PEDRO A. FLORES; ESTHER YANES-ÁLVAREZ; ROSA YANES, Plaintiffs, Appellants,
ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.; INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES; OCWEN SERVICING, LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Appellees.
FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge
Carmenelisa Pérez-Kudzma and Pérez-Kudzma Law
Office P.C. on brief for appellants.
Marissa I. Delinks, Maura K. McKelvey, and Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP on brief for appellees.
Torruella, Selya, and Barron, Circuit Judges.
BARRON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
case concerns an appeal from the dismissal of a suit that
challenges the lawfulness of a 2012 foreclosure sale of a
home in Massachusetts. The property at issue formerly
belonged to the plaintiffs: Pedro Flores, Esther
Yanes-Álvarez, and Rosa Yanes. Their complaint set
forth numerous claims alleging, among other things, that the
defendants -- OneWest Bank, Indymac Mortgage Services, Ocwen
Servicing, and the Federal National Mortgage Association --
had engaged in unfair and predatory mortgage lending and loan
servicing practices and that the foreclosure sale of the
property was void. We affirm the District Court's order
dismissing all of the claims.
the stage, we recount the following facts as they are recited
in the amended complaint. On or about April 6, 2007, the
plaintiffs refinanced their home mortgage loan for their home
in Everett, Massachusetts. The home mortgage loan was
originated by Dynamic Capital Mortgage and secured by a
mortgage on the property with Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems Inc. ("MERS"), which the
mortgage named as mortgagee.
2008, the plaintiffs were unable to meet their monthly
mortgage obligations and eventually defaulted on the
mortgage. On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs applied for a
loan modification from Indymac Mortgage Services, a division
of OneWest Bank. On May 11, 2012, Indymac denied the
plaintiffs' application. OneWest effectuated the
foreclosure pursuant to the statutory power of sale. Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 183, § 21. Defendant OneWest purchased the
property at the foreclosure sale.
than three years later, on November 15, 2015, the plaintiffs
brought this suit in the District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The operative complaint set forth nine
claims. The defendants moved to dismiss all
of the claims, and the District Court granted the motion. The
plaintiffs now appeal the dismissal of eight of the nine
claims. Our standard of review for an order
granting a motion to dismiss is de novo. Rodi v.
S. New England Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 12 (1st Cir.
2004). In performing the review, "[n]on-conclusory
factual allegations in the complaint must . . . be treated as
true." Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.
plaintiffs' eight claims, which are all brought under
Massachusetts law, fall into what amounts to four different
categories. Three claims seek a judgment declaring that the
foreclosure sale is void. A fourth claim is for an action to
quiet title. A fifth claim is for breach of the duty of good
faith and reasonable diligence. The final three claims at
issue are brought under two different consumer protection
statutes. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the
dismissal of all of these claims.
begin with the three claims for which the plaintiffs seek a
judgment declaring that the foreclosure sale is void. The
first of these claims contends that the sale is void because
the defendants failed to comply with Massachusetts General
Laws Chapter 244, § 15A ("§ 15A") in
conducting the sale. Section 15A requires a mortgagee
conveying title to ...