Real Estate Law Blog

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in the case of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez,  has decided that a purchaser of a foreclosed property does not have good title to the property due to the fact that the foreclosure was not completed in compliance with Massachusetts law.  What that means is that if the title to your property involves a foreclosure, even if you were not the purchaser at the auction, you potentially do not own what you think you own!

For questions regarding foreclosures in Massachusetts or any other title matters, contact one of our Franklin, MA real estate attorneys.

On January 2, 2012 Massachusetts will undergo sweeping changes to the probate laws. For example, Massachusetts will no longer recognize “Executors” or “Administrators” as they will be replaced simply by “Personal Representatives” or “PRs”. In addition, all real estate that passes through probate will require a deed from the Personal Representative to the named beneficiaries or heirs, which must be recorded at the appropriate Registry of Deeds. These highlight only two of many changes to how real estate must now pass through probate. Here at Doherty, Ciechanowski, Dugan & Cannon, P.C. we have attorneys that focus their practices in both the real estate and probate areas of law. So we can offer you the best legal advice to make sure your real estate/probate matter is handled properly.

If you have questions about the upcoming changes to probate law or any Massachusetts real estate matter, contact Metrowest real estate attorney, Ted Cannon to schedule a consultation.

In the recently decided case of Kenner v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Chatham, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered a case where a homeowner wanted to rebuild, but due to new laws had to raise the level of the new house by seven feet.  Some who lived near the project and thought the additional seven feet for the new home was intolerable, appealed the local permits issued for the new house.  The Land Court, after visiting the site, found that any impact by an additional seven feet of blocked ocean view would be minimal, and decided those appealing did not have standing.  The Appeals Court ruled that the Land Court committed error because the neighbor-plaintiffs had specified the type of harm they suffered.  The SJC heard the case on further appellate review and upheld the Land Court’s decision.

Generally, zoning standing involves two requirements:  (1) Does the alleged harm concern zoning laws?  (2) How strong is the evidence to support the claim of harm by the opponents to a project?  The SJC focused on the second point and ruled, “The adverse effect on a plaintiff must be substantial enough to constitute actual aggrievement such that there can be no question that the plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to seek a remedy.”

[Read more...]

On August 4, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rendered a decision in the Bank of New York, et al. v. KC Bailey matter.  In Bailey, Bank of New York (the “Bank”) believed that it held title to a foreclosed property pursuant to a recorded deed. After purchasing the Premises, the Bank instituted a summary process action in the Boston Housing Court to regain possession from the former owner who still resided at the Premises. The former owner raised the defense that the foreclosure sale was not conducted properly and therefore he still held title to the Premises. The Housing Court Judge held that the Housing Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the former owner’s challenge to the Bank’s title.

On Appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Housing Court does have jurisdiction to hear challenges to title raised as a defense in post-foreclosure summary process actions and sent the case back to the Housing Court for a determination of title to the Premises.

This is an important ruling for both owners and former owners of foreclosed properties. By allowing tenants to challenge the purchaser’s title as a defense in summary process matters, the purchaser has a heavier burden to satisfy at trial. This case further illustrates the risks inherent in purchasing distressed property and the need for competent counsel to assist buyers of foreclosed properties in both the purchase and any subsequent eviction actions.

[Read more...]