Summary
holding that plaintiff had not shown that the defendant was not the holder of the note at the time of foreclosure proceedings based on an uncontested Section 35C affidavit
Summary of this case from Searle v. Nationstar Mortg.Opinion
14-P-396
01-21-2015
KYMBERLEIGH LAMSON v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Kymberleigh Lamson, commenced this action seeking to stay the foreclosure of the mortgage encumbering the home she inherited from her father, Ronald Lamson, located at 220 University Avenue in Lowell (the property). It is undisputed that Ronald executed a mortgage and promissory note to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., dated July 6, 2005, encumbering the property. The plaintiff contends, however, that the defendant, Chase Home Finance, LLC, was not the holder of the note or the mortgage when it began foreclosure proceedings and, therefore, lacked authority to foreclose on the mortgage. For the following reasons, we affirm.
The plaintiff's principal argument on appeal is that she raised a genuine issue of material fact by offering pages from an online business-oriented, social networking Web site LinkedIn, that show that the party who executed the assignment to the defendant from JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not work at JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. on August 28, 2007, the date of the assignment. The judge found that the pages from LinkedIn constituted inadmissible hearsay and declined to rely on them to refute the notarized assignment and the note affidavit recorded by the defendant. We agree with the judge that pages from an online social networking Web site constitute inadmissible hearsay and cannot refute the affidavits submitted. See Mass. G. Evid. §§ 801(c), 802 (2014).
The plaintiff also claims that the defendant is not the holder of the note and has not shown that it was authorized by the holder of the note to commence foreclosure proceedings. See U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 653-654 (2011). Again, the defendant has averred both separately and pursuant to G. L. c. 244, § 35C, that it holds the note as custodian for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and that Fannie Mae authorized the foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiff has not refuted the defendant's affidavits.
As the plaintiff offered nothing else to support her claims, we discern no error in the judge's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Fecteau & Massing, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Clerk Entered: January 21, 2015.