Butler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Butler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 1st Cir. (2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/butler-v-deutsche-bank-trust-co-1st-cir-2014 1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2108

FRANK P. BUTLER,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERI CAS,AS TRUSTEE FOR RALI 2007 QS3,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Dougl as P. Woodl ock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Dyk* and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Gl enn F. Russel l , J r . , wi t h whom Law Of f i ce of Gl enn F.Russel l , J r . , was on br i ef f or appel l ant .

Amy B. Hacket t , wi t h whomRi chard E. Br i ansky and Pr i nce Lobel Tye LLP, wer e on br i ef f or appel l ee.

Apr i l 4, 2014

* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.



TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. I n t he wake of t he f or ecl osur e

cr i s i s , l i t i gant s have i ncr easi ngl y sought out cl ar i f i cat i on

r egar di ng t he val i di t y of mor t gage t r ansf er s pr eci pi t at ed by

Mor t gage El ect r oni c Regi st r at i on Syst ems, I nc. ( "MERS") . The

general cont our s of t hese cl ai ms ar e wel l known, and many of t he

f acts under l yi ng t hi s case par al l el past f or ecl osur e l i t i gat i on.

A homeowner , Frank P. But l er ( "But l er " ) , upon f al l i ng behi nd i n hi s

mort gage payment s, saw hi s home f orecl osed upon, t wi ce. These

f or ecl osur e sal es wer e not conduct ed by But l er ' s ori gi nal l ender ,

but by a f i nanci al i nst i t ut i on t hat had r ecei ved hi s mor t gage vi a

an assi gnment f r om MERS. But l er br ought sui t f or wr ongf ul

f or ecl osur e, sl ander of t i t l e, and unf ai r and decept i ve busi ness

pr act i ces under Massachuset t s l aw. Fi ndi ng t hat t he f or ecl osur e

sal es wer e i n accor dance wi t h al l r el evant st at ut or y l aw, t he

di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. On appeal ,

But l er pr esent s a mul t i t ude of t heor i es as t o why Deut sche Bank

l acked l egal possessi on over both hi s mor t gage and accompanyi ng

not e, maki ng i t an i mpr oper par t y t o f or ecl ose. Concl udi ng, l i ke

t he di st r i ct cour t bef or e us, t hat But l er ' s compl ai nt st at es no

l egal l y cogni zabl e cl ai m f or r el i ef , we af f i r m.

I. Background

On J anuary 31, 2007, But l er borr owed $370, 000. 00 f r om

Homecomi ngs Fi nanci al , LLC ( "Homecomi ngs" ) . Thi s l oan was secured

wi t h a pr omi ssory note and mort gage on hi s Qui ncy, Massachuset t s

-2-



home. The mor t gage document l i st ed Homecomi ngs as "l ender " and

MERS as both "mor t gagee" and "nomi nee f or [ Homecomi ngs] and

[ Homecomi ngs] ' s successors and assi gns. " The mort gage f ur t her

speci f i ed t hat MERS hel d t he "power of sal e. "

On December 1, 2009, MERS assi gned But l er ' s mor t gage t o

Deut sche Bank Trust Company Amer i cas as Tr ust ee f or an unspeci f i ed

t r ust . The assi gnment was si gned by J ef f er y St ephan ( "St ephan") ,

act i ng i n hi s capaci t y as a vi ce pr esi dent of MERS, and was

r ecor ded i n t he Nor f ol k Count y Regi st r y of Deeds. Si x days l at er ,

Deut sche Bank, act i ng as t r ust ee f or t he unspeci f i ed t r ust , f i l ed

sui t i n Massachuset t s Land Cour t pur suant t o t he Servi ce Members

Ci vi l Rel i ef Act , 50 U. S. C. app. § 533, r equest i ng aut hor i t y t o

f or ecl ose on But l er ' s pr oper t y. Thi s aut hor i t y was gr ant ed on

Mar ch 30, 2010.

Subsequent l y, MERS agai n assi gned But l er ' s mor t gage, t hi s

t i me t o Deut sche Bank Tr ust Company Amer i cas as Tr ust ee f or RALI

2007QS3 ( "Deut sche Bank" ) . 1 Al t hough t hi s ass i gnment was undated,

i t was s i gned by St ephan i n hi s capaci t y as Vi ce Presi dent of MERS

and notar i zed on J anuary 22, 2010. The assi gnment was r ecor ded i n

1 Presumabl y, t hi s second assi gnment was i nt ended t o corr ect t heear l i er assi gnment ' s f ai l ur e t o speci f y a r ecei vi ng t r ust . The

di st r i ct cour t consi der ed whet her such a def i ci ency r ender ed t hef i r st assi gnment voi d, but ul t i mat el y f ound t hi s poi nti nconsequent i al , as bot h f or ecl osur e sal es wer e car r i ed out onl yaf t er t he second assi gnment was compl ete. On appeal , But l er doesnot suggest t hat any def i ci ency i n t he f i r st assi gnment was of l egal i mpor t . Consequent l y, we do not consi der what ef f ect t hef ai l ur e t o name a t r ust had on t he f i r st assi gnment ' s val i di t y.

-3-





wr ongf ul f or ecl osure based on t he Mar ch 8, 2012 f or ecl osure sal e;

and ( 4) sl ander of t i t l e. I n suppor t of t hese cl ai ms, But l er

pr esent ed a bevy of t heor i es as t o why Deut sche Bank di d not

val i dl y possess ei t her hi s mor t gage or hi s mor t gage not e, maki ng i t

unabl e t o f or ecl ose. Fi ndi ng each of t hese t heor i es l acki ng, t he

di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed t he sui t f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m.

On appeal , But l er argues t hat Deut sche Bank coul d not

l egal l y f or ecl ose because: ( 1) MERS l acked l egal aut hor i t y t o

t r ansf er hi s mor t gage and, mor eover , admi t s t hat i t onl y " t r acks"

t he sal e of mort gage notes, but does not undert ake assi gnment s; ( 2)

St ephan, a " r obo- si gner , " coul d not val i dl y ser ve as si gnat or y on

t he assi gnment s; ( 3) t he assi gnment s vi ol ated t he RALI 2007QS3

t r ust ' s pool i ng and servi ci ng agr eement ( "PSA") ; ( 4) Deut sche Bank

di d not l egal l y possess But l er ' s pr omi ssor y not e at t he t i me of

f or ecl osur e; and ( 5) Deut sche Bank admi t t ed t hat t he f i r st

f or ecl osur e sal e was i nval i d.

II. Discussion

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of a mot i on t o di smi ss

de novo. Cl ar k v. Boscher , 514 F. 3d 107, 112 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . We

t ake al l f act s pl ed, as wel l as al l r easonabl e i nf er ences t o be

dr awn t her ef r om, i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he non- movant .

I d. ( ci t i ng Ramos- Pi ñer o v. Puer t o Ri co, 453 F. 3d 48, 51 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) ) . Thi s def er ent i al r evi ew, however , does not r equi r e t hat we

accept t he compl ai nt whol esal e; "bal d asser t i ons" and

-5-



"unsuppor t abl e concl usi ons" ar e pr oper l y di sr egar ded. Aul son v.

Bl anchar d, 83 F. 3d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . We af f i r m t he gr ant of a

mot i on t o di smi ss onl y wher e t he f act s, pr esumed to be t r ue, f ai l

t o st at e a cl ai m f or whi ch r el i ef may be gr ant ed. Fed. R. Ci v. P.

12(b)(6).

Al l f our count s of But l er ' s compl ai nt r est on t he shar ed

pr esumpt i on t hat Deut sche Bank l acked t he power t o f orecl ose,

ei t her because i t di d not l egal l y possess But l er ' s mor t gage or

because i t had not uni f i ed t hat mor t gage wi t h i t s under l yi ng

pr omi ssor y not e at t he t i me of f or ecl osur e. I n r esol vi ng t hi s

case, t heref ore, we begi n by r evi ewi ng the common t heor i es

under l yi ng al l count s.

A. Deutsche Bank's possession of Butler's mortgage

But l er pr esent s sever al t heor i es as t o why Deut sche Bank

l acked l egal possessi on of hi s mor t gage. We t r eat each t heor y i n

t ur n.

1. MERS's authority to assign the mortgage

But l er f i r st at t empt s t o chal l enge t he l egal i t y of MERS

head- on, ar gui ng t hat under Massachuset t s l aw i t l acks t he abi l i t y

t o t r ansf er hi s mor t gage. He t heor i zes that MERS, as "nomi nee" f or

t he notehol der , Homecomi ngs, hol ds t he mort gage onl y as equi t abl e

t r ust ee. I n consequence, bei ng abl e t o act sol el y pur suant t o

Homecomi ng' s aut hor i t y, MERS cannot i ndependent l y under t ake a

mort gage t r ansf er . That MERS i s al so t he mort gagee of r ecor d,

-6-



But l er asser t s, does not expand t he l i mi t ed nat ur e of i t s aut hor i t y

as "nomi nee. " I n consequence of t he f act t hat MERS possesses no

separ at el y assi gnabl e i nt er est , But l er t heor i zes, any t r ansf er i n

whi ch MERS pur port s t o act as t he ass i gnor , or any subsequent

t r ansf er ar i si ng t her eaf t er , i s necessar i l y voi d.

Our cour t has pr evi ousl y consi der ed, and f ound want i ng,

t hi s pr eci se chal l enge t o MERS' s abi l i t y to ser ve as assi gnor of a

mort gage. Cul hane v. Aur ora Loan Servs. of Neb. , 708 F. 3d 282,

291- 93 ( 1st . Ci r . 2013) ( anal yzi ng Massachuset t s mor t gage l aw t o

det ermi ne t hat MERS, as nomi nee and mor t gagee of r ecor d, possesses

t he abi l i t y t o t r ansf er i t s i nt er est i n a mor t gage) ; see al so Woods

v. Wel l s Far go Bank, N. A. , 733 F. 3d 349, 355 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( "Cul hane made cl ear t hat MERS' s st at us as an equi t abl e t r ust ee

does not ci r cumscr i be t he t r ansf er abi l i t y of i t s l egal i nt er est . ") .

Because Cul hane has previ ousl y done the heavy l i f t i ng of engagi ng

wi t h t he i nt r i caci es of Massachuset t s mor t gage l aw, see Cul hane,

708 F. 3d at 291- 93, we wi l l not r epeat i t s det ai l ed expl i cat i on

her e. Suf f i ce i t t o say, Massachuset t s al l ows a mor t gage t o be

spl i t f r om i t s under l yi ng not e, 2 see U. S. Bank Nat ' l Ass' n v.

I báñez, 458 Mass. 637, 652, 941 N. E. 2d 40, 53- 54 ( 2011) , and where,

2 But l er al so ar gues t hat t he f i r st assi gnment pur por t ed t ot r ansf er not onl y t he mor t gage but But l er ' s pr omi ssor y not e, whi chMERS never possessed. Al t hough cor r ect , t hi s f act does not r endert he assi gnment i nval i d; we have pr evi ousl y di smi ssed an i dent i calcl ai mon t he gr ounds t hat "super f l uous l anguage does not af f ect t heval i di t y of t he t r ansf er of l egal t i t l e t o t he mor t gaged pr oper t y. "Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 293 n. 8.

-7-



as her e, MERS possesses a l egal i nt er est i n t hat mor t gage, such an

i nt er est i s t r ansf er abl e. See Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 292; Woods, 733

F. 3d at 355.

But l er f ur t her chal l enges t he val i di t y of t he t r ansf er s

based on a theor y t hat MERS onl y "t r acks" t he ass i gnment of

mor t gage notes, but does not under t ake assi gnment s of t he

accompanyi ng mor t gages. Ci t i ng t o t he 2011 "MERS Case Law Out l i ne"

- - a document pr epar ed by MERS t o f ami l i ar i ze users wi t h i t s l egal

st r uct ur e - - But l er asser t s t hat MERS i t sel f di scl ai ms any r ol e as

an assi gnor . Thi s argument both mi sconcei ves MERS' s busi ness model

and mi sconst r ues t he l anguage of t he "MERS Case Law Out l i ne. "

For one, t hat MERS separ at el y t r acks t he t r ansf er of

pr omi ssor y not es does not cal l i nt o quest i on t he suf f i ci ency of

wr i t t en assi gnment s dul y recor ded i n a count y regi st r y of deeds.

Woods, 733 F. 3d at 355. I n f act , cr uci al t o MERS' s busi ness model

i s i t s abi l i t y to r emai n mor t gagee of r ecor d, possessi ng a l egal

i nt er est i n a homeowner ' s mor t gage, whi l e t he benef i ci al i nt er est

i n t hat accompanyi ng not e i s t r ansf er r ed among MERS' s member

i nst i t ut i ons. See Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 287 ( expl ai ni ng MERS' s

f unct i oni ng) . That MERS el ect r oni cal l y r ecor ds t hese t r ansf er s of

a mor t gage not e does not af f ect , much l ess i nval i dat e, i t s abi l i t y

t o separ at el y assi gn t he mor t gage. Woods, 733 F. 3d at 355 ( " [ T] he

MERS r egi st r y el ect r oni cal l y t r acks t r ansf er s of a mor t gagor ' s

pr omi ssor y not e, a pr ocess whi ch i s l egal l y di st i nct f r om t he

-8-



assi gnment and r ecor dat i on of mor t gage i nt er est s i n a count y

r egi st r y of deeds. " ) . For anot her , no par t of t he "MERS Case Law

Out l i ne" di scl ai ms MERS' s abi l i t y t o make assi gnment s. That

document st ates onl y t hat t he recor ds kept by MERS t r acki ng t he

t r ansf er of mor t gage not es ar e "not el ect r oni c assi gnment s. " That

i s qui t e t r ue. No r easonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of such a pr of f er ,

however , can l ead t o t he concl usi on t hat MERS l acks t he l egal

aut hor i t y t o separ at el y t r ansf er a mor t gage vi a a wr i t t en and

r ecor ded assi gnment , as i t di d her e. 3 I n chal l engi ng MERS' s

aut hor i t y t o act as assi gnor , But l er has f ai l ed t o cal l i nt o

quest i on Deut sche Bank' s val i d possessi on of hi s mor t gage.

2. Transfers by "robo-signers"

But l er ' s next al l egat i on of i nval i di t y st ems f r om t he

conduct of St ephan, a "conf i r med ' Robo- Si gner , ' " who si gned t he

f i r st and second assi gnment s i n hi s capaci t y as a vi ce pr esi dent of

MERS. St ephan' s si gnat ur e, But l er suggest s, r ender s t he

3 Ci t i ng t he RALI Ser i es 2007QS3 t r ust ' s PSA, But l er asser t s t hatt her e exi st s a number of unaccount ed f or "of f r ecor d" t r ansf er s of t he But l er mor t gage. At most , however , t hat PSA pr oves t hat t het r ust set f or t h a speci f i ed pr ocess f or t he r ecei pt of mor t gagel oans. I t does not pr ove such assi gnment s i ndeed occur r ed and werenot account ed f or i n Deut sche Bank' s chai n of t i t l e. I n f act ,But l er ' s br i ef l at er f or war ds t he cont r adi ct or y ar gument t hat t he

assi gnment vi ol at ed t he PSA speci f i cal l y because i t never t r avel edt hr ough t hese i nt er medi ar y par t i es. I n any case, r ecor ded i n t heNorf ol k Count y Regi st r y of Deeds i s an assi gnment showi ng t hatBut l er ' s mor t gage t r avel ed f r om MERS di r ect l y t o Deut sche Bank. Thi s i s a compl et e chai n of t i t l e, suf f i ci ent t o prove t he val i di t yof t hat assi gnment . See Woods, 733 F. 3d 356 ( ci t i ng I báñez, 941N. E. 2d at 53) ) .

-9-



assi gnment s i nsuf f i ci ent t o pass l egal t i t l e. I n maki ng t hi s

cl ai m, however , But l er empl oys t he t er m "r obo- si gner " wi t hout

pr ovi di ng an oper at i ve def i ni t i on and, per haps mor e t el l i ng,

f or war ds no par t i cul ar l egal t heor y as t o why a " r obo- si gned"

document i s necessar i l y i nval i d.

Faced wi t h a near l y i dent i cal cl ai m, our cour t has

unequi vocal l y "decl i ne[ d] t o specul at e on t he meani ng . . . [ of ]

t he t er m [ ' r obo- si gni ng' ] . " See Wi l son v. HSBC Mor t g. Ser vs. ,

I nc. , No. 13- 1298, 2014 WL 563457, at *10 ( 1st Ci r . Feb. 14, 2014)

( col l ect i ng cases showi ng t he l ack of a uni f or m def i ni t i on of

"r obo- si gner s" and t hei r pr eci se r ol e i n t he pr ocess of bundl i ng

and secur i t i zi ng home mort gages) . Moreover , we have hel d t hat " t he

bar e al l egat i on of ' r obo- si gni ng' does not hi ng t o under mi ne the

val i di t y" of an assi gnment . I d.

I n f act , Massachuset t s st at ut or y l aw set s f or t h t he

pr eci se r equi r ement s f or a val i d mor t gage assi gnment :

Not wi t hst andi ng any l aw t o t he cont r ar y . . .[ an] assi gnment of [ a] mor t gage . . . execut edbef or e a not ar y publ i c . . . by a per sonpur por t i ng t o hol d t he posi t i on of pr esi dent ,vi ce pres i dent , . . . or ot her of f i cer . . .of t he ent i t y hol di ng such mor t gage, orot her wi se pur por t i ng t o be an aut hor i zedsi gnat or y f or such ent i t y . . . shal l bebi ndi ng upon such ent i t y . . . .

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183, § 54B. MERS' s assi gnment s of t he But l er

mor t gage f ul l y abi ded by t hese st at ut or y r equi r ement s: St ephan, i n

hi s capaci t y as a vi ce pr esi dent of MERS, si gned bot h assi gnment s

-10-



i n t he pr esence of a not ar y publ i c. Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 294

( f i ndi ng t hat an assi gnment adher i ng t o t he requi r ement s of sect i on

54B i s val i d) ; see al so Wi l son, 2014 WL 563457 at *9. 4 Fai l i ng t o

al l ege any theor y as t o how St ephan' s r ol e as a "r obo- si gner " woul d

i nval i dat e t he val i di t y of t he mor t gage t r ansf er s, and pl eadi ng no

ot her f ai l ur e t o abi de by sect i on 54B' s r equi r ement s, t hi s

chal l enge t o t he val i di t y of Deut sche Bank' s possessi on f ai l s.

3. RALI 2007QS3's PSA

But l er ' s compl ai nt next al l eges t hat Deut sche Bank l acked

val i d possessi on of hi s mor t gage, as i t s r ecei pt of t he assi gnment

was i n vi ol at i on of RALI 2007QS3' s PSA. Speci f i cal l y, t he PSA

r equi r ed t hat : ( 1) any mor t gage assi gned t o t he t r ust under go a

ser i es of t r ansf er s t hr ough t hr ee pr edet er mi ned par t i es and ( 2) al l

assi gnment s t o t he t r ust be compl ete by Febr uary 27, 2007. That

Deut sche Bank r ecei ved the mor t gage wi t hout i t s f i r st passi ng

t hr ough t hese r equi r ed i nt ermedi ar i es, and at a date some t wo years

beyond t he t r ust ' s cl osi ng dat e, But l er asser t s, ar e vi ol at i ons of

4 On appeal , But l er argues t hat t he assi gnment s do not meetsect i on 54B' s r equi r ement s because t hey were not under t aken by anagent wi t h power t o bi nd a pr i nci pal . Di st i l l i ng t hi s ar gument asbest we can f r om t he uncl ear pl eadi ngs, i t appear s t hat But l er i s

at t empt i ng t o cont est t he appl i cabi l i t y of sect i on 54B on t het heor y t hat , because MERS never val i dl y hel d a t r ansf er abl ei nt er est i n hi s mor t gage, St ephan - - as an agent of MERS - - coul dnot t r ansf er r i ght s never possessed by t he pr i nci pal . Because wehave al r eady di smi ssed t he al l egat i on t hat MERS di d not possess at r ansf er abl e i nt er est i n But l er ' s mor t gage, we need not consi dert hi s cl ai m f ur t her .

-11-



t he t r ust ' s t er ms suf f i ci ent t o r ender i t s possessi on of t he

mor t gage voi d.

The cont our s of t hi s ar gument have proved a movi ng t ar get

t hr oughout t hi s l i t i gat i on, as But l er i ni t i al l y appear ed t o assent

t o the appl i cat i on of Massachuset t s l aw but now, on appeal , ar gues

t hat New Yor k l aw cont r ol s. Gi ven t hi s shi f t i ng f ocus, we pause

br i ef l y t r ace t he cl ai m' s evol ut i on.

a. The progression of Butler's claim

I n suppor t of i t s mot i on t o di smi ss, Deut sche Bank ar gued

t hat , under Massachuset t s l aw, a homeowner l acks s t andi ng t o

chal l enge assi gnment s t hat vi ol at e a t r ust ' s PSA but ar e ot her wi se

val i d t o pass t i t l e. Because But l er was nei t her par t y t o, nor

benef i ci ary of such an assi gnment , Deut sche Bank assert ed t hat he

had shown no l egal l y pr ot ect ed i nt er est suf f i ci ent f or st andi ng.

I n hi s opposi t i on t o t hi s mot i on t o di smi ss, But l er was

si l ent on t he i ssue of New Yor k l aw and, i ndeed, f ai l ed t o cl ai m- -

under any governi ng l aw - - t hat such assi gnment s woul d be voi d and

not voi dabl e. Rat her , ar gui ng t hat " i n Massachuset t s f or ecl osur e

oper at es as a ' cr eat ur e of cont r act , ' " he cl ai med t o der i ve

st andi ng t o chal l enge Deut sche Bank' s possessi on on t he gr ounds

t hat onl y Homecomi ngs, not Deut sche Bank, was part y t o hi s or i gi nal

cont r act . 5

5 Pr esumabl y, t hi s argument at t empted t o suggest t hat Homecomi ngssomehow l acked t he abi l i t y t o assi gn i t s cont r act ual i nt er est t oanother part y under Massachuset t s l aw.

-12-



Appl yi ng Massachuset t s l aw, t he di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed

t hi s cl ai m, r easoni ng t hat a homeowner l acks st andi ng t o chal l enge

a mor t gage assi gnment t hat i s voi dabl e, but not voi d. Al t hough

t hat deci si on pr edat ed Cul hane, t he cour t ' s concl usi on was i n l i ne

wi t h our l at er hol di ng t her ei n: an assi gnment t hat i s voi dabl e,

but not voi d, may not be chal l enged by a homeowner t hat i s not a

di r ect par t y t o, or benef i ci ar y of , t he t r ansf er . Cul hane, 708

F. 3d at 291 ( " [ A] mort gagor does not have st andi ng to chal l enge

shor t comi ngs i n an assi gnment t hat r ender i t mer el y voi dabl e at t he

el ect i on of one par t y but ot her wi se ef f ect i ve t o pass l egal

t i t l e. ") . Thus, t he di str i ct cour t r easoned t hat a f ai l ur e t o

abi de by the PSA, whi l e maki ng t he t r ansf er of But l er ' s mor t gage

voi dabl e at t he behest of t he t r ust benef i ci ar i es, was not t he sor t

of shor t comi ng abl e t o cr eat e j udi ci al st andi ng f or But l er t o

chal l enge Deut sche Bank' s possessi on.

I n hi s openi ng appel l at e br i ef , But l er agai n ar gued t hat

Deut sche Bank' s f ai l ur e t o pr ove t hat hi s mor t gage t r ansf er r ed

t hr ough t hr ee i nt er medi ar y par t i es - - t hose named i n t he t r ust ' s

governi ng t erms - - and was r ecei ved by Deut sche Bank by the

appr opr i at e cl osi ng dat e, woul d "r esul t [ ] i n a f ai l ur e of t he

t r ust ' s i nt er est i n t he But l er mor t gage and not e. " Her e, f or t he

f i r st t i me, But l er suggest ed t hat New Yor k l aw gener al l y gover ns

t he t r ansf er of asset s i nt o a New Yor k busi ness t r ust . He

cont i nued on t o say, however , t hat "as an assi gnment of a mort gage

-13-



i s a t r ansf er of an i nt er est i n l and i n t he Commonweal t h, wi t h

r egar ds t o t he t r ust ' s speci f i c cl ai m of t he domi ni on and cont r ol

over t he t i t l e t o t he But l er r eal pr oper t y, Massachuset t s l aw woul d

need t o be r ef erenced. "

I t i s onl y i n hi s repl y br i ef t hat But l er cl ear l y set s

f or t h hi s cur r ent cl ai m. Ther ei n, But l er asser t s t hat New Yor k

Est at es, Power s and Tr ust Law makes cl ear t hat "ever y . . . act of

t he t r ust ee i n cont r avent i on of t he t r ust , except as aut hor i zed by

t hi s ar t i cl e and by any ot her pr ovi si on of l aw, i s voi d. " N. Y.

Est . Powers & Trust s Law § 7- 2. 4 ( emphasi s added) . I n suppor t of

t hi s cl ai m, he ci t es Wel l s Far go Bank, N. A. v. Er obobo, No.

31648/ 2009, 2013 WL 1831799 (N. Y. Sup. Ct . 2013) ( unpubl i shed) ,

whi ch r ul ed t hat cont r avent i on of a t r ust ' s PSA r ender ed a mor t gage

assi gnment voi d. I d. at *8- 9. Whi l e not i ng t hat a number of

cour t s have di scl ai med t he r easoni ng of Er obobo, on t he gr ounds

t hat New Yor k cour t s commonl y al l ow f or t he r at i f i cat i on of ul t r a

vi r es act s by t r ust ees, But l er asser t s t hat t hese cases er r oneousl y

i nt er pr et New Yor k l aw. Mor eover , al t hough But l er ' s repl y br i ef

di scusses t he cont ent and ef f ect of New Yor k l aw, i t whol l y

negl ect s t o r ef er ence t o t he pr edi cat e quest i on of Massachuset t s

choi ce- of - l aw r ul es, st at i ng onl y t hat "t r ust l aw i s st at e l aw. "

b. The applicability of waiver

Deut sche Bank, at oral argument s and t hrough suppl ement al

br i ef i ng, ar gues t hat But l er has wai ved t he abi l i t y to cl ai m t hat

-14-



New Yor k l aw appl i es, havi ng f ai l ed t o r ai se the i ssue bef or e t he

di st r i ct cour t and br i ngi ng i t , squar el y, onl y i n hi s repl y br i ef .

On appeal , absent ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances counsel i ng

f or except i on, we rout i nel y deem wai ved ar gument s not t i mel y

pr esent ed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . Rocaf or t v. I BM Cor p. , 334

F. 3d 115, 121 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Thi s doct r i ne of wai ver appl i es

wi t h equal f or ce t o cl ai ms seeki ng t he appl i cat i on of a f or ei gn

st at e' s l aw. See Or t i z v. Gast on Cnt y. Dyei ng Mach. Co. , 277 F. 3d

594, 597 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( wai vi ng a choi ce- of - l aw argument br ought

f i r st dur i ng post - j udgment mot i ons) ; Cheever v. Gr aves, 32 Mass.

App. Ct . 601, 610, 592 N. E. 2d 758, 764 ( 1992) ( r ef usi ng t o consi der

a choi ce- of - l aw ar gument wher e "t her e i s not hi ng i n t he recor d

bef or e us t o i ndi cat e that t he def endant s r equest ed t hat t he j udge

t ake j udi ci al not i ce of t he l aw of Connect i cut or . . . cal l ed t he

j udge' s at t ent i on t o t hi s st at ute") ; cf . Levi n v. Dal va Br os. , 459

F. 3d 68, 72 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( al l owi ng choi ce- of - l aw cl ai mt hat was

r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me at t r i al , but pr i or t o "t he cour t . . .

i ssu[ i ng] any r ul i ng on t he i ssue") ; Conn. Nat ' l Bank of Har t f or d

v. Kommi t , 31 Mass. App. Ct . 348, 351 n. 3, 577 N. E. 2d 639, 641 n. 3

( 1991) ( al l owi ng a par t y to asser t t he appl i cabi l i t y of Connect i cut

l aw f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal wher e " t he br oader i ssue of

choi ce- of - l aw was squar el y r ai sed bel ow") .

Her e, But l er made no ment i on of t he appl i cabi l i t y of New

York st at e l aw bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . I n f act , t he ar gument

-15-



But l er pr esent ed i n hi s memor andum i n opposi t i on t o the mot i on t o

di smi ss di d not f ocus on t he i ssue of voi d ver sus voi dabl e

assi gnment s at al l , and i n def ense t o Deut sche Bank' s cl ai ms he

argued onl y that i t s memorandumi n support of t he mot i on t o di smi ss

er r oneousl y i nt erpr et ed Massachuset t s l aw. Thi s shor t comi ng was

f ur t her compounded on appeal , wher e But l er ' s i ni t i al br i ef i ng

exhi bi t ed a marked l ack of coherence, appear i ng t o r ef erence New

York l aw onl y t o t hen di scl ai m i t s appl i cat i on on t he quest i on of

Deut sche Bank' s "cont r ol over t he t i t l e t o t he But l er r eal

pr oper t y. " I n sum, t he unf ocused nat ur e of t hi s br i ef f ai l ed t o

squar el y cal l our at t ent i on t o t he cl ai m he now r el i es on. 6 See

Rodr í guez v. Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, 659 F. 3d 168, 175 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( concl udi ng t hat " [ j ] udges are not mi nd- r eader s, " and t hus,

"ar gument s conf usi ngl y const r uct ed and l acki ng i n coher ence" are

appr opr i at el y wai ved ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . Even i n r epl y, But l er f ai l s t o pr ovi de any devel oped

6 But l er ' s openi ng br i ef st at es t hat "under . . . N. Y. Est . Power s& Tr ust s Law § 7- 2. 4 t he But l er note and mort gage woul d not bel egal l y among [ t he t r ust ' s] cor pus. " I t t hen cont i nues: "[ u] nderMassachuset t s r eal pr oper t y l aw r egar di ng t he mor t gage i t sel f , asa t r ansf er of i nt er est i n l and, [ ] t he Def endant has f ai l ed t opr oduce execut ed wr i t i ngs evi denci ng such pur port ed chai n of t r ansf er of t he t i t l e of t he But l er r eal pr oper t y. Thus, any

pr of f er ed ' assi gnment ' r el i ed upon by [ Deut sche Bank] coul d neverbe ' r at i f i ed, ' as i t i s ' voi d. ' " Thi s ar gument does not cl ear l ychal l enge, as er r or , t he appl i cat i on of Massachuset t s l aw t o t hequest i on of whet her t he assi gnment f r om MERS t o Deut sche Bank wasvoi d and not voi dabl e. Rat her , ul t i mat el y i t appear s t o cl ai mt hatDeut sche Bank' s f ai l ur e t o pr ove a compl et e chai n of t i t l e, asr equi r ed by Massachuset t s l aw, woul d render t he mort gage voi d.

-16-



anal ysi s of Massachuset t s - - t he f or um st at e - - choi ce- of - l aw

r ul es, ski ppi ng over t hi s pr edi cat e quest i on and of f er i ng onl y hi s

i nt er pr et at i on of t he cont ent and ef f ect of New Yor k l aw. See

Sandst r om v. ChemLawn Cor p. , 904 F. 2d 83, 87 (1st Ci r . 1990)

( f i ndi ng wai ved an ar gument "coher ent l y pul l ed t oget her f or t he

f i r st t i me i n [ a] r epl y br i ef ") ; Br ai nt r ee Labs. , I nc. v. Ci t i gr oup

Gl obal Mkt s. I nc. , 622 F. 3d 36, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( same) .

The ef f ect of t hese var i ous i nsuf f i ci enci es i s cl ear . To

r each But l er ' s cl ai m woul d r equi r e our cour t t o consi der an i ssue

not r ai sed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , pr esent ed squar el y onl y i n a

r epl y br i ef , and - - even t hen - - mi ssi ng a di scussi on of an

el ement al aspect of t he cl ai m. Such an unt i mel y and i ncompl ete

pr esent at i on of ar gument s depr i ves t hi s cour t of t he benef i ci al

i nsi ght s of t he di st r i ct cour t and, per haps mor e cri t i cal l y,

depr i ves t he appel l ee of a f ai r oppor t uni t y to r espond, l eavi ng our

cour t wi t h "one si de of a t wo- si ded st or y. "7 See Sandst r om, 904

F. 2d at 87. On t he whol e, we bel i eve i t unwi se t o t r eat t hese

quest i ons of st at e l aw absent coher ent and t i mel y br i ef i ng. Thus,

we f i nd wai ved But l er ' s unseasonabl y l ate ar gument t hat New Yor k

7 But l er never gave a r eason f or t he l at e pr esent at i on of t hi sargument nor suggest ed t hat t he appl i cat i on of New Yor k l aw was

undi scover abl e at ear l i er st ages of l i t i gat i on. Al t hough we al l owedDeut sche Bank t o f i l e a suppl ement al br i ef , But l er ' s di l at or y anduncl ear br i ef i ng st i l l had t he ef f ect of ci r cumscr i bi ng Deut scheBank' s abi l i t y t o r espond and l eavi ng key aspect s of t he cl ai munderdevel oped. Moreover , we are unconvi nced t hat suppl ement albr i ef i ng on t he par t of Deut sche Bank shoul d serve t o r escueBut l er ' s cl ai ms f r om t he pr eci pi ce of wai ver .

-17-



l aw appl i es t o make voi d Deut sche Bank' s r ecei pt of But l er ' s

mor t gage. 8

c. Resolution under Massachusetts law

Under Massachuset t s l aw, i t i s cl ear t hat cl ai ms al l egi ng

di sr egar d of a t r ust ' s PSA ar e consi der ed voi dabl e, not voi d. See

Woods, 733 F. 3d at 354 ( " [ C] l ai ms t hat mer el y asser t pr ocedur al

i nf i r mi t i es i n t he assi gnment of a mor t gage, such as a f ai l ur e t o

abi de by t he t er ms of a gover ni ng t r ust agr eement , ar e bar r ed f or

l ack of st andi ng. " ) ; Wi l son, 2014 WL 563457, at *6 ( " [ W] hen a

cor por at e of f i cer act s beyond t he scope of hi s aut hor i t y, hi s act s

i n excess of [ t hat ] aut hor i t y, al t hough voi dabl e by t he

cor por at i on, l egal l y coul d be r at i f i ed and adopt ed by i t . "

( al t er at i ons and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Comm' r of Banks

v. Tremont Trust Co. , 259 Mass. 162, 179- 80, 156 N. E. 7, 14- 15

( 1927) ) ; cf . Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 291 ( al l owi ng f or st andi ng wher e

cl ai ms are pr edi cat ed on t he t heor y t hat " t he assi gnor had not hi ng

t o ass i gn or had no aut hor i t y t o make an assi gnment t o a par t i cul ar

assi gnee" ) . Thus, havi ng onl y pr esent ed f act s suf f i ci ent t o show

8 We not e wi t hout deci si on, however , t hat t he vast maj or i t y of cour t s t o consi der t he i ssue have r ej ect ed Er obobo' s r easoni ng,det er mi ni ng t hat despi t e the expr ess t er ms of N. Y. Est . Power s &

Tr ust s Law § 7- 2. 4, t he act s of a t r ust ee i n cont r avent i on of at r ust may be r at i f i ed, and ar e t hus voi dabl e. See, e. g. , Davi s v.Count r ywi de Home Loans, I nc. , No. H- 13- 623, 2014 WL 838146, at *4n. 8 ( S. D. Tex. Mar . 3, 2014) ( col l ect i ng cases) ; Wol f f v. Bank of N. Y. Mel l on, No. 13- CV- 2175( PJ S/ J SM) , 2014 WL 641510, at *9 ( D.Mi nn. Feb. 19, 2014) ( same) ; Kouf os v. U. S. Bank, N. A. , 939 F.Supp. 2d. 40, 48 n. 5 ( D. Mass. 2013) .

-18-



t he assi gnment was voi dabl e under Massachuset t s l aw, But l er l acks

st andi ng t o chal l enge Deut sche Bank' s possessi on of t he mort gage on

t hi s gr ound. Cul hane, 708 F. 3d at 291. Absent such st andi ng, t hi s

t heor y as t o the i nval i di t y of Deut sche Bank' s possessi on cannot

f orm t he bas i s f or rel i ef .

B. Deutsche Bank's failure to unify the mortgage and note

But l er addi t i onal l y pr edi cat es hi s compl ai nt on t he

t heor y t hat Deut sche Bank admi t t edl y l acked possessi on of hi s

pr omi ssor y not e at t he t i me i t i ni t i at ed bot h f or ecl osur e sal es.

He ar gues t hat , under t he r easoni ng of Eat on v. Fed. Nat ' l Mort g.

Ass' n, 462 Mass. 569, 969 N. E. 2d 1118 ( 2012) , t hi s f ai l ur e t o

r euni f y t he not e and mor t gage pr i or t o gi vi ng not i ce of f or ecl osur e

vi ol at es Massachuset t s f or ecl osur e l aw.

But l er i s cor r ect t hat Eat on est abl i shed t hat , t o

pr oper l y f or ecl ose on r eal pr oper t y i n Massachuset t s, a par t y must

possess bot h t he mor t gage and under l yi ng not e. I d. at 1133. Yet ,

r ecogni zi ng t hat t hi s hol di ng si gni f i cant l y r ecast Massachuset t s

l aw, whi ch had l ong accept ed t he abi l i t y of a mor t gage hol der t o

f or ecl ose absent possessi on of t he not e, t he Massachuset t s Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t ( "SJ C" ) appl i ed i t s r ul i ng prospect i vel y. I d.

Thus, f or al l f or ecl osur e sal es i n whi ch not i ce of t he r i ght t o

f or ecl ose i s gi ven af t er J une 22, 2012 - - t he dat e of Eat on' s

publ i cat i on - - r euni f i cat i on of t he mor t gage and not e i s r equi r ed.

The r equi r ement of r euni f i cat i on was al so appl i ed r et r oact i vel y t o

-19-



Eat on her sel f , but f or al l ot her f or ecl osur e sal es pr edat i ng

J une 22, 2012, possess i on of t he not e was not r equi r ed. I d.

Not i ce of f or ecl osur e i n t hi s case was gi ven year s bef or e

Eat on' s publ i cat i on, and But l er does not cl ai mt hat Eat on expr essl y

bi nds hi s case. Rat her , he r el i es on subsequent deci si ons by t he

Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t , whi ch appl i ed Eat on r et r oact i vel y t o

l i t i gant s who "advanced the same ar gument s t o [ t he appel l at e cour t ]

at t he same t i me those ar gument s were bei ng consi der ed by t he

Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t " i n Eaton. HSBC Bank USA, N. A. v. Nor r i s,

No. 11- P- 1916, 2013 WL 708944, at *2 ( Mass. App. Ct . Feb. 28, 2013)

( "For t he same r eason t hat t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t appl i ed i t s

r ul i ng r et r oacti vel y t o Eat on [ her ] sel f , we appl y i t t o Nor r i s. ") ;

see al so Lyons v. Mor t g. El ec. Regi st r at i on Sys. , I nc. , No. 11- P-

650, 2013 WL 2420705, at *1 ( Mass. App. Ct . J une 5, 2013) ( same) .

Thus, because But l er ' s cl ai m was i n l i t i gat i on at t he t i me Eaton

was r esol ved, he t heor i zes t hat t he r ul e r equi r i ng r euni f i cat i on of

note and mort gage appl i es t o Deut sche Bank' s f orecl osur e.

A subsequent SJ C case, Gal i ast r o v. Mor t g. El ec.

Regi st r at i on Sys. , I nc. , 467 Mass. 160, 4 N. E. 3d 270 ( 2014) , has

cl ar i f i ed t he par amet er s of Eat on' s appl i cat i on, and i t s hol di ng

gui des us her e. I n Gal i ast r o, t he SJ C answer ed, af f i r mat i vel y, t he

quest i on of whet her Eat on' s r et r oact i ve ef f ect extended t o ot her

i ndi vi dual s wi t h cases on appeal at t he same t i me as Eat on. I d. at

277 ( appl yi ng Eaton' s hol di ng " t o cases t hat were pendi ng on appeal

-20-



i n t he Appeal s Cour t when t he r escr i pt i n Eat on i ssued") . 9 Thus,

Eat on appl i es t o t wo set s of l i t i gant s: ( 1) t hose chal l engi ng

f or ecl osur es f or whi ch t he not i ce of sal e was gi ven af t er J une 22,

2012, and ( 2) t hose wi t h wr ongf ul f or ecl osur e cl ai ms ( pr edi cat ed on

t he t heor y t hat t he f or ecl osi ng ent i t y di d not possess t hei r not e)

t hat wer e on appeal as of J une 22, 2012. To t he cl ai ms of al l

l i t i gant s out si de t hese cl osed set s, we appl y t he pr e- Eat on r ul e,

under whi ch r euni f i cat i on i s not r equi r ed. See Eat on, 969 N. E. 2d

at 1131.

Turni ng t o t he i nst ant case, i t i s cl ear t hat But l er ' s

cl ai ms f al l out si de even Eat on' s newl y expanded r each. 10 The

di st r i ct cour t ent er ed j udgment agai nst But l er on August 14, 2012,

and he f i l ed hi s Not i ce of Appeal t o our cour t on Sept ember 13,

2012. As such, t he case was st i l l pendi ng bef or e t he t r i al cour t

9 Gal i ast r o def i ned "pendi ng on appeal " as i ncl udi ng " t hose casesi n whi ch the case was docketed i n t he Appeal s Cour t bef ore J une 22,2012, and t he Appeal s Cour t had not yet i ssued a deci si on" as wel las cases " wher e t he Appeal s Cour t had i ssued a deci si on, . . . [ andt he] l i t i gant s have f i l ed a pet i t i on f or f ur t her appel l at e r evi ew. "Gal i ast r o, 4 N. E. 3d at 277 n. 14.

10 I n t he appl i cat i on of t hei r deci si ons, st at e cour t s " ' may makea choi ce . . . bet ween t he pr i nci pl e of f or war d oper at i on and t hatof r el at i on backwar d. ' " Li t t l ef i el d v. Cat on, 856 F. 2d 344, 347( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( quot i ng Gr eat N. Ry. Co. v. Sunbur st Oi l & Ref .Co. , 287 U. S. 358, 364 ( 1932) ) . Ther ef or e, we f ol l ow t he gui dance

of t he SJ C i n det er mi ni ng whet her Eat on shoul d appl y ret r oact i vel y.See i d. ( appl yi ng st at e r ul e on r et r oact i vi t y) ; Commonweal t h v.Dagl ey, 442 Mass. 713, 721 n. 10, 818 N. E. 2d 527, 533 n. 10 (2004)( hol di ng t hat Massachuset t s' cour t s ar e f r ee t o gi ve a st at e l awdeci si on onl y pr ospect i ve ef f ect , so l ong as t her e i s "noconst i t ut i onal r equi r ement t hat t he new r ul e . . . be appl i edret roact i vel y. ") .

-21-



on J une 22, 2012, and was not on appeal unt i l some mont hs l ater .

Appl yi ng Gal i ast r o, we necessar i l y f i nd t hat Deut sche Bank need not

have possessed But l er ' s not e.

C. Deutsche Bank's alleged admission of invalidity

I n shor t , we have now det er mi ned that But l er ' s compl ai nt

al l eged no f act s suf f i ci ent t o suggest Deut sche Bank l acked a

l egal l y val i d i nt er est i n hi s mor t gage - - t hat i s, an i nt er est

adequat e f or t he commencement of f or ecl osure pr oceedi ngs. St i l l ,

But l er asser t s one f i nal t heor y speci f i c t o t he f i r st f or ecl osur e

sal e. Poi nt i ng t o a st at ement i n Deut sche Bank' s memor andum i n

suppor t of i t s mot i on t o di smi ss, he al l eges t hat t her e was a

j udi ci al admi ssi on as t o t he i nval i di t y of t he f i r st f or ecl osur e

sal e. I n expl ai ni ng why a second f or ecl osure sal e was conduct ed,

Deut sche Bank st at ed t hat " t he [ f i r st ] f or ecl osur e sal e may have

been voi d because But l er may not have r ecei ved t he f our t een ( 14)

days' not i ce of sal e r equi r ed. " But l er r eads t hi s st at ement t o be

an admi ssi on of t he sal e' s i nval i di t y, necessar i l y maki ng hi s

wr ongf ul f or ecl osur e cl ai m suf f i ci ent l y pl ausi bl e t o sur vi ve a

mot i on t o di smi ss.

I t i s par amount t hat "[ t ] o be bi ndi ng, a j udi ci al

admi ssi on must be cl ear . " Harr i ngt on v. Ci t y of Nashua, 610 F. 3d

24, 31 ( 2010) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Thus, a st at ement t hat a f or ecl osur e sal e "may" have been voi d

cannot be t r eat ed as an unambi guous admi ss i on of t he sal e' s

-22-



def i ni t e i nval i di t y. At most , such a st at ement coul d be an

admi ssi on t hat t he sal e was pot ent i al l y i n vi ol at i on of

Massachuset t s s t at ut or y not i ce requi r ement s, Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

244, § 14. Nonet hel ess, i n l i ght of Deut sche Bank' s st at ement , we

r ecogni ze t hat a cl ai mt hat But l er was not pr ovi ded f our t een days'

not i ce of t he i mpendi ng f or ecl osure sal e mi ght wel l have been

pl ausi bl e, i f pl ed i n hi s compl ai nt . See, e. g. , Ashcrof t v. I qbal ,

556 U. S. 662, 678 ( 2009) .

Unf or t unat el y f or But l er , however , t hat compl ai nt i s

whol l y si l ent on t he i ssue of not i ce, asser t i ng onl y t hat t he f i r st

f orecl osure sal e was voi d because Deut sche Bank was not t he

"hol der " of hi s mor t gage, and t her ef or e l acked t he power t o

f orecl ose under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, § 14. Havi ng made no

al l egat i ons of def i ci ent not i ce i n hi s compl ai nt , But l er has f ai l ed

t o pl ead a cl ai m on whi ch r el i ef mi ght be gr ant ed. A. G. ex r el .

Maddox v. El sevi er , I nc. , 732 F. 3d 77, 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "The

cri t i cal quest i on i s whet her t he cl ai m . . . i s made pl ausi bl e by

t he cumul at i ve ef f ect of t he f act ual al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he

compl ai nt . " ( al t er at i ons and ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

Thi s i nsuf f i ci ency i s made even mor e cl ear i n But l er ' s

memorandum i n opposi t i on t o Deut sche Bank' s mot i on t o di smi ss ,

wher e, f ar f r omal l egi ng def i ci ent not i ce, he at t acks Deut sche Bank

f or "negl ect [ i ng] t o pr ovi de any evi dent i ar y f oundat i on f or such

' assumpt i on' of def ect i ve not i ce. " Per haps unwi t t i ngl y, t hi s

-23-



r et or t hi ghl i ght s t he def i ci ency of But l er ' s cur r ent cl ai m: t her e

was not a modi cumof f act pl ed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t i n suppor t

of a cl ai m of def i ci ent not i ce. Cf . Ocasi o- Her nández v. For t uño-

Bur set , 640 F. 3d 1, 14 ( 1st . Ci r 2011) ( pr esumi ng, f or t he pur poses

of a mot i on t o di smi ss, t he t r ut h of al l f actual al l egat i ons t hat

ar e pl ed) . Havi ng put f or t h no f act ual al l egat i ons t o suppor t hi s

cl ai mand, mor eover , havi ng expr essl y at t acked t he val i di t y of such

a cl ai mbef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , But l er cannot now r ever se cour se

and bui l d on appeal a cl ai m he di savowed bel ow.

III. Butler's causes of action

I n shor t , But l er ' s compl ai nt f or war ds no f act s suf f i ci ent

t o suppor t a theor y t hat Deut sche Bank l acked t he pr oper aut hor i t y

t o f or ecl ose or t hat i t s conduct i n f or ecl osi ng vi ol at ed

Massachuset t s l aw. We see no gr ounds on whi ch t o quest i on t hat

Deut sche Bank val i dl y r ecei ved an assi gnment of But l er ' s mor t gage.

Moreover , under governi ng l aw, Deut sche Bank was not r equi r ed t o

possess t he mor t gage not e when i t i ni t i at ed f or ecl osur e. On

appeal , But l er has asser t ed t heor i es not br ought , or even

speci f i cal l y di scl ai med, bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . Unt i mel y

not i ce and i ncompl ete pl eadi ng, however , have r endered t hese

t heor i es i nadequat e. We f i nd, t her ef or e, t hat But l er has pl ed no

-24-



wr ongf ul f or ecl osur e, sl ander of t i t l e, or Chapt er 93A11 cl ai m on

whi ch r el i ef may be gr ant ed.

IV. Conclusion

I n si f t i ng t hr ough t he det r i t us of t he housi ng mar ket ' s

col l apse, cour t s have been cal l ed upon t o answer any number of

di sput es r egar di ng t he l egal r i ght s of homeowner s and f i nanci al

i nst i t ut i ons. Recent l i t i gat i on i n Massachuset t s state cour t has

squared at l east one more corner of t hese ongoi ng debates, and i t

i s cl ear t hat t he hol di ng of Gal i ast r o i s f at al t o But l er ' s cl ai m.

Fi ndi ng t hat Deut sche Bank need not have possessed But l er ' s not e,

and havi ng l ocat ed no ot her col or abl e cl ai m on whi ch r el i ef mi ght

be gr ant ed, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o di smi ss.

Affirmed.

11 The di st r i ct cour t ' s opi ni on went on t o di scuss al t er nat i vegr ounds of di smi ssal , i ncl udi ng But l er ' s al l eged f ai l ur e t o abi deby pr er equi si t e not i ce r equi r ement s i n br i ngi ng a Chapt er 93Acl ai m. The par t i es spar over whet her such not i ce was r equi r ed, butt hi s i s a f i ght we need not r ef er ee. We have f ound no val i d basi son whi ch t o chal l enge Deut sche Bank' s abi l i t y t o f or ecl ose, and"wi t hout f actual al l egat i ons suf f i ci ent t o suggest i l l egal i t yoccur r ed, we ar e necessar i l y l ef t wi t hout al l egat i ons suf f i ci ent t osuggest [ t he f or ecl osi ng ent i t y] knew of such i l l egal i t y. " Woods,

733 F. 3d at 358. But l er ' s Chapt er 93A cl ai m woul d, t hus,necessar i l y f ai l f or l ack of sci ent er . I n any case, "i t i s notenough i n t he cont ext of Chapt er 93A t o al l ege t hat def endant sf or ecl osed i n vi ol at i on of Massachuset t s f or ecl osur e l aw.Somet hi ng mor e i s r equi r ed. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks andal t er at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng J uár ez v. Sel ect Por t f ol i o Ser vi ci ng,I nc. , 708 F. 3d 269, 281 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ) .

-25-

Documents

Butler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 1st Cir. (2014)