Sunday, January 09, 2011
IBANEZ DECISION ANALYZED
from Livinglies
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Banks themselves thought they had it made and filed what we have suggesting to borrowers — a lawsuit to quiet title, claiming the foreclosure was valid and that Ibanez was divested from title as a result of the foreclosure. The Supreme Court in Massachusetts said there is nothing wrong with an action to quiet title — it’s just that the banks lose and Ibanez wins. The Banks failed to establish a clear chain showing that they actually and legally had the right to foreclose — meaning that the mortgage was properly assigned to them. Upon failure to do that, the Banks were found to have violated Massachusetts law by foreclosing on property that was not subject to any legal claim by them. They had no right to title and therefore they had no right to quiet title.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Banks themselves thought they had it made and filed what we have suggesting to borrowers — a lawsuit to quiet title, claiming the foreclosure was valid and that Ibanez was divested from title as a result of the foreclosure. The Supreme Court in Massachusetts said there is nothing wrong with an action to quiet title — it’s just that the banks lose and Ibanez wins. The Banks failed to establish a clear chain showing that they actually and legally had the right to foreclose — meaning that the mortgage was properly assigned to them. Upon failure to do that, the Banks were found to have violated Massachusetts law by foreclosing on property that was not subject to any legal claim by them. They had no right to title and therefore they had no right to quiet title.
