Lisa Jo Pressman, individually and as Trustee of the Red Rock Realty Trust v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee of the Dwelling Series IV Trust, and SN Servicing Corporation

Summary

The court grants AlboHomeImp, LLC’s motion to intervene and defendants’ motions for summary judgment in an action challenging the foreclosure and sale of residential property in Lynn, Massachusetts. The court concludes that the plaintiff failed to establish actionable contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, implied-covenant, Chapter 93A, or due-process claims, and lacked standing to challenge alleged voidable defects in mortgage assignments. The court also grants partial summary judgment to AlboHomeImp on the wrongful-foreclosure claim.

Holdings

1. AlboHomeImp was entitled to intervene because, although the timeliness factor potentially weighed against intervention, the remaining circumstances strongly favored intervention: it owned the property, faced substantial harm if the requested relief were granted, and intervention would cause little prejudice to the existing parties.
2. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Counts 1, 2, and 3 because Pressman did not identify a specific breached contractual term, actionable promise, or false representation, and she did not present evidence establishing damages caused by force-placed insurance.
3. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Count 4 because Pressman failed to show damages caused by any alleged delay in processing HAF assistance or any misrepresentation concerning foreclosure, and the implied covenant could not create an obligation to postpone foreclosure or negotiate a loan modification that was not contemplated by the contractual relationship.
4. Pressman lacked standing to challenge alleged defects in the mortgage assignments that would make them merely voidable, and she failed to show that the assignments were void or otherwise invalid. The original mortgage continued to encumber the property after the assumption and modification agreement, and U.S. Bank therefore was not shown to lack authority to foreclose.
5. The chapter 93A claim failed as a matter of law because Pressman neither alleged that she sent the required written demand letter nor presented evidence that she did so.
6. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Count 7 because private foreclosure conduct did not constitute state action for purposes of the Due Process Clauses, the original October 30, 2024 sale notices complied with Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 244, section 14, and the postponement to December 10 was reasonably communicated by first-class mail without requiring renewed section 14 publication and registered-mail notice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether AlboHomeImp, LLC should be permitted to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a).
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the breach-of-contract, promissory-estoppel, and negligent-misrepresentation claims.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
4. Whether Pressman had standing to challenge the validity of the mortgage assignments and whether the assignments authorized U.S. Bank to foreclose.
5. Whether the Massachusetts consumer-protection claim under Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 93A failed because Pressman did not send and plead the required demand letter.
6. Whether the foreclosure sale violated the notice requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 244, section 14 or the Due Process Clauses.
7. Whether AlboHomeImp was entitled to summary judgment on the wrongful-foreclosure claim.

Disposition

other