No. A company can't foreclose just because it holds the mortgage papers. The court explained that a mortgage is just security for a loan. The loan (the IOU) is the real deal, and the mortgage is just a safety net attached to it. If you separate the safety net from the loan, the safety net is useless on its own. The court decided that the law intended for the 'mortgagee'—the one with the power to sell the house—to be the one who owns both the loan and the mortgage, or is at least acting on behalf of the loan owner. Because this was a new, clear rule, the court said it would only apply to future foreclosures so it wouldn't mess up thousands of past sales. It still applied the rule to Ms. Eaton's case, but sent it back to the lower court because she hadn't yet proven that Green Tree wasn't secretly working for the real loan owner.

Yes, the company taking back a house needs to own both the mortgage and the loan agreement, or be acting for the loan agreement owner. We decided this because the mortgage and the loan agreement go together - you can't have one without the other. It wouldn't be fair to let a company take someone's house if they don't actually own the loan or aren't working for the loan owner. We're saying that when the law talks about a 'mortgagee' (the company that can take back a house), it means a company that has both the mortgage and the loan agreement, or is working for the loan agreement owner. But we know this might cause problems for how things have been done in the past, so we're only applying this rule to future cases. We're sending Eaton's case back to the lower court to figure out if Green Tree was actually working for the loan agreement owner when it took her house.

No. A party does not have the authority to foreclose on a mortgage under the statutory power of sale if it holds only the mortgage and not the underlying note, unless it is acting as an authorized agent for the note holder. In Massachusetts, the promissory note represents the debt, which is the principal obligation, while the mortgage is merely an incident that secures the debt. A mortgage that is separated from the note it secures is a 'mere technical interest,' and the holder of such a mortgage holds it in trust for the note holder. The court interpreted the term 'mortgagee' as used in the Massachusetts foreclosure statutes (G.L. c. 244, § 14) by examining the entire statutory scheme. Related statutes, such as G.L. c. 244, § 17B, use 'mortgagee' and 'holder of a mortgage note' interchangeably, indicating a legislative assumption that the foreclosing entity possesses an interest in the underlying debt. Therefore, to have the authority to foreclose, the 'mortgagee' must either hold the note or be acting on behalf of the note holder. However, due to good faith reliance by legal practitioners on a contrary interpretation, the court exercised its discretion to make this new rule apply only prospectively to foreclosure sales where notice is given after the date of this decision. Despite the prospective application, the rule applies to Eaton's case. The preliminary injunction is nevertheless vacated because Eaton's allegation that Green Tree lacked authorization from the note holder was made only on 'information and belief,' which is an insufficient factual basis for an injunction.

Yes. The court holds that a valid foreclosure requires the foreclosing party to hold both the mortgage and the underlying mortgage note, or to act on behalf of the note holder. This is because the mortgage and the note are inseparable in ensuring the right to foreclose. The decision to require both the note and the mortgage to be held by the foreclosing party is to ensure that the entity enforcing the debt is the same entity that has the legal right to enforce the lien. Because the mortgage is merely security for the underlying debt, it would be anomalous to allow a party with no connection to the debt to foreclose on the mortgage. The court interprets the term 'mortgagee' in the relevant statutes to refer to the person or entity holding the mortgage and either holding the mortgage note or acting on behalf of the note holder. This interpretation is consistent with the common law principle that the mortgage follows the note. However, the court recognizes that this interpretation may have significant implications for the real estate market and the operation of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). Therefore, the court decides to apply this rule prospectively, only to foreclosures where the statutory notice is provided after the date of this decision. The court vacates the preliminary injunction and remands the case for further proceedings to determine whether Green Tree was acting on behalf of the note holder at the time of foreclosure.

Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot