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

1,074 chars

Even if Provident exercised diligence and discovered, as it almost certainly should have, that Ms. Santos did not have the funds to repay the loan, or that she was in fact a straw as the defendants allege, there is nothing that Provident could have discovered that would cast doubt upon the Henry-Dunphy transaction itself. To all appearances the Hemy-Dunphy transaction was normal; it was one and two times removed from the Dunphy-Santos and Santos-Provident transactions respectively. The defendants point to the now oft-quoted “Brooklyn Bridge” analogy, which observes that “there is nothing magical in the act of recording an instrument with the registry that invests an otherwise meaningless document with legal effect” because, otherwise, a “litigant could go to the registry, record a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, commence suit, hope that the true owners ignored the suit or . . . could not be readily located and [would thus] be defaulted, and secure ajudgment.” Bevilacqua, 460 Mass, at 770-71, quoting Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, 18 LCR451, 452 (Mass. Land Ct. 2010).

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text