Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)

Citation: Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
Parent Document: Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2013-02-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8358209/provident-funding-associates-lp... ↗

Full Text

1,143 chars

The Superior Court has jurisdiction over all actions cognizable under the general principles of equity jurisprudence. G.L.c. 214, §1; Beaton v. Land Court, 367 Mass. 385, 392 (1975) (“[A] court acting under general principles of equity jurisprudence has broad power to reform, rescind, or cancel written instruments, including mortgages, on grounds such as fraud, mistake, accident, or illegality”). A court presiding over a summary process action may consider a claim or defense alleging an invalid foreclosure sale. See Eaton v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 462 Mass. 569, 574 n.9 (2012), citing Bank ofN.Y. v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327, 333-34 (2011). A defendant in a summary process action “shall . . . state in the answer any affirmative defenses which may be asserted.” Uniform Summary Process R. 3. However, a defendant in a summary process proceeding may only assert affirmative defenses that relate to the validity of legal title. Golfeo Acquisitions, Inc. v. Golftown, Inc., 2004 Mass.App.Div. 141, 143 (2004) (“While equitable affirmative defenses are allowed in a summary process action, they must challenge the validity of legal title”).

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text