•   Email
  •   Print
Serving
Massachusetts Agencies

Notice: Actual Receipt

Foreclosure

Where the borrower actually received notice of the foreclosure, proof of its mailing under the statute is irrelevant. Hull v. Attleboro Savings Bank, 33 Mass.App.Ct. 18, 596 N.E.2d 358 (1992) resolves the issue. In Hull the borrower claimed that he received no legal notice of the sale, and the bank could not demonstrate that it had sent a notice. However, there was in the bank's file a letter signed by the borrower which commented upon and tracked the supposed foreclosure notice.[1] The issue was whether the foreclosure was good, where no proof of mailing of the notice could be shown but it was evident that the borrower knew of the sale. The court said:

The main purpose of [the registered notice under G.L.c. 244 §14] is to provide notice to those affected by the foreclosure sale and to facilitate proof of notice. Here, those purposes were fully achieved as to the plaintiff because he had actual notice of the sale at least seven days before the scheduled date, and the bank had proof of it. (Emphasis added).

The fourteen-day registered mail notice requirement is satisfied by mailing and nonreceipt is irrelevant. * * * The main purpose [of the statute] is to provide notice to those affected by the foreclosure sale and to facilitate proof of notice. Here, those purposes were fully achieved as to the [borrower] because he had actual notice of the sale at least seven days before the scheduled date, and the bank had proof of it. (Emphasis added.)

1 This is the only case I've ever hear of where the borrower helped the bank in drafting the foreclosure notice!