appellant bevilacqua brief

8/3/2019 Appellant Bevilacqua Brief

1/17

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSAPPEALS COURT

S.J.C. NO. 10880A .C . NO. 2010-P-1912

FRANCIS J. BEVILACQUA, 111Petitioner-Appellant,

V.

PABLO RODRIGUEZRe spondent-Appel lee

ON APPEAL FROM MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURTCIVIL ACTION NO. 10 MISC 427157

OPENING BRIEF AND RECORD APPENDIX OFPETITIONER-APPELLANT FRANCIS 5 . BEVILACQWA, PI1

Attorneys f o r Petitioner-AppellantJeffrey B. Loeb (BBO# 546916)jloebmrichmaylaw.comDavid Glod (BBOH 676859)[email protected] May, a Professional Corporation176 Federal StreetBoston, MA 02110-2223

Francis J. Bevilacqua, I11

(617) 556-3800December 6, 2010
http://jloebmrichmaylaw.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://jloebmrichmaylaw.com/


2/17

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Statement of Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11. Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111. Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3IV. Ai-gument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A . The Land Court erred in holding thatBevilacqua holds no tit],* to the Propertyand Lacks standing to maintain his Petitionto Compel Adverse Claimant to Try T i t l e . . .1. Record title is tit1.e as it appears

from the public records after thedeed is recorded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 . Bevilacqva holds record title to theProperty because there is a recordeddeed conveying the Property to him . . . . .

3 . The Land Court incorrectly applied therequirements of the "cry title" statureand improperly dismissed the Petitiondespite t h e fact that BcviLacqua holdsrecord title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Contrary to che Land Court's holding,Bcvilacuua ho3ds whatever interest U . S .

. 4

. 5

. 6

. 7

-Bank had in the Property when it deliveredthe forcclosure deed to Bevilacqua . . . . . . . 10

V . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Addendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . add. iAppendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App. i

i


3/17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCasesBlanchard v. Lowell17'1 Mass. 501 (igoi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7

Brown v . Smith116 Mass. 108 (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,12~ ...Coons v. Carstensen15 Mass. App. Ct. 431, 433 (Mass.App.Ct. 1983) . . . . 5-6Cowden v. C u t t i 3339 Mass. 164, 171 (1959) . . . . . . . . . . . .

- ..

- ..... ........DaCosta v . ChristinaNO. 275034, 2005 WL 715931iMass.Land Ct: . March 30, ZOOS) . . . . . . . .Da3.ey v. Daley5 0 0 Mass.-17-(1938)

. . . 4

. . . . . . 7n l o n v. Board of Appeals of Waltham344 Mass. 547 (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GMcCarLin T.eisure Industries, Inc. v. Baker- - .. .-376 Mass. 62 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Mead v . Cutler.208 Mass. 3 9 1 ( l 2 1 . l ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 11Pineo v. White320 Mass. 487, 4 8 9 (1946). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Porter v. Town of Harwich- ..NO. 267870. 2 0 0 8 WL 1903493(MaSs.Land Ct. May L , 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . 5Seamen's Savin3s Bank v. Rogersio. 175583, y 9 9 2 WL 12153317(Mass.Land Ct Dec. 1, 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

-

Stamcll v. HancockNo. 2 S O i 1 3 , 2004 WL 1924357(Mass-Land t. Aug. 31, 2004)

ii

. . . . . . . . . . . 4


4/17

Town of Yarmouth v . Snowden-Lebel( M a s s . L a n d C t . Oct. 9, 2 0 0 3 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 , 11U.S . Bank National Association v. AntonioIbanez (and a c o n s o l i d a t e d c a s e ' ) , directappellate review granted, No. S J C - 1 0 6 3 4(Mass. argued Oct. 7, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 6 , 1 0 , 1 2Statutes

N O . 0 7 - 3 4 ~ i r l 1 , 2 0 0 9 WL j235-/50

-- -

M . G . L . C . 2 4 0 , 1 - 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 , 4 - 5 , 7 - 8M . G . L , C . 240 , $5 1 - 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 , 3M . G . L . C. 2 4 0 , 5 6-1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7M . G . L . c. 2 4 4 , 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,lM . G . L . C . 2 4 4 , 3 5 A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2Other AuthoritiesBJ.ack's La w Dictionary (8th e d . 2 0 0 4 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

i i i


5/17

I. Statement of IssueWhether a person who holds title to property by

virtue of a recorded deed, buL wtiosc tj.tle i s cl.oudedby a possihle adverse claim due to deficiencics j.r\ aprior foreclosure in his chain of title, has standingto bring a petition t o try title under M.G.L. c. 240, 1, where thal sLaLuLc rcquj ,res the petitioner tohave record tlitl.~?11. Statement of the Case

T h i s case a r j s e s fr-orn an attempt by thePeti,tior~et-Appellant,rancis J. Bevilacqua 1 1 1(Bevilacqua) to require a predecessor in title toassert or waivc a potentjal. adverse claim againstBevilacquas rccoc-d tit e to real property.

Revilacqua filed a Petition to Compel AdverseClaimant to Try Title (Petition) aqainst PabloRodriguez (Rodriguez), in the Land C o u r t on Ap r i l .12, 2010. Set? Appendix (App.) aL 2 - 5 . T h c Petition

~ - .The Lry Citle statute, arid this Brief, use the term

petitioner to refer to a person brinqing an acL.i.onunder the statute; however, some courts, including theLand Court helow, also use the term pl.ainLif:finterchangeably therewith.Court did not reach Chat issue at it dctcrrnjncd thatDevilacqua had no intctcst in t h e Property. App. at5.

1

While the statute also requires possession, Lhe Larid

1


6/17

was brought pursuant to M.G.L..c. 240, 5 1. App. at3.

Uevilacqua had difficulty locating ari address atwhich to complete service on Rodriguez. On May 19,2010, Bevilacqua filed a n Ex Parte Motlun for Leave toServe hy Publication ("Motion"). App. a l 2, 6. Atthe hearing on the MoLion, in addition to requesti.tiqsupplemental infortilation regardi.rig Uevilacqua's searchfor Rodr:iquez, Judge T,ong ques t ioncd whetherBevi 1.acqua had standing to b r i , n g the Petition underM . G , T J . c. 210, S 1. .

On June 15, 2010 Rcvilacqua f i I c d a new Ex ParteMotion for I .eave to Serve by Publication and to ExtendTracking Order Deadlines ("Second Motion"), togetherwith an Affidavit of David G l o d a n d a Brief on theIssue n f Standing. App. at 2, 0, 10. On J u l y 12,Bevilacqua filed an Amended second Motioti andAffidavit. of David Glod . App. at 2, 12, 15.

On huqust 26, 201.0,the Court i s s u e d a Memorandunland Order TJ i srnissing Plaintiff's Complaint, on th ebasis that Uevilacqua "holds no title t u theproperty." App. at 24. 'The Land Court made thisfinding despite the existence of a r:ecor-dcd deedconveying the Property Lo Uevilacqua. App . at 21, 2 6 .

7


7/17

On September 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 , B e v il a cq u a t i m e l y f i l e dh i s N o t i ce o f Appeal. App. a t 3 0 .III. Statement of Facts

B e v j. la c qu a h o l d s r e c o r d t i t l e t o p r o p e r t y l o c a t e da t 126-128 Summer S t r e e t , H a v e r h i l l , M a ssa c h u se t t s( t h e P r o p e r t y ) . A p p . a t 3 - 4 . Revi l .acqua ac qu i re dt h e P r o p e r ty h y q i i l t c l a i m deed d a t c d OcCober 1 7 , 2 0 0 6C r o m [J .S . Rank Nat iona l. As so c i a t io n a s T r u s t e e ( U . S .Uank ) , which had fo r .e c lo se d upon a ntor tqayco r i g i n a l l y g ra nt .e d b y Rodrigi iez t u MorLgage Elec t ron icR e g i s t r a t i o n .Syst.erns, i n c . a s noiriiriee (MEKS) App.a t 3-4 .

The La n d C o u r t s h o l d i n g i .n U . S . Uank- v . Ibancz3b r i n g s t h e v a l i d i t y of t.he f u c c c l o s u r e i n t o qu e s t. i u nb e c a us e , a t t h e L i m e Chat I J . S + B a t i k b c g a n f o r e c l o s i l r eproceedlnqs, t h e r e does n o t a p p e ar t o be a n y cvidencet h a t M E W h a d a s s i g n e d t h c Mor tgage t o U . S . R a n k .App. a t 2 4 .

-. S .. ..B a n k- N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i . u n v . Anton io- . ,. Ibane? ( and-c o n s o L i d a t e d. . . .c a s e ) ,- d j . r e c t a p p e l l a t e revj.cw q r a n t e d ,N o . SJC-10694 (Mass. aruued O c L . 7 , 2 0 1 0 ) . Revi l .acauae x p r e s s e s no p o s i t i o r i a s t o t h e c o r r e c t ouCcome i n-.b a n e z , h u t n o t e s t h a t . h . i s c l a i m w i l l b e moot i J h n e z i s o v e r t u r n e d or l i rni t c d t u p r o s p e c t i v ea p p l i c a t i o n .

3


8/17

IV. ArgumentA . The Land C o u r t erred i n h o l d i n g t h a t Bevilacqua

h o l d s no t i t l e t o the Property and lacks s t a n d i n gt o m a i nt ai n h i s P e t i t i o n t o Compel AdverseClaimant t o T r y T i t l e .The founda t ion o f t he Land C o u r t ' s e r r o r was t h e

. f i . n d i n g t h a t Revi 1 acqua " ho l ds no ti .Llc" t o t h eP r o p e r t y (A I JE I . a t 7 4 ) , w h et c i n Ta c t i t is c l e a r rromt h e r e c o r d t h a t Bevi l acqua hol.ds record t i . t L e .

R r v j 1.acqua brought h is Pct j , t i on under ; M.G.L. c .2 4 0 , S 1 - 5 , commonly r e f e r r e d t.o a s t h e " t r y t i t l e "s t a t u t e . See , e . g . , Sta me l l v . Hancock, No. 250619,2 0 0 4 WL 1924357 , a t n . 1 (Mass.Land C t . Aug. 31,2 0 U 4 ) ; DaCosta. .v . C h r i s t i n a , N o . 276034, 2 0 0 5 WI,7 1 5 9 3 1 , a t *1 (Mnss.Land C t . March 30, 2 0 0 5 ) . T h esCatuCe p r u v j d e s tha t . " [ j . ] f t h e r e c o r d t i t l e of l a n di s c l o u d e d by a n a d v e r s e c l a i m , o r b y Lhc p o s s i . b i l i t yt h e r e o f , a pcrsori L r i p u s s e s s io n of such l a n d c l a i m i n ga n e s t a t e of f r e e h o l d t h e r e i n " may b r i n g a n a c t i o n Loc om pe l a n a d v e r se c l a i m a n t t o t r y L i t l e . M . G . J , . c .2 4 0 , 5 1.

I f t h e a d v e r s e c l a i m a n t d o e5 n u t a ppc a r t o t r yh i s c la im , t h e s t a t u t e f u r t h e r pr ov id es t h a t "Lhec o u r t s h a l l e n t e r a d e c r e e t h a t t h e y be f o r e v e r b a r r e dIrom h a v i n g or e n f o r c j n g a n y s u c h c l a i m a d v e r s e ly t o

4


9/17

t h e p c l i t i o n e r , h i , s h e i r s o r a s s i g n s , i n t h e landd e sc r i h r d , a nd may r e q u i r e thcrn t o e x e c u t e , w i t h i nsuch L i m e a s t h e c u u r t . o r d e r s , a conveyanco , r e l easeo r a c q u i t ta n c e du.Ly r e l i n q u i s h i n q t h e same." M.G.L .c . 240, 3 2 ; see a l s o Mead v . Cu t l e r , 208 Mass. 391( 1 9 1 1 ) ( p r e d e c e s s o r s t a l u t e "was e n a c t e d t o e n a b l ep e r so n s i n p o s se s s i o n t o corrtpel o t h c r p e r so n s c l a i m i n gunder an a dv er s e t i t l o t o b r i n g an acLion t o t r y t h et i t l e " ) .

.. - .-

1 . K e m r d t i t . i c i s t.it1.e as, t appea rs Crom th e- . . .puk1.ic r e c o r d s - a f t e r t h e d c e d i s - r ecorded ... .- -The t r y t i t l e s t - a tu t e h a s been i n t e rp r e t e d a s

r e q u i r i n g t h e p c l i t i a n c r t o have both possess ion o ft h e p t o p e r t - y and record t. i Lle.v . Rogers , No. 1755133, 1992 WL 12153317, a t *2(Mass.Land C t . Dec. 1, 1 9 9 2 ) ( " P l a i n t i f f m o s t , under

G . L . c . 2 1 0 5 1, h a v c r e c o r d t i t l e . . . " ) ; Q ~ Pl s oP o r t e r v . Town u L Harwich, No. 267070, 2008 WL1 9 0 3 4 9 3 , at "1 (Mass.Land C t . May 1, 2 0 0 8 ) .

Seamen' s Siivinqs Bank-..- . .-

B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s r e c o r d t i t l e Lomean "title a s it, a p p e a r s i n t .hc p u b l i c r e c o r d s aftcrt h e d e e d i s p r o p e r l y r e c o r d e d . " Ulack's LawD i c t i o n a r y ( Q t h c d . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h a t i s , r c co rd t i t l e i st . i t l e t h a l " r e s t s o n t h e r e c o r d a lonc . . " Coons v .


10/17

Carstenscn, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 131, 433 (1983) (notingcritical significance of the word record in the

phrase good and c l .ca r record t i t l e ) .Massachusetts courts have made clear that record

LiLle is distinct from legal title. For example, theholder of record title has standing to apply f o r avariance, despite the existence of at1 unrecorded deedwhich has passed legal title to another:. nj .on v.Board of. . .ppeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. 547, 554-55(1962). The payment of a mortgage note terminates t.heinterests of the mortgagee and automatically revestsl . c g a l Citle in the mortqaqor; but the mortqaqor i.salso entitled to a discharge of the mortgage to clearthe record title to the premises. Pineo. v. White, 320Mass. 487, 409 (1946).

............

2. Uevilacqua holds record title to theProperty because there i s a recorded deed.conveying the Propert1- ........ to him.

The distinction between record title and lcgal.title is cr . i t . i .ca l to the p resc r i t casc . Rcvi.lacqua maynbt have p e r f ec t 1ega.l title tu the Property, pendingthc rulinq of the Suprcmc Judicial Court in U . S . Ran kv. Ibancz. IIowcvcr, Uevilacqua does a1 least haverecord t . i . t le which rests on the record alone.Coons, 15 Mass. App. Ct. at 433. A quitclaim deed


11/17

conveying an inLercsL tu him is recorded at theSouthern E s s e x District Kegistry of Decds at B o o k26215, Page 2 - 7 3 , and i s the last recorded instrurricntpertaininy tu Lhc Property. App. at 4. Anyoncconducting a LiLlc search would be led to believe thatBevilacqua is thc r c c o t d o w t i c r of the Property.

3 . The Land Court incorrectly appiied the.--. . . . -requirements of the "try tiL1.u"~~tat-lite and..mproperly. . , , dismissed Lhc Petition despiLcthe fact that Revil.aqua holds record title.

.~. . .. . .

- . - .

As discussed a b u v c , thc t.ry title statuterequires Uevi. lacqua t.o have possession and r-ccordtitle. The other common method for removing a cloudon L.i.l.le is the "quiet title" or "cloud on title"statute, M.G.L. c. 240, 55 6-10. Unlike thc try titlestatute, the quicL title statute requires a plaintifft o have possession arid legal title. S e e , c . g . , Cowden~v. C u t L j r i q , 3 3 9 Mass. 164, 171 ( 1 959 ) ; McCartinLci suw Indiistries,. . Inc. v . Rakcr, 376 Mass. 6 2 , 68(197H). Though the two staLuLes plainly provide fordistinct procedures, t h e Land Court e r r e d byconflatinq their requirements. App. at 26 (citingUa le y v . D a l e y , 3 0 0 Mass. 17 ( L 9 3 R ) , a "cloud ontitle" case).

-

7


12/17

The different requirements of the t w o statutescomport. wi t.h thei r different purposes. While a quiet

Litle action asks the court to deCerminc Chat t h eplaintiff has superior title as against the defendanl,the try t .it le prcrcess on1.y asks the respondent toassert what. claim he may have. The latter thereforeimposes on the petitioner a correspondingly le--,erhurden - to show a n interest of record (record title),h u t not. necessarily the strongest interest (legalt.i.t.Le) T h j s pr.ovicies a niechanism wherehy thepetitioner can prevent his property indefinitelyremaininq subject to a claim which may ncvcr bca s s c r L c d . Cf. Town oL Yarmoutti v . Snowden-Lebel,. No.0 7 - 3 1 0 1 4 1 , 2009 WL 3235750 at 3 ( M a s s . L a ~ ~ dt. O C t .9, 2009 ) ( ~ u s l i c c i s riot s e r v e d li y allowing the heirsor sur :cessors [it parties once claiming an interest j r rthe property to question the validity of a fo rec losu reindefinitely.)

The Land Court erred becausc .i.L dismissedUcvilacquas Petition 011 Lhc P.inding t h a t his titlehad no substantive or plausible bas . i . s . App. a t25-26. Neit-her of these concepts is fuurid anywhere inthe t r y title st-atuteor the applicable case l a w . The


13/17

.. .. . . ..

t r y t i t l e s l a t u t a r e q u i r e s U e v il ac qu a t o h a v e n o t h i n qmore t h a n p o s s e s s i o n a nd r e c o r d t i .L l e ,

The. "adv e t s c c l a im an t " i n a t r y t i t l e a c t i o n mayu l t i m a t e l y be f o u n d t o have b e t t e r t i t l c t ha n t h ep e t i t i o n c r . Where t h i s i.s t.kc case, i t does n o td e p r i v e Lhe p e t i t i o n e r of s tandi r ry t o b r i n g t h ep c L i t i o n - i t on.ly means t h a t t h e r e s p o n de n t s h o u l dp r e v a i l i n a q u i e t . L i t l e act . ion, p r o vi d e d t h a t hea p p e a r s arid a s s e r t s h is c l a i m . Thc p r o c e d u r c u n d e rM . G . L . c . Z I U , S 1 - 5 would h a v e no p r a c t i c a lappl i c a t i o n d i s l i n c t front a q u i e t t i t l e ac t i .on , i f ap e t i t i o n e r were r e q u i r e d t o pr ov e t h e s t r e n g t h of h i st . i . t le i.n ordcr t.o compel t hc adv er s e c la i ir ran t t o act,This i s pr ec i s e l y wha t Lhe lh nd C o u r t h a s i m p r o p e r l yr e q u i r e d of R c v i l a c q u a . S e e B l a n c ha r d v . Lowell, 1 7 7Mass. 501, 5 0 4 - 5 0 5 ( 1 9 0 1 ) ( " [ I l f the p e t i t i o n e r h a s ,i n a d d i t i o n t o a r e c o r d t i t l e , p o s s e s s i o n , theq u e s t i o n w h c th er he has a b e t t e r t i t . 1 . e o r n o t does n o tar i . se , arid is not: t o b e d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e s ep r o c e e d i n g s , b u t i r i t h e a c t i o n s wh ic h t h e r e s p o n d e n t smay be or de re d t u b r i n g . " ) .

- - -

9


14/17

4 . C o n t r a r y t o t h e Land Cour t ' s ho ld ing ,.- -Bevi l acqua ho lds,.__ h ate ve r i n t e r e s t U.S. Bankh ad i n t h e P r o p e r t y w h e n it d e l i v e r e d t h ef o r e c l o su r e d ee d t o - .i e v ii . a cq u i -: ..

Hevi i .acqua reco gni zes , wi t ho ut concedi n q , t h a tRo dri gu ez may have a cl .a im t o t h e Proper ty , depend ingon t h e outcome of Ibariez and w hat d i s c o v e r y r e v e a l sr e g a r d i n g t h e a ss ig n m en t o f t h e m o r t ga g e ( B e v i l a c q u aw ou1.d not. o t h e r w i s e have h r o ug h t t h e P e t i t i o n ) .However, Rev i l acqua con t esk s Judge Long' s a s s c r t io nt h a t . h e "ho lds no t.i t l e t o t h c p r o p er t y" and "seeks t oc re a t . e . . . someth ing f rom no th ing . " App. a t 2 4 .Be vi l acq ua unqucstionab1.y d i d acqii i .re "something" fromU.S. B a r i k .

-

F i r s L of a i l , by v i r t u e o f t h e p r o p e r l y r e c or d e dd e e d i n d j c a L i ng t.hall he owns t h e P r o p e r t y , Bevi 1 acquahas r e c o r d t i t l e . T h is e n t i t l e s him t o b r i n g ape t i . t i .on t o l r y t i t l e , f o r t he r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e dabove.

Second ly , even i f t h c f o r e c l o s u r e d eed d i d n o tconvey Litle t o B e v i l a c q u a , it d i d c o n v e y t h e i n t e r e s t

.- . .

u n q u e s t i o n a b l y h e l d b y U. S . Bank, Bevi lacqua ' sg r a n t o r . T ha t i s , t h e f o r e c l o s u r e deed c o n s t i t u t . c d a na s s i g n m e n t of t h e m o r t g a g e o n t h c P r o p e r t y t oUe vi l ac qua . Brown v . Smith , 1 1 6 Mass. 108 11875 )

1.0


15/17

( h o l d i n g t h a t a fo re c l os u r e deed , t-hough irivaJ.j.d, w i l ln o n e t h e l . o s s c o n s t i t u t e a n a s s i g n m e n t of a rnorCgage t ot he g r a n t e e ) .

Fo r t h c se r e a so n s , Jud g e Long i s i n c o r r e c t i . r if i n d i . n g t h a t U e v i la c q u a ha s " r i o p l a u s i b l e c:l.aim."App. a t 2 6 . B e v il a cq u a c l e a r l y d o e s h av e ~somei n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r ty . The t.ry t i t l c s t a t u t ee x i s t s Lo p r o v i d e B e v i l a c q u a a means of p c r f e c t i n g h i si n t e r e s t , i n th e ev en t that . R o d ri g ue z h a s no i n t e n t i o no f a s s e r t i n g h i s p o t e n t i a l a d ve rs e c l a i m . Th e r e i sr e a so n why Uevi l acqua ' s i . n t e r e s t s h o ul d b e f o r e v e rc l o u d e d b y an a d v c t s c c l a im w h i c h w i l l n e v e r hea s s e r C c d . _.f . - - nowden-Lebcl,. . . 2004 WL 3 2 3 5 7 5 0 a t * 3A s a p e r so n i n p o s s e s s i o n oC t h e P r o p e rt y , w i t h a

no

p r o p e r l y r e c o rd e d d ee d i n d i c a t i n g on i t s f ace t h a t hei s t h e r i .qhCfu1 owner, Bev i l acq ua mus t be e n t i t L cd t ob r i n g t h i s A c t i o n , as h i s i s p r e c i s e l y t h e s i . t u a t i o nwhich the t .ry l i L 1 . e s t a t u t e i s d e s i g n e d t o r e m ed y.-ce Mead. . CuLl.cr, 2 0 8 M a ss . a t 391..

In f a c t , i f the t r y t i t l e s t a t u t e i s r iot ana p p r o p r i a t e remedy Lor a pro pe r t y owner i nR c v i l a c q u a ' s posj.t.i.or1 - who could n o t have known, whenh e p u r c h a se d th c P ro pe rt y, t h a t t h i s t i t l e p ro ble me x i s t e d - t h e n s u c h a p r o p e r t y owtlcr i s l i k e l y t o be

11


16/17

l e f t w it h no adequake remedy a t all.'problem w i l l i n most c a s e s n o t be d i s c o v e r e d u n t i l t h e

p r o p e r t y ow ne r a t t- e m p ts t o s e l l o r r e f i n a n c e t h cp r o p e r t y . I f t h e owner i s r e q u i r e d t-o f o r c c l o s e ont h e m or tq ag e ( on t h c t h e o r y t h a t he a c q u i r e d t h emor tgage , a s heLd i.11 Urown, s u p r g ) t o d e a n up h i st i t l e , t h i s w i l l d e l a y his s a l e o r refinance f o r aminimum of abouL se v e n t u nine mont.t rs.

A post-Ihanex.-

-. -5

Uy contrast, a p e t i t j . on t o t r y L i t l e i s a simp1.cs t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e b y w h ic h Bevi.1 acq u a and o t h e r ss i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d c a n qu .i.c kly e li m i ria te u n a s s e r t e dp o s t- I ba n e z c l a i m s a q a i n s t t h e i r t i t l e .

W h i l e a n u n a s se r t e d posl-lbanez ciaim c o u l d h ee l im i na k ed t h ro u g h a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , r e q u i r i n g ap r o p e r t y owner i n B e v i la c q u a ' s p u s i t i o n t o w a i t 20year:s f o r r e l i e f c a n h a r d l y b e t er me d an a d e q u a teremedy.' M . G . L . c . 2 4 4 , 5 35A prov i .des f o r a 150-day r i g h t t oc u re d e f a u l t p r i o r t o a c c e l e r a t i o n o f a m o r t g a g e .T h e r e a f t e r , u p o n f . i . l . ing a Servi .cemembers C i v i l K c l i e fA c t a c t i o n , i t may t a k e t w o months f o r a c o u r t toi s s u e an o r d e r of n o t i c e . Thc o r d e r of n o t i c ep r o v i d e s a r e t u r n d a t e s i x weeks Prom t h e d a t e o f Lheo r d e r . E n t r y of f i n a l j n d g m e n t i s e i g h t day s a f t e rt h e r e tu r n d a t e . B e fo re t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e m a y t a k ep l a ce , n o t i c e of t h e s a l e must be publishcd f o r t h r e es u c c e s s i v e week s p u r s u a n t t o M . G . L . c . 2 4 4 , 5 1 4 .

1 - -

1 2


17/17

V. ConclusionFur the reasoris net forth above, the judgrnerit of

Che Land C o u r t d i s rn j s s i n g Bevilacquas action, d a t o dAugust 26, 201U,. s h o u l d be vacated.

R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted,Francis J . Bevi l acqua , 111,By h i s attorneys,

r -7

Ri.ch May, P.C.176 Federal Street, 6 t h FloorBoston, M A 02110(617) 556 -38UO

h t e d : Dccember ,& ,- 2 0 1 0

1 3

appellant bevilacqua brief

Documents