Law Professors To Bay State High Court: "U.S. Bank, N.A., Was No More Capable Of Passing On Good Title To The Rodriguez Property Than A Common Thief"

An amicus brief filed by four law school professors in a case currently under review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court involving the rights, if any, of an unwitting 3rd party purchaser of an improperly foreclosed upon house by U.S. Bank belonging to homeowner Pablo Rodriguez contains a discussion of what they describe as two of the most fundamental principles of commercial law: the principle of nemo dat quod non habet ("you can't give what you don't have") and the principle of the bona fide purchase (protects parties who take for value in good faith).

In urging the state high court to affirm a lower court ruling(1) finding that the 3rd party purchaser acquired void title as a result of the improperly conducted foreclosure, the four professors argue their position that "U.S. Bank, N.A., was no more capable of passing on good title to the Rodriguez property than a common thief."

For more, see Amicus Brief - Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez (Amicus Brief Of Professors Adam J. Levitin, Christopher L. Peterson, Katherine Porter, John A.E. Pottow).(2)

See also, Credit Slips: For the Servicers: Is It Better to Rob Peter or Paul? (The U.S. mortgage servicing industry is in deep doo-doo).

Thanks to Deontos for the heads-up on the Credit Slips post.

(1) For Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith C. Long's ruling currently being reviewed by the state's high court, see Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, MISC 10-427157 (KCL), 2010 WL 3351481 (Mass. Land Ct. Aug. 26, 2010).

(2) For links to all the briefs filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in this case, see Case Docket - Francis J Bevilacqua, III vs. Pablo Rodriguez, SJC-10880.