Opinion
No. 12–P–234.
2013-03-5
Mary T. COSTELLO v. SOVEREIGN BANK, FSB.
By the Court (COHEN, GREEN & VUONO, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff obtained a loan of $650,000 from the defendant (bank), secured by a mortgage on Nantucket property (property) transferred to her by her husband.
The plaintiff defaulted, and, after foreclosure, the property was sold at auction. The plaintiff brought suit, alleging inter alia, that the bank had violated G.L. c. 93A by issuing her an “unfair” loan comparable to those at issue in Commonwealth v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 452 Mass. 733 (2008).
The plaintiff's husband, Bahig Bishay, was unable to borrow money because his assets were then held in receivership.
After a bench trial, judgment entered for the bank. We affirm.
The plaintiff originally sued the bank on a variety of theories of recovery; however, at the time of trial, the only claim remaining was count I of the plaintiff's amended complaint, alleging violation of c. 93A.
Having failed to provide this court with a transcript of the proceedings, the plaintiff has waived any objection to the judge's findings. See Discover Realty Corp. v. David, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 535, 535 n. 2 (2000), citing Connolly v. Connolly, 400 Mass. 1002, 1003 (1987). Those findings, as gleaned from the judge's memorandum of decision, include the following: the bank agreed to make the loan based on the equity in the property and the plaintiff's good credit rating; there was no basis from which to conclude that the loan was deceptive or that anything said to the plaintiff or her husband was untrue; the loan was not made to an individual who otherwise would not qualify for the loan; the loan did not have an adjustable interest rate; the amount of money borrowed was less than fifty percent of the appraised value of the property; it was not shown that the loan was part of any securitization package; and there was no credible evidence that the property was sold at auction for less than its fair market value. These findings amply support the judge's conclusions that the loan at issue did not possess the characteristics of the Fremont loans, and that there was no basis upon which to impose liability under c. 93A.
Judgment affirmed.