Property Law Developments—Joseph William Singer

In the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 2011 N.J. Super. LEXIS 13 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011), the court remanded to allow the bank to provide proof that it had a right to foreclose through authenticated writings proving that it was assigned the mortgage and note by the prior holder of the mortgage and that it had the right to foreclose at the time the foreclosure action was brought.

In conformity with the rule prevailing in most states, a New Jersey trial court held that an innocent owner whose property was damaged as a result of a lawful police search has no right to compensation under the takings clause. Simmons v. Loose, 2011 N.J. Super. LEXIS 16 (2011).

A bank lost the mortgage note and thus could not pass it along when it assigned the mortgage to the Bank of America, preventing the Bank of America from producing the note to prove that it had the right to foreclose on the property. The loan in question had been securitized and transferred from the original mortgagee, Washington Mutual Bank, to LaSalle Bank (the holder of the securitized and pooled loans) which was then acquired by Bank of America. Because Bank of America could show evidence of the assignment (but not written proof of the original mortgage), the trial court allowed it to foreclose on the ground that the mortgagor/homeowner would otherwise be unjustly enriched. In effect, the court used equitable principles to create an exception to the applicable statute of frauds which requiring a writing for the mortgage to be enforceable via foreclosure. The case is Bank of America, N.A. v. Alvarado, (N. J. Ch. Ct. 2011). See Mary Pat Gallagher, Judge Finds Equity Allows Foreclosure to Proceed Though Mortgage Note Lost, 203 N.J. L.J. 1 (Jan 24, 2011).

In the case of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 2010 WL 3351481 (Mass. Land Ct. 2010), the court held that parties cannot cure an invalid foreclosure by a quiet title action.The bank that brought the foreclosure action had no proof at the time of the foreclosure that it owned the mortgage (the right to foreclose) because it had no written assignment from the prior mortgagee. For that reason, the foreclosure was invalid under the rule adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibañez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011). Ibañez held that foreclosures are invalid if the mortgagee bringing the foreclosure action cannot (at the time the foreclosure action) produce a written document proving that it was assigned the benefit of the mortgage from the prior mortgage holder. Thus when the bank sought a declaratory judgment that the foreclosure was valid, the court rejected its claim. That meant that a subsequent purchase of the property by a third party did not convey good title to the third party. Bevilacqua restates the Ibañez rule but goes further and holds that the third party cannot bring a quiet title action to seek a judgment that it has title to the property. Because it has a quitclaim deed from a seller who has no valid title, it cannot legitimately argue a basis for a quiet title action, leaving title with the party who held it prior to the invalid foreclosure.