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

1,018 chars

In this case, Provident’s motion to strike is granted because the defendants have not sufficiently alleged that Provident is not a bona fide purchaser. As an initial matter, the defendants argue in their pleadings that it is Provident’s duty to establish it is a bona ñde purchaser. This is an inaccurate statement of the law. Selectmen of Hanson, 444 Mass, at 509-10. The defendants also argue, with minimal factual support, that Provident had actual or constructive notice that Ms. Santos was ineligible for the mortgage because there was ample forewarning that she had misrepresented her financial status on the loan application. The sole factual support the defendants cite for the proposition that Provident is not a bona fide purchaser is the letter Freddie Mac sent to Provident requesting that Provident repurchase the loan.7 This letter, the defendants continue, establishes that Provident knew or should have known that it was underwriting a mortgage that was part of the fraudulent transfer of the Properly.

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text