Similarly, the Massachusetts cases recognizing that a breach of contract action may be based on the failure of an FHA mortgagee to conduct the pre-foreclosure face-to-face meeting rely on the settled Massachusetts principle that the mortgagee must strictly comply with the mortgage terms relating to the power of sale. Jose v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 54 N.E. 3d 1130, 1132 & n.3 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016) (citing Pinti v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 33 N.E. 3d 1213 (Mass. 2015)).

Chacon appeals the resulting judgment awarding possession to EverBank. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cook, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 382, 385–386, 389 (2015) (failure to comply with applicable HUD face-to-face interview regulation would render foreclosure invalid); Jose v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 772, 774 & n.3 (2016) (same, citing Cook ). The judge rejected EverBank's arguments that various exemptions to the regulation, concerning the location of EverBank's offices and Chacon's earlier execution of a repayment plan, relieved EverBank of the duty to comply with the regulation.

See Sniffin v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 395 Mass. 415, 420 n.10 (1985) (where no party raised issue of timeliness of notice of appeal, court declined to dismiss late appeal); Standard Register Co. v. Bolton-Emerson, Inc., 35 Mass. App. Ct. 570, 574 (1993) (procedural tangles caused by clerk's failure to follow rules generally are resolved in favor of preserving appellate rights). See also Hodge v. Klug, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 746, 750-751 (1992) (notice of appeal filed before belated entry of judgment by clerk does not render appeal untimely); Jose v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 772, 774 n.2 (2016) (same).--------