Appeals Court addresses mootness and chain-of-title disputes in post-foreclosure appeal
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The panel questioned whether an appeal is moot after the appellant vacated the property, whether Pinti (Penty/Pint(y) in briefs) should apply retroactively to void a foreclosure, and whether an appellant who relinquished possession must still pay use-and-occupancy to pursue an appeal.
In Mendez v. Hall the Appeals Court wrestled with whether a summary-process appeal from a post-foreclosure eviction is moot where the appellant relinquished possession and whether defects in pre-foreclosure notices and assignments create a break in the chain of title that could void the foreclosure.
Appellant counsel argued that retroactive application of the SJC’s Pinti line of cases (cited in briefing with varied spellings in the record) could render a foreclosure void and therefore preserve the appellant’s interest despite vacatur; they pointed to assignment discrepancies and a three-year gap after the referenced notice. The panel repeatedly questioned whether the Appeals Court could or should depart from the SJC’s prospective-effect language and whether an appellant’s failure to pay statutory use-and-occupancy amounts under Mass. Gen. Laws c.239 §5E effectively forecloses appellate review.
Counsel also discussed documentary points—docket entries, an affidavit stating the defendant vacated, prior single-justice rulings, and the practical difference between landlord-tenant surrender and a homeowner seeking restoration of title after a voided foreclosure. The court took the matters as submitted after extended questioning.