Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez

(2011)

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - 941 N.E.2d 40, 458 Mass. 637

tl;dr:

A seller that forecloses on a property must be the mortgage-holder at the time of the notice of sale and foreclosure sale. An interest in a mortgage-backed security is not sufficient.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingU.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez case brief facts & holding

Facts:This was a combined ruling for two cases in which...

Holding:The court held that the foreclosures were invalid, because the...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Gants, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo were unable to prove they were the mortgage holders at the time of foreclosure, resulting in the foreclosure sales being deemed invalid. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the mortgages through securitization trusts but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. The court had to determine whether the documentation submitted by the plaintiffs met the requirements of a valid assignment. Failure to strictly follow the terms of the power of sale renders the sale wholly void. Only the present holder of the mortgage is authorized to foreclose on the mortgaged property, and failure to identify the holder of the mortgage in the notice of sale may render the notice defective and the foreclosure sale void. The Land Court allowed foreclosure to proceed, but Wells Fargo did not execute a statutory foreclosure affidavit or foreclosure deed until ten months after the foreclosure sale. The plaintiffs sought declarations of clear title, but had to prove their authority to foreclose under the power of sale and show their compliance with the requirements on which this authority rests.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Cordy, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The plaintiff banks failed to provide evidence that the assignments of mortgages they claimed entitled them to foreclose ever existed in any legally recognizable form before they exercised the power of sale. The court emphasized that foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law requires strict compliance with governing statutes. The lack of actual unfairness to the mortgagors is not the point. The effect of the banks' conduct on a bona fide third-party purchaser who relied on the foreclosure title of the bank is a more complicated issue not addressed in this opinion. The requirements of Massachusetts law do not bar or burden the type of sophisticated transactions leading up to the accumulation of the notes and mortgages in question in these cases and their securitization, and ultimately the sale of mortgage-backed securities.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez

Chat for U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez
brief-638
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.