Frank Diaz et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing et al.

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Select Portfolio Servicing and Deutsche Bank in a wrongful-foreclosure action. The Court held that the default notice complied with the mortgage’s paragraph 22 requirements and that providing a cure date 33 days after the notice did not render it misleading. The Court also rejected the argument that a subsequent acceleration notice, stating that the borrowers “may” have a right to reinstate, negated the earlier notice of reinstatement rights.

Holdings

1. The August 22, 2022 notice of default strictly complied with paragraph 22 because it identified the default, stated the action required to cure, specified September 24, 2022 as the cure date, warned of possible acceleration and sale, and informed plaintiffs of their right to reinstate after acceleration and to bring an action asserting defenses. The fact that the cure date was thirty-three rather than thirty days after the notice was not misleading or material.
2. The notice of acceleration's statement that plaintiffs may still have the right to reinstate did not negate or overshadow the earlier notice of default and did not invalidate the foreclosure. Paragraph 22 requires strict compliance in the notice of default, but does not require the mortgagee to reiterate the right to reinstate in a subsequent notice of acceleration.
3. Summary judgment for defendants was proper because no genuine issue of material fact existed and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the August 22, 2022 notice of default strictly complied with paragraph 22 of the mortgage despite stating that the cure date was September 24, 2022, thirty-three days after the notice date.
2. Whether the February 16, 2023 notice of acceleration negated or overshadowed strict compliance with paragraph 22 by stating that plaintiffs may still have the right to reinstate the loan.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the validity of the foreclosure notices.

Disposition

affirmed