Massachusetts bankruptcy courts have invalidated mortgages containing defects, including the failure of lenders to observe strict formalities in the execution of mortgage acknowledgements. See our prior post on this very topic at Lender Beware: The Tragic Consequences of Defective Mortgage Acknowledgements.

This case and its companion cases involved contentious construction disputes surrounding the interplay of the Massachusetts Mechanics' Lien Statute in the context of a bankrupt general contractor and a building owner’s claims for offset damages. In this instance, the dispute centered on the fact that a contractor’s bankruptcy filing left approximately 28 subcontractors unpaid for work they had already performed.

A Massachusetts trial court has denied a borrower’s request to stop a foreclosure proceeding despite the borrower’s claim that the loan was “unfair” under the Massachusetts consumer protection law, Chapter 93A of the General Laws. In its May 13 decision denying the borrower’s request for an injunction, the court examined a stated income (no documentation) loan and determined that the borrower was not likely to prevail on a claim that the loan featured a combination of four characteristics that qualify as “unfair” under Chapter 93A.

What you need to know

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that where a medical malpractice claim is transferred from an insolvent insurer to the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund, the Fund is liable for the statutory cap of $299,999 for each of the multiple claims arising from one overall medical incident, subject to the policy’s aggregate limits.

What you need to do

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has answered a lingering  question about the interpretation of Massachusetts’s fine art consignment  law, G.L. c. 104A, § 2. Laying to rest any doubts about whether a written  agreement is required at the time of delivery to create a consignment  under the statute, the SJC has interpreted the 2006 amendments to the  law for the first time and clarified the roles of everyone involved.

On July 12, 2007, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that, where a vehicle causing an accident is owned by a governmental entity and is insured by an insolvent insurer, the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund is not obligated to compensate the injured individual unless and until the injured individual's own uninsured motor vehicle coverage has been exhausted. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Premier Ins. Co., 07-SJC-09793 (July 12, 2007).