Where a plaintiff has challenged the validity of a 2011 mortgage foreclosure, the complaint must be dismissed because the plaintiff has failed to allege any wrongdoing by the defendants and because the plaintiff previously litigated the lawfulness of the foreclosure to conclusion in federal court, so the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion apply.
“This is a case brought by Jacques E. Mitri (‘Mitri’) challenging the validity of the mortgage foreclosure on his home at 26 Noel Drive, Holliston (the ‘Property’) and seeking, among other things, an order that he be declared the rightful owner of the Property. The foreclosure took place in 2011. …
“Before the court are motions to dismiss filed by defendants, Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (‘Nationstar’), Golden Gates Properties LLC (‘Golden Gates’), and Christina C. Ferguson Marge and Michael C. Marge (the ‘Marges’) and Jennifer Hugueley. …
“Finally, on November 24, 2015, Mitri filed a complaint in the Middlesex Superior Court challenging the validity of the foreclosure. …
“On December 18, 2015, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts where it became Jacques Mitri v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Homecoming Financial Network, Inc. and Presidential Mortgage Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-14178-DJC (the ‘Federal Case’). …
“On February 16, 2018, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Mitri’s claims for unlawful foreclosure and breach of contract. … Final judgment entered against Mitri. …
“The moving defendants urge the court to dismiss Mitri’s verified complaint on two grounds. First, they assert that all of Mitri’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the same claims were previously litigated to conclusion in the Federal Case. Second, they assert that Mitri has not alleged any causes of action against them — only against Aurora [Loan Services, LLC] for its handling of the foreclosure. While either ground is sufficient to justify the dismissal of Mitri’s verified complaint, I will address both. …
“… Because Mitri previously litigated the lawfulness of the foreclosure to conclusion in the Federal Case, the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion bar him from maintaining this action against any of the defendants in this case. …
“As the second ground for dismissal, Mitri’s verified complaint alleges four causes of action for wrongdoing allegedly committed by Aurora, only, prior to and as a result of the foreclosure. He has not alleged any specific acts of wrongdoing by Nationstar, Golden Gates, the Marges, or Huguely. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) should only be granted it if appears certain that the complaining party is not entitled to relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support of his claim. Spinner v. Nutt, 417 Mass. 549 (1994). Even the most generous view of the facts alleged by Mitri cannot make out a cause of action against Nationstar, Golden Gates, the Marges or Huguely. These defendants have merely held title to the Property at different times since the 2011 foreclosure. Consequently, in addition to the dismissal based on the operation of the doctrine of res judicata, Mitri’s complaint must also be dismissed because he has failed to allege any wrongdoing by Nationstar, Golden Gates, the Marges or Huguely.”
Mitri v. Ferguson Marge, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-076-23) (12 pages) (Smith, J.) (Middlesex Land Court) (Docket No. 23 MISC 000017) (July 18, 2023).
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
p
