Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
Eaton v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 462 Mass. 569 (2012)
- Court
- Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Decided
- 2012-06-22
- Docket
- Not listed in the sources consulted
- Cited by later opinions
- 196
What happened
After a foreclosure sale, Fannie Mae tried to evict Henrietta Eaton. The foreclosing company held her mortgage but not her note, and a judge blocked the eviction.
What the court decided
The court held that a foreclosing mortgagee must hold the note or act on behalf of the note holder — but applied the rule only to foreclosures after the decision. Ms. Eaton was allowed to pursue discovery on whether the foreclosing company acted for the note holder.
In the court's words
“either holding the mortgage note or acting on behalf of the note holder”
Why it may matter to you
It shows a court linking the right to foreclose to the actual debt — and a homeowner getting the chance to ask questions before eviction.
Why it might not apply
Massachusetts law, prospective only; Texas takes a different view (Martins).
Most useful when
- The company that foreclosed held the mortgage but not the note
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Eaton v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 462 Mass. 569 (2012)Short formEaton, 462 Mass. 569Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Eaton v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 462 Mass. 569 (2012), the court held that a foreclosing mortgagee must either hold the note or act on behalf of the note holder, a rule applied to foreclosures after the decision. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Partial winBinding in federal court
Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
735 F.3d 220 · Decided 2013
The Reinagels said the assignments that gave Deutsche Bank their loan were "robo-signed" and void, so the bank could not foreclose.
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding in federal court
Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.
594 F. App'x 833 · Decided 2014
The Whittiers sued the bank and servicers after foreclosure, raising RESPA, Texas Debt Collection Act, DTPA and contract claims.
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding in federal court
Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.
722 F.3d 249 · Decided 2013
Mr. Martins refinanced his Texas home, later fell behind, and the servicer foreclosed. He argued the servicer could not foreclose without holding the original note, that he never got notice of the sale, and that the servicer had orally agreed to modify his loan.
Read the case