Yes, but you need evidence, not suspicion. In March 2026 the Appeals Court affirmed a judgment for possession against a former homeowner who challenged the bank’s standing, the mortgage assignments and the note without submitting any affidavit or admissible proof. This is an unpublished Appeals Court decision under Rule 23.0, which courts may cite as persuasive but not as binding precedent.
What happened
The homeowners signed a note and mortgage on their Ashburnham home in 2004. The mortgage was later assigned twice, ending with the bank that brought this case. By early 2022 the loan had been in default for about nine years, and the servicer sent the homeowners notices of their right to cure the default and their right to request a modified mortgage. The bank held a foreclosure sale in May 2023, bought the property itself, served a notice to quit, and filed a summary process (eviction) case. The homeowner argued the foreclosure was not done in strict compliance with the law, and both sides moved for summary judgment. The homeowner filed no affidavits, and the judge struck his exhibits, including an outside “report” about an unrelated case, as unauthenticated hearsay.
What the court decided
The court affirmed in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Lashua, No. 25-P-443 (Mass. App. Ct. March 11, 2026) (Rule 23.0 decision).
In a post-foreclosure eviction, the buyer can make a prima facie case for possession by producing an attested copy of the recorded foreclosure deed and the affidavit of sale under G.L. c. 244, § 15. Federal Nat’l Mtge. Ass’n v. Hendricks, 463 Mass. 635 (2012). Once it does, the occupant must answer with an affidavit or other acceptable evidence showing a real factual dispute. If the occupant does not, judgment generally enters for the plaintiff. Here the bank filed the deed, the affidavit of sale and a detailed affidavit about its note holder status and compliance with the mortgage. That shifted the burden to the homeowner.
The court then rejected each of the homeowner’s arguments:
- Standing. A foreclosing party must hold the mortgage and also hold the note or act for the note holder. Eaton v. Federal Nat’l Mtge. Ass’n, 462 Mass. 569 (2012). The bank’s recorded affidavit said it held the note. A letter from an unrelated matter did not create a dispute.
- Loan modification. The homeowner said a prior servicer had agreed to modify the loan, but he pointed to no agreement and no payments in the record.
- Assignments. He offered no evidence against the assignment. Even so, a borrower in default cannot challenge a defect that would make an assignment only voidable, not void. Strawbridge v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 827 (2017); Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp. v. Wain, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 498 (2014).
- The allonge. He argued the paper endorsing the note was never shown to be permanently attached. The statute says only that a paper affixed to the note is part of it for signature purposes. G.L. c. 106, § 3-204 (a). It sets no “permanently attached” rule, and he offered no evidence the bank did not hold the note.
The court also treated his consumer protection counterclaim as waived because he did not argue it on appeal. It denied the bank’s request for attorney’s fees.
What this means for you
The lender won this one, and the lesson is about proof. Massachusetts law does require strict compliance with the mortgage’s power of sale. See Pinti v. Emigrant Mtge. Co., 472 Mass. 226 (2015). But in a post-foreclosure eviction, the court will not assume something went wrong. When the bank files its deed and affidavits, you must answer with sworn facts from someone with personal knowledge, or documents that are properly authenticated.
Several common arguments did not work here. Internet reports about other cases, letters about other loans, and claims of “robo-signing” with no proof behind them did not change the result. Claims that a modification was agreed to need the actual agreement or proof of payments. And a challenge to how the mortgage was passed between banks usually fails unless the defect makes the assignment void.
Foreclosure law has real protections. For a mortgage on your principal residence, lenders must send a right to cure notice under G.L. c. 244, § 35A, and for certain loans they must also tell you about your right to pursue a modified loan under G.L. c. 244, § 35B. Those protections help you only if you can prove what was or was not done.
What to do now
- Gather every letter from your lender and servicer, including right to cure and loan modification notices, with envelopes and dates.
- Keep proof of any modification offer, signed agreement, or trial payment, such as bank statements and cancelled checks.
- Get copies of the recorded mortgage, assignments, foreclosure deed and affidavit of sale from the registry of deeds.
- Do not rely on generic reports or online theories. Put your own facts in a signed affidavit, filed on time.
- Get legal help as soon as you receive a notice to quit or a summary process summons.
If this is your situation, call Doubleday Law at (617) 575-2006 or tell us what happened. Housing Court deadlines are short.
