|
No. 137527
| First National Bank of Chicago, as Trustee for |
|
Walter J. Russell |
| Bankboston Home Equity Loan Trust 1998-1, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Ct of Claims - Giddings, J.) |
|
|
| Department of Treasury and Department of |
|
Kevin T. Smith |
| Natural Resources, |
|
|
Defendants-Appellants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendants-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Background
A property in St. Johns became subject to foreclosure after the owners failed to pay 1999 property taxes. Notices of forfeiture and the foreclosure proceedings were sent to the original individual purchasers, the first mortgagee, the first assignee, and BankBoston. BankBoston had merged with Fleet National Bank and changed its name to FNB, which had an address in Rhode Island. BankBoston’s notice was sent to the Rhode Island address, rather than to the Boston address listed on the mortgage assignments. After the foreclosure hearing, a judgment of foreclosure was issued, in the amount of $2,316, and the notice of judgment of foreclosure was recorded. The property sold at auction for $109,000. First National Bank sued, claiming that its mortgage interest was foreclosed in violation of its due process rights. The bank also alleged that the amount of money in excess of the taxes, penalties, and costs was an unconstitutional taking. The Court of Claims ruled in favor of First National, holding that it had been denied due process because the notice was not sent to BankBoston’s Boston address, which was listed on the assignment and which was the address reasonably calculated to apprise BankBoston and its trustee First National of the pending hearings. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split published opinion. The dissenting judge would have reversed because, in his view, First National Bank was not the entity that was owed, or arguably denied, due process (BankBoston was) and also because the notice in this case was adequate for due process purposes. The defendants appeal.
Top of Page
|
