Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
WORCESTER, SS.
SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CV ACT NO.:1785CV01677-B
STEPHEN D. NIMS
VICKIE L. NIMS
PLAINTIFFS'
Plaintiffs OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
vs. THE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
MOTION TO DISMISS
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS
OF CWALT INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN
TRUST 2005-53T2, and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Defendants
INTRODUCTION
12 (b) (6).
Standard of Review
stated as follows:
1
"The standard for reviewing adequacy of complaints. While
we have concluded that the plaintiffs' complaint is
insufficient on the basis of the standard described in
Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96 98 (1977), see note 7,
supra, we take the opportunity to adopt the refinement of
that standard that was recently articulated by the United
States Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.
Ct. 1955 (2007). See Eigerman v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 450
Mass. 281 , 286 n. 7 (2007) (noting that this court may
consider adopting Bell Atl. Corp. standard for evaluating
adequacy of complaint challenged by motion to dismiss for
failure to state claim pursuant to rule 12 [bl [6]).
2
their entitlement to relief that amount to more than "labels and
in fact", taken as true the inquiry would be; does such theory
3
theory of liability, is premised upon actions of Shellpoint
ARGUMENT
states,
4
the holder of the subject "Note" and "Mortgage" (Master
Servicer Mem., at p. 1, and at p. 4, §C).
5
"We reject Nationstar' s argument that the borrower cannot
proceed on his G. L. c. 93A claim because he failed to
serve a demand letter pursuant to c. 93A, § 9, on
Nationstar. A written demand is required pursuant to G. L.
c. 93A, § 9 (3), as appearing in St. 1979, c. 406, § 2,
unless ''the prospective respondent does not maintain a
place of business or does not keep assets within the
commonwealth."
6
contained within 209 C.M.R. 18.22 (1), creating per se liability
for any viol.ation of 209 C.M.R. 18.00, et. seq .. Such per se
The above referenced section of 209 CMR 18. 21a (2) (c), clearly
1 As an effect of the SJC ruling in Eaton v. Fed. Nat 1 l Mortgage Ass'n, 462
Mass 569 (2012), which now requires a statutory foreclosing claimant to
establish a nexus to a note holder.
7
Defendants purport that MERS acted as a "nominee" for Omega
18.21A(2) (c)
c. 93A, §9 (3):
8
award such other equitable relief, including an
injunction, as it deems to be necessary and proper."
18 . 2 lA ( 2) ( c)
Opposed to ''Loan 11
, and/or "Note"]. Contrast Master Servicer
Memo, at p. 6:
9
property. Indeed, unlike the attempt to confuse the issue by
The Master Servicer, AND the Defendant Trustee. Thus, where the
10
by the Defendant Trustee, and/ or receive equitable injunctive
the result of their own failure to repay the 'Loan'n. The Master
11
still allow Defendants to attempt a renewed non-judicial
CONCLUSION
Respectfully submitted
Plaintiff, Stephen and Vickie Nims
By their Attorney,
12
Jr ., Es q
CERTIFICATE OF SERV I CE
John H. Mccann
Shectman Ha lperin Savage , LLP
1080 Main Street
Pa wtu c ket, RI 02860
Robert M. Mendillo
Harmon Law Offices , P . C.
150 California Street
Newton, MA 02458
13