Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court weighs whether 2016 loan document reinstated mortgage in Nationstar v. Zulli
Summary
Oral argument focused on whether a February 2016 re-executed loan modification created a new contract (triggering HUD notice requirements) or merely repeated a 2014 reinstatement; counsel debated document language, party signatures, and remedy for any HUD-regulation violation.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Nationstar Mortgage (d/b/a Mr. Cooper) v. Richard and Brenda Zulli on whether a 2016 re-execution of a prior loan modification reinstated the mortgage and therefore required the lender to send a new HUD/notice before foreclosure. Peter Guyatt, counsel for Nationstar, told the three-judge panel that the 2016 document largely repeated an earlier 2014 modification and did not create new substantive obligations that would require a fresh notice.
Guyatt said the 2014 modification “reinstated the loan” and that the 2016 paperwork “just repeated what the 2014” agreement did; he told the panel the only differences in the record were two added paragraphs (identified in the record as paragraphs 8 and 9) that he described as notice or…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
