2, 2008 Amer i can
Home assi gnment accompl i shed, i t di d not , and coul d
not r et r oact i vel y val i dat e a f or ecl osur e sal e by an
ent i t y whi ch l acked power of sal e r i ght s at t he t i me
t he f or ecl osur e sal e was conduct ed.
H. The Undat ed and Conf l i ct i ng Al l onges Make
doubt f ul Whet her U. S. Bank Possessed t he
Not e at t he Ti me of t he For ecl osur e Sal e.
I n anot her unavai l i ng at t empt t o bol st er i t s
al l egat i on t hat i t hel d t he I banez mor t gage, U. S. Bank
al so submi t t ed t o t he Land Cour t a copy of t he I banez
not e and t wo al l onges. I n i nf or mal di scover y, U. S.
Bank al so pr oduced t o counsel t he Loan Cl osi ng Fi l e,
as of t he dat e of t he cl osi ng. I SA 8- 9. That f i l e
i ncl udes yet a t hi r d al l onge – appar ent l y exi st i ng as
of t he cl osi ng – whi ch i t sel f cast s doubt on t he
i nt egr i t y of t he chai n of possessi on of t he I banez
Not e. I d. The f i r st al l onge, whi ch has no i ndi cat i on
of t he dat e of i t s execut i on, was made payabl e t o
“ Opt i on One Mor t gage Cor por at i on, A Cal i f or ni a
Cor por at i on ( Wi t hout Recour se) ” and was execut ed by
Ral ph Vi t i el l o, CEO of Rose Mor t gage. RA 965. The
- 45-
second al l onge i s made payabl e i n bl ank, and i s
execut ed by Sher yn Cer vant es as Assi st ant Secr et ar y of
Opt i on One. RA 966. The second al l onge cont ai ns
mul t i pl e dat es, wi t h none i dent i f i ed as t he dat e of
execut i on. Accor di ng t o t he af f i davi t s submi t t ed by
U. S. Bank, t he Not e and t hese t wo al l onges wer e hel d
by Wel l s Far go, f or Amer i can Home on May 4, 2009. RA
1073- 83. U. S. Bank has pr ovi ded no t est i mony or
evi dence i ndi cat i ng who had possessi on of t he not e or
t he st at us of t he al l onges as of t he oper at i ve dat es -
t he f or ecl osur e not i ce and sal e dat es.
Al t hough pr oduced t o I banez counsel , U. S. Bank
appear s t o have chosen not t o submi t t o t he Cour t t hi s
t hi r d al l onge. See Col l i er Af f i davi t , ¶¶ 3, 4 I SA 8.
The t hi r d al l onge t o not e was i ncl uded i n t he cl osi ng
f i l e, and i t i s endor sed “ Pay t o t he or der of : ____
WI THOUT RECOURSE” f r om Rose Mor t gage and si gned by
Mi chael Pet r ucel l i , Vi ce Pr esi dent . I SA 4. The
exi st ence of a t hi r d al l onge r ai ses t he ver y i ssue of
why t he l aw r equi r es an al l onge must be af f i xed t o a
not e. G. L. c. 106 § 3- 204 ( “ For t he pur pose of
det er mi ni ng whet her a si gnat ur e i s made on an
i nst r ument , a paper af f i xed t o t he i nst r ument i s a
par t of t he i nst r ument ” ) .
38
The r equi r ement t hat an

38
See al so Town of Fr eepor t v. Ri ng, 727 A. 2d 901, 905
( Me. 1999) ( r egar di ng near l y i dent i cal Mai ne st at ut e
cour t hel d “ a si gnat ur e on a separ at e, unat t ached
pi ece of paper i s not an i ndor sement of t he
- 46-
al l onge be af f i xed t o t he not e hel ps meet t he dual
pol i cy obj ect i ves of pr event i ng f r aud and pr eser vi ng
t he chai n of t i t l e t o an i nst r ument . Sout hwest er n
Resol ut i on Cor p. v. Wat son, 964 S. W. 2d 262, 264 ( Tex.
Comm’ n App. 1997) ( ci t i ng Adams, 853 F. 2d at 167) . I n
t hi s i nst ance, t hese obj ect i ves ar e def eat ed by
si gni f i cant uncer t ai nt y sur r oundi ng how, when, whi ch,
or even whet her any of t hese t hr ee al l onges wer e
physi cal l y at t ached t o t he not e. Not abl y, despi t e t he
Cour t ’ s r equest f or an af f i davi t ver i f yi ng t he
physi cal st at e of t hese document s as of t he dat e of
t he f or ecl osur e sal e, no af f i ant has “ spoken” as t o
t he at t achment of any of t he al l onges on t hat dat e: or
on any ot her dat e, f or t hat mat t er . I t i s i mpossi bl e
t o know based on t he var i ous un- af f i xed and undat ed
al l onges who was t he hol der of t he not e at t he t i me of
t he I banez f or ecl osur e publ i cat i on and sal e. And, of
cour se, t he not e – l acki ng any power of sal e –
pr ovi des no aut hor i t y t o f or ecl ose, and does not
convey wi t h i t “ mor t gagee” st at us.
39


i nst r ument ” ) ; Adams v. Madi son Real t y & Devel opment ,
I nc. , 853 F. 2d 163, 166 ( 3d Ci r . 1988) ( “ i ndor sement
sheet s …not physi cal l y at t ached t o t he i nst r ument s i n
any way …pat ent l y f ai l t o compl y wi t h t he expl i ci t
Code pr er equi si t e. ” ) .
39
A copy of t he “ Cer t i f i ed” not e, wi t h t he “ af f i xed”
( or adj acent ) al l onge, was i ncl uded i n t he Exhi bi t s t o
t he Af f i davi t of Paul R. Col l i er , I I I . I SA 14- 17.
- 47-
I . Evi dence t hat t he I banez Mor t gage i s not
i ncl uded i n t he onl y avai l abl e l i st i ng of
Tr ust - hel d Mor t gages i s r eason enough t o
deny t he Bank’ s Mot i on t o Vacat e Judgment .
Upon of f er by U. S. Bank counsel , t he Land Cour t ,
i n t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow, expr essl y r equest ed t hat
U. S. Bank pr ovi de t he Tr ust exhi bi t “ i dent i f yi ng t he
‘ bl ocks of mor t gages sol d i nt o t hat t r ust , ’ ” whi ch
pur por t edl y i ncl ude t he mor t gage at i ssue i n t hi s
case. ” RA 742- 3. I n br each of t hi s r equest , U. S. Bank
pr ovi ded not hi ng of t he ki nd. I banez, however ,
pr ovi ded pr oper l y aut hent i cat ed ( and unobj ect ed- t o)
evi dence t hat t he I banez mor t gage was not i ncl uded i n
t he Tr ust asset s. I SA 22- 54. And, as r ecor d- evi dence
t o whi ch no obj ect i on was made, t he Land Cour t was
ent i t l ed t o accept i t s accur acy. Madsen v. I r wi n, 395
Mass 715, 721 ( 1985) .
On t hi s basi s al one, t he Land Cour t was wi t hi n
i t s di scr et i on i n denyi ng U. S. Bank’ s Mot i on t o Vacat e
Judgment .
VI I . U. S. BANK’ S ARGUMENT THAT THE LAND COURT ERRED I N
NOT APPLYI NG THE PROSPECTI VE APPLI CATI ON DOCTRI NE
TO A THI RTY FI VE YEAR OLD STATUTE I S MERI TLESS.
U. S. Bank now ar gues t hat t he Land Cour t er r ed i n
not l i mi t i ng i t s const r uct i on of t he t hi r t y f i ve year
ol d f or ecl osur e sal e st at ut e t o f ut ur e f or ecl osur es,
an ar gument whi ch U. S. Bank di d not make bel ow. I t i s
axi omat i c t hat , by f ai l i ng t o r ai se t he i ssue i n t he
pr oceedi ngs bel ow, U. S. Bank cannot now pr evai l on
t hi s cl ai m. And i t i s equal l y axi omat i c t hat t he
- 48-
“ Pr ospect i ve Appl i cat i on” r equest of Ami cus Real
Est at e Bar Associ at i on ( REBA) i n t he t r i al cour t does
not al t er t hat r esul t – as t he cour t “ deal s onl y wi t h
i ssues pr esent ed by t he par t i es, ” and need not even
consi der i ssues r ai sed onl y i n t he br i ef s of an
ami cus. Uni t ed Technol ogi es Cor p. v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns.
Co. , 407 Mass. 591, 593 ( 1990) ; Pi neo v. Execut i ve
Counci l , 412 Mass. 31, 36 ( 1992) .
However , even movi ng past i t s wai ver pr obl em,
U. S. Bank’ s ar gument i s mer i t l ess; i ndeed, i t i s an
ar gument t hat conf l at es a j ur i spr udent i al doct r i ne
appl i cabl e onl y t o j udi ci al changes i n wel l -
est abl i shed and l ong- st andi ng r ul es of common l aw
af f ect i ng r eal pr oper t y; and t he doct r i ne t hat
r ecent l y enact ed st at ut es ar e pr ospect i vel y appl i ed,
absent a cl ear l y expr essed l egi sl at i ve command f or
r et r oact i ve appl i cat i on. Power s v. Wi l ki nson, 399
Mass. 650, 662- 63 ( 1987) and Tur ner v. Gr eenaway, 391
Mass. 1002, 1003 ( 1984) . Ther e i s not , and has never
been, a doct r i ne t hat an i nt er pr et at i on of a l ong
enact ed st at ut e can be l i mi t ed t o pr ospect i ve cases.
Last l y, of cour se, U. S. Bank’ s ent i r e ar gument
r est s upon i t s i nsi st ence t hat t he Land Cour t ’ s I banez
deci si on al t er ed l ong- st andi ng j udi ci al i nt er pr et at i on
of G. L. c. 244, § 14, a cont ent i on whi ch Judge Long
r ebut t ed i n consci ent i ous det ai l :
Fi r st , [ U. S. Bank’ s ar gument ] i gnor es Bot t oml y v.
Kabachni ck, whi ch st at es t hat t he not i ce i n t hat
- 49-
case “ was def ect i ve because i t f ai l ed t o i dent i f y
t he hol der of t he mor t gage, t her eby r ender i ng t he
f i r st f or ecl osur e sal e voi d as a mat t er of l aw. ”
…Bot t oml y i s t he most r ecent case const r ui ng t he
not i ce pr ovi si ons of t he st at ut e and i s t he
st ar t i ng poi nt f or t he pr oper i nt er pr et at i on of
t he ear l i er cases and pr oper t i t l e pr act i ce. As
not ed above, Bot t oml y unequi vocal l y hol ds t hat a
not i ce t hat f ai l s t o i dent i f y t he hol der of t he
mor t gage i s def ect i ve, t her eby r ender i ng t he
“ f or ecl osur e sal e voi d as a mat t er of l aw. ” …
G. L. c. 244, § 14 r equi r es publ i cat i on i n t he
name of t he hol der of t he mor t gage f or t he
f or ecl osur e sal e t o be val i d.


I banez I , supr a at 205- 07 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
VI I I . THE COURT SHOULD DI SREGARD AND STRI KE FACTS
AND ARGUMENTS NOT PRESENTED BELOW.
Thr oughout i t s st at ement of f act s and i t s
subst ant i ve ar gument s, U. S. Bank st at es f act s never
pr esent ed t o t he cour t bel ow: f r om “ r epr esent at i ons”
as t o t he cont ent s of t he Tr ust document s, App. Br . at
19 n. 6, t o i t s casual pr onouncement t hat “ [ t ] he
i ndust r y cust om i s not t o r ecor d a document r ef l ect i ng
t he assi gnment of a mor t gage, ” I d. at 5, t o i t s
i nsi st ence t hat U. S. Bank was mer el y “ f or ecl os[ i ng] on
a mor t gage hel d i n t hat t r ust . ” I d. at 4. Si mi l ar l y,
U. S. Bank ar gues on appeal i ssues whi ch i t di d not
ar gue bel ow – f r om t he cl ai m t hat t he Tr ust document s
ar e a mor t gage assi gnment t o t he cl ai m t hat t he I banez
hol di ng shoul d be pr ospect i ve i n i t s appl i cat i on.
We r el y on t he gi ve- and- t ake t est i ng of f act ual
al l egat i ons whi ch t akes pl ace i n t he t r i al cour t t o
“ f i nd t he t r ut h” bet ween of t en- di sput ed f act s. Tact i cs
whi ch evade t hi s t est i ng ar e i mpr oper . The t r i al cour t
- 50-
j udge has t he r i ght t o expect t hat a par t y, i n
pr oceedi ngs bef or e hi m, wi l l pr esent al l of t he f act s
and ar gument s whi ch j ust i f y hi s cl ai ms. Our t r i al
cour t s, and our t r i al j udges, have t he r i ght not t o be
sand- bagged by cl ai ms wi t hout havi ng had t he
oppor t uni t y t o consi der and addr ess t hem – and
Appel l at e Rul e 16 mandat es t hi s:
The r equi r ement t hat a par t y pr ovi de ‘ an
appr opr i at e and accur at e r ecor d r ef er ence’ f or
each and ever y f act …i n t he br i ef . . . i s not an
i dl e t echni cal r equi r ement . Among ot her t hi ngs,
i t pr event s par t i es f r om exagger at i ng or
di st or t i ng t he f act s…, or f r om i nser t i ng i nt o t he
anal ysi s on appeal f act s t hat ar e si mpl y
nonexi st ent .
Ci t y of Lynn v. Thompson, 435 Mass. 54, 56 ( 2001) .
Thi s Cour t shoul d di sr egar d, and st r i ke, al l
al l eged “ f act s” whi ch ar e not accompani ed by act ual
ci t at i ons t o t he r ecor d i n t he Land Cour t pr oceedi ngs,
and al l ar gument s whi ch U. S. Bank f ai l ed t o pr esent i n
t hose pr oceedi ngs. Ser vi ce Publ i cat i ons, I nc. , supr a;
Bost on Edi son Co. , supr a.
I X. CONCLUSI ON
The Land Cour t ’ s j udgment shoul d be af f i r med.






ON THE BRIEF:
ul R. collier, III, Esq
BBO#092040
Attorney At Law
675 Massachusetts Ave.,
12th Floor
cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 441-3303
paul.collier@paulcollierlawof
fice.com
Max weinstein, BBO# 600982
wilmerHale Legal services
Center
of Harvard Law school
122 Boylston Street
Jamaica plain, MA 02130
mmweinstein@law.harvard.edu
(617) 522-3003
Eloise P. Lawrence, BBO #655764
Meyer H. potashman, BBO #667196
Greater Boston Legal Services
197 Friend Street
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 603-1647
Dated:August 16, 2010
-51-
ADDENDUM TO BRIEF OF APPELLEE ANTONIO IBANEZ
Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 106 § 3-204
Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 183 § 6c
Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 183 § 21
Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 244 § 1
Massachusetts General Laws
chapter 259 § 1(4)
M.G.L. - Chapter 106, Section 3-204 http://www.mass.gov/Jegis/Jaws/mgl/l06-3-204.htm
1 of 1
The General Laws of Massachusettsr---
Search the Laws
P ART I. ADMINISTRATION OF mE GOVERNMENT
TITLE XV. REGULATION OF TRADE
CHAPTER 106. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
ARTICLE 3. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS
PART 2. NEGOTIATION, TRANSFER, AND INDORSEMENT
Chapter 106: Section 3-204. Indorsement
Go To:
Next Section
Previous Section
Chapter Table of Contents
MGL Search Page
General Court Home
Mass.QOV
Section 3-204. (a) "Indorsement" means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer,
or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose
of (i) negotiating the instrument, (ii) restricting payment of the instrument, or (iii) incurring
indorser's liability on the instrument, but regardless ofthe intent of the signer, a signature and its
accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms ofthe instrument,
place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was
made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature
is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument.
(b) "Indorser" means a person who makes an indorsement.
(c) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an
indorsement that transfers a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified
indorsement of the instrument.
(d) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name ofthe holder,
indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holder's
name or both, but signature in both names may be required by a person paying or taking the
instrument for value or collection.
8116/20106:48 PM
M.O.L. - Chapter 183, Section 6c http://www.mass.gov/Jegis/Jaws/mglI183-6c.htm .
1 of 1
The General Laws of Massach .. __ ... _. _____ . __ .. _______ .. _
Search the Laws
P ART II. REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DOMESTIC
RELATIONS
TITLE I. TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY
CHAPTER 183. ALIENATION OF LAND
CONVEYANCE BY DEED
Chapter 183: Section 6C. Residence and address of mortgagee or assignee
Go To:
Next Section
Previous Section
Chapter Table of Contents
MGL Search Page
General Court Home
Mass.QOV
Section 6C. Every mortgage and assignment of a mortgage presented for record shall contain or have
endorsed upon it the residence and post office address of the mortgagee or assignee if said mortgagee or
assignee is a natural person, or a business address, mail address or post office address of the mortgagee
or assignee if the mortgagee or assignee is not a natural person. Such endorsement shall be recorded as
part of the mortgage or assignment of a mortgage. Failure to comply with this section shall not affect the
validity of any mortgage or assignment of a mortgage or the recording thereof. No register of deeds shall
accept a mortgage or assignment of a mortgage for recording unless it is in compliance with the
requirements of this section.
8/16/2010 6:47 PM
M.G.L. - Chapter 183, Section 21 http://www.mass.gov/Jegis/Jaws/mglI183-21.htm
1 of 1
The General Laws of Massach usettsL __ . ____ .. __ ~ : .. ~ ~ _ _ = _ ~ ~ ~ = - : j
PART n. REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DOMESTIC
RELATIONS
TITLE I. TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY
CHAPTER 183. ALIENATION OF LAND
SHORT FORMS
Chapter 183: Section 21. "Statutory power of sale" in mortgage
Go To:
Next Section
Previous Section
Chapter Table of Contents
MGL Search Page
General Court Home
Mass.QOV
Section 21. The following "power" shall be known as the" Statutory Power of Sale" ,and may be
incorporated in any mortgage by reference:
(POWER.)
But upon any default in the performance or observance of the foregoing or other condition, the
mortgagee or his executors, administrators, successors or assigns may sell the mortgaged premises or
such portion thereof as may remain subject to the mortgage in case of any partial release thereof, either
as a whole or in parcels, together with all improvements that may be thereon, by public auction on or
near the premises then subject to the mortgage, or, if more than one parcel is then subject thereto, on or
near one of said parcels, or at such place as may be designated for that purpose in the mortgage, ftrst
complying with the terms of the mortgage and with the statutes relating to the foreclosure of mortgages
by the exercise of a power of sale, and may convey the same by proper deed or deeds to the purchaser
or purchasers absolutely and in fee simple; and such sale shall forever bar the mortgagor and all persons
claiming under him from all right and interest in the mortgaged premises, whether at law or in equity.
8116/20106:47 PM
M.G.L. - Chapter 244, Section 1 http://www.mass.gov/Jegis/Jaws/mgJ/244-I.htm
lofl
The General Laws of ________ -·--·--_----••. __
Search the Laws
PART III. COURTS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIL
CASES
TITLE III. REMEDIES RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY
CHAPTER 244. FORECLOSURE AND REDEMPTION OF MORTGAGES
FORECLOSURE BY ENTRY OR ACTION
Chapter 244: Section 1. Foreclosure by entry or action; continued possession
GeTe:
Next Section
Previous Section
Ch@!erTable of Contents
MGL Search Page
General Court Home
Mass.QOV
Section 1. A mortgagee may, after breach of condition of a mortgage of land, recover possession of the
land mortgaged by an open and peaceable entry thereon, if not opposed by the mortgagor or other
person claiming it, or by action under this chapter; and possession so obtained, if continued peaceably
for three years from the date of recording of the memorandum or certificate as provided in section two,
shall forever foreclose the right of redemption.
8116/20106:49 PM
M.G.L. - Chapter 259, Section 1 http://www.mass.gov/legis/\aws/mgI/259-1.htm
1 of 1
The General Laws of Massachusettsr----------·-----------------------l
Search the Laws
P ART III. COURTS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIL
CASES
TITLE V. STATUTES OF FRAUDS AND LIMITATIONS
CHAPTER 259. PREVENTION OF FRAUDS AND PERJURIES
Chapter 259: Section 1. Actionable contracts; necessity of writing
Section 1. No action shall be brought:
Go To:
Next Section
Previous Section
Chapter Table of Contents
MGL Search Page
General Court Home
Mass.gov
First, To charge an executor or administrator, or an assignee under an insolvent law of the
commonwealth, upon a special promise to answer damages out of his own estate;
Second, To charge a person upon a special promise to answer for the debt, default or misdoings of
another;
Third, Upon an agreement made upon consideration of marriage;
Fourth, Upon a contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments or of any interest in or
concerning them; or,
Fifth, Upon an agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof;
Unless the promise, contract or agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or
note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some person thereunto
by him lawfully authorized.
8116/20106:49 PM
RULE 16 Ck) STATEMENT
I hereby certify that the foregoing Brief of the Appellee
Antonio Ibanez complies, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
with the rules of court pertaining to the filing of appellate
briefs, including those specified in Mass. R. App. P. 16(k).
/
t -
p a ~ l R. collier, III, Esq
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of August, 2010, I
served two copies of the Appellee Antonio Ibanez's B r i ~ f and the
Ibanez supplemental Record Appendix by hand delivery on the
following counsel of record:
For Appellees Mark A. and Tammy L. LaRace:
Glenn F. Russell, Jr., Esq.
Attorney at Law
38 Rock Street, suite #12
Fall River, MA 02720
For Appellants:
Robert Bruce Allensworth, Esq.
Phoebe s. winder, Esq.
K&L Gates, LLP
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111-2950
For the commonwealth:
scott D. schafer, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton place, 18 Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Max weinstein