Offering Convenient Video, Virtual, and Telephonic Meetings

With almost 25 years of experience in all areas of business and civil litigation, Mr. Wagner focuses his practice in commercial and business litigation, shareholder disputes, construction litigation, employment litigation, real estate litigation, environmental litigation, receiverships, bankruptcy and adversary proceedings, commercial loan recovery, lender liability, health care law, energy law, contract disputes, condemnation, professional liability, products liability, insurance litigation and land use and zoning.  Mr. Wagner represents clients in federal and state courts, arbitrations, mediations and before regulatory agencies in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.  He also provides counsel to businesses on corporate and employment matters.  Mr. Wagner is admitted to practice law in all state and federal courts in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, as well as the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  Mr. Wagner obtained his J.D. from the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1995, where he served as the Articles Editor of the Connecticut Journal of International Law.  Mr. Wagner earned his B.A., cum laude, from the University of Rhode Island in 1989.  Mr. Wagner was selected by his peers as a Rhode Island and New England Super Lawyer in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Publications
Litigating Closely Held Business Disputes and the Application of Rhode Island’s Receivership Statute

Education

  • 1995 University of Connecticut School of Law, Juris Doctor
  • 1989 University of Rhode Island, B.A., Cum Laude

Bar & Court Admissions

  • Rhode Island
  • Massachusetts
  • New Hampshire

Professional Affiliations

  • Rhode Island Bar Association
  • Massachusetts Bar Association

Community and Civic Activity

  • Jamestown Zoning Board of Review
  • Conanicut Island Land Trust

Representative Cases

Intercity Maint. Co. v. Local 254, SEIU, No. 00-1522, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 241 F.3d 82; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3121; 166 L.R.R.M. 2656; 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,923, March 2, 2001, Decided , Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 5553. Where plaintiff did not allege and prove damages, its claim of defamation was unrecoverable. Where there was insufficient evidence as matter of law to provide plaintiff lost its account by reason of local affiliate’s activity claim was dismissed.

Ball v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed

In re Mortg. Foreclosure Cases, Misc. No. 11-mc-88-M-LDA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125474, September 3, 2013, Decided, September 3, 2013, Filed. Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of court’s stay order which, inter alia, prohibited any foreclosure and eviction proceedings was denied. Defendants were not likely to succeed on merits.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., Civil No. 11-cv-373-PB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2012 DNH 40; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093, February 8, 2012, Decided, February 8, 2012, Filed. Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata. In plaintiff’s prior state suit, the factual transaction was the chain of events from mortgage through foreclosure pertaining to the ownership and encumbrance of plaintiff’s property. Because all of plaintiff’s claims in the instant case were based on that same factual transaction, they were barred.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., No. 2011-CV-0542, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59, December 7, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093 (D.N.H., 2012)

Ingress v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 226-2010-CV-571, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 58, April 6, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at, Dismissed by Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59 (2011).

Sullivan v. Decision One Mortg. (In re Sullivan), Chapter 13, Case No. 04-19022-JNF, Adv. P. No. 05-1350 , UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 346 B.R. 4; 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1441, July 21, 2006, Decided. Debtor’s fraud claims against lenders were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, and the discovery rule did not toll § 2A because debtor had sufficient facts in her possession at the time she executed the loan documents with the lenders to ascertain whether she had a cause of action against them.

Odoms-Harris v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Chapter 13, Case No. 06-11300-FJB, Adversary Proceeding No. 08-1258, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1254, May 21, 2009, Decided, May 21, 2009, Filed; May 21, 2009, Entered v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed.

Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691, September 11, 2013, Decided, September 11, 2013, Filed. Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129694, June 14, 2013, Decided, June 14, 2013, Filed, Adopted by, Dismissed by Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691 (D. Mass., Sept. 11, 2013)

Ross v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10586-WGY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47056, March 27, 2013, Decided, March 27, 2013, Filed.

Da Silva v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 11-11416-JLT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 885 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111046, August 8, 2012, Decided, August 8, 2012, Filed.

Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), Bk. No. 08-13121-MWV, Chapter 13, Adv. No. 09-1109-MWV, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2010 BNH 7; 427 B.R. 197; 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 480, February 11, 2010, Decided, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Complaint dismissed at, Findings of fact/conclusions of law at Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), 427 B.R. 200, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 482 (Bankr. D.N.H., 2010). Abstention under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(c) was appropriate in a Chapter 13 debtor’s adversary proceeding against a mortgage lender and other defendants. The debtor’s claims, which included state and federal statutory violations, breach of contract, and fraud, fell under non-core, related-to jurisdiction and largely concerned state law.

Darden v. Noyes, Opinion No.: 113296, Docket Number:2007-1909-D, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 27 Mass. L. Rep. 448; 2010 Mass. Super. LEXIS 285, August 12, 2010, Decided, August 13, 2010, Filed.

Thelemaque v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Opinion No.: 115866, Docket Number: SUCV2008-5179-BLS1, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 28 Mass. L. Rep. 430; 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 98, March 22, 2011, Decided, March 23, 2011, Filed.

Miles v. Beneficial Mass., Inc., Docket Number: 2005-02371 , SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, 22 Mass. L. Rep. 161; 2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 37, February 12, 2007, Decided.

Doe v. Burkland, No. 2001-95-Appeal. , SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 808 A.2d 1090; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 198, November 12, 2002, Opinion Filed. The alleged consideration was not illegal, irrespective of the fact that the parties may have been living together when they entered into the contract. Thus, the counterclaims against the former cohabitant should not have been dismissed.

Strynar v. Rahill, No. 2000-247-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 793 A.2d 206; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 51, March 28, 2002, Opinion Filed. The exclusivity of the injured-on-duty remedy applied to claims of intentional misconduct. It also embodied the former detective’s exclusive remedy for all his claims. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed his complaint.

Testa v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 99-243-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 764 A.2d 119; 2001 R.I. LEXIS 12, January 8, 2001, Opinion Filed. Plaintiff’s award for car theft claim against insurer affirmed. There was no evidence that plaintiff misrepresented in which state the car was to be parked.

Gammell-Roach v. Howland, C.A. No. PB 09-3501, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2010 R.I. Super. LEXIS 34, February 16, 2010, Filed. Claims by a minority shareholder of a closely held corporation of oppressive acts by CEO could constitute an oppressive “freezing out” of the shareholder’s voice in the corporation, creating an individual rather than a derivative cause of action; thus, the shareholder did not have to plead a derivative action under R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 23.1.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cuevas, C.A. No. PD 2010-0988, C.A. No. PC 2010-0553 (Consolidated), SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 61, April 19, 2012, Filed.

Deutsche Bank v. Falconer, C.A. No. PD 2010-1588 (Consolidated), C.A. No. PD 2010-1591, C.A. No. PC 2010-1996, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 90, May 1, 2012, Filed. In former mortgagors’ action for quiet title, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-16-5, foreclosure of mortgagors’ property by original mortgagee, who was not note-holder, was proper because mortgagee was nominee of original lender under mortgage and had standing to enforce statutory power of sale contained in mortgage, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-11-22.

Smith v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2011-1833, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 181, December 4, 2012, Filed. Where plaintiffs filed action to quiet title, alleging the foreclosure sale of their home was a nullity, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied because the complaint alleged that the note was current or had been satisfied, and for purposes of the motion, the court had to assume these allegations were true.

Cook v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2010-1323, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 106, July 10, 2012, Filed.Intercity Maint. Co. v. Local 254, SEIU, No. 00-1522, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 241 F.3d 82; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3121; 166 L.R.R.M. 2656; 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,923, March 2, 2001, Decided , Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 5553. Where plaintiff did not allege and prove damages, its claim of defamation was unrecoverable. Where there was insufficient evidence as matter of law to provide plaintiff lost its account by reason of local affiliate’s activity claim was dismissed.

Ball v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed

In re Mortg. Foreclosure Cases, Misc. No. 11-mc-88-M-LDA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125474, September 3, 2013, Decided, September 3, 2013, Filed. Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of court’s stay order which, inter alia, prohibited any foreclosure and eviction proceedings was denied. Defendants were not likely to succeed on merits.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., Civil No. 11-cv-373-PB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2012 DNH 40; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093, February 8, 2012, Decided, February 8, 2012, Filed. Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata. In plaintiff’s prior state suit, the factual transaction was the chain of events from mortgage through foreclosure pertaining to the ownership and encumbrance of plaintiff’s property. Because all of plaintiff’s claims in the instant case were based on that same factual transaction, they were barred.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., No. 2011-CV-0542, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59, December 7, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093 (D.N.H., 2012)

Ingress v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 226-2010-CV-571, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 58, April 6, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at, Dismissed by Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59 (2011).

Sullivan v. Decision One Mortg. (In re Sullivan), Chapter 13, Case No. 04-19022-JNF, Adv. P. No. 05-1350 , UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 346 B.R. 4; 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1441, July 21, 2006, Decided. Debtor’s fraud claims against lenders were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, and the discovery rule did not toll § 2A because debtor had sufficient facts in her possession at the time she executed the loan documents with the lenders to ascertain whether she had a cause of action against them.

Odoms-Harris v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Chapter 13, Case No. 06-11300-FJB, Adversary Proceeding No. 08-1258, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1254, May 21, 2009, Decided, May 21, 2009, Filed; May 21, 2009, Entered v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed.

Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691, September 11, 2013, Decided, September 11, 2013, Filed. Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129694, June 14, 2013, Decided, June 14, 2013, Filed, Adopted by, Dismissed by Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691 (D. Mass., Sept. 11, 2013)

Ross v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10586-WGY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47056, March 27, 2013, Decided, March 27, 2013, Filed.

Da Silva v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 11-11416-JLT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 885 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111046, August 8, 2012, Decided, August 8, 2012, Filed.

Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), Bk. No. 08-13121-MWV, Chapter 13, Adv. No. 09-1109-MWV, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2010 BNH 7; 427 B.R. 197; 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 480, February 11, 2010, Decided, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Complaint dismissed at, Findings of fact/conclusions of law at Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), 427 B.R. 200, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 482 (Bankr. D.N.H., 2010). Abstention under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(c) was appropriate in a Chapter 13 debtor’s adversary proceeding against a mortgage lender and other defendants. The debtor’s claims, which included state and federal statutory violations, breach of contract, and fraud, fell under non-core, related-to jurisdiction and largely concerned state law.

Darden v. Noyes, Opinion No.: 113296, Docket Number:2007-1909-D, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 27 Mass. L. Rep. 448; 2010 Mass. Super. LEXIS 285, August 12, 2010, Decided, August 13, 2010, Filed.

Thelemaque v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Opinion No.: 115866, Docket Number: SUCV2008-5179-BLS1, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 28 Mass. L. Rep. 430; 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 98, March 22, 2011, Decided, March 23, 2011, Filed.

Miles v. Beneficial Mass., Inc., Docket Number: 2005-02371 , SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, 22 Mass. L. Rep. 161; 2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 37, February 12, 2007, Decided.

Doe v. Burkland, No. 2001-95-Appeal. , SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 808 A.2d 1090; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 198, November 12, 2002, Opinion Filed. The alleged consideration was not illegal, irrespective of the fact that the parties may have been living together when they entered into the contract. Thus, the counterclaims against the former cohabitant should not have been dismissed.

Strynar v. Rahill, No. 2000-247-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 793 A.2d 206; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 51, March 28, 2002, Opinion Filed. The exclusivity of the injured-on-duty remedy applied to claims of intentional misconduct. It also embodied the former detective’s exclusive remedy for all his claims. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed his complaint.

Testa v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 99-243-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 764 A.2d 119; 2001 R.I. LEXIS 12, January 8, 2001, Opinion Filed. Plaintiff’s award for car theft claim against insurer affirmed. There was no evidence that plaintiff misrepresented in which state the car was to be parked.

Gammell-Roach v. Howland, C.A. No. PB 09-3501, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2010 R.I. Super. LEXIS 34, February 16, 2010, Filed. Claims by a minority shareholder of a closely held corporation of oppressive acts by CEO could constitute an oppressive “freezing out” of the shareholder’s voice in the corporation, creating an individual rather than a derivative cause of action; thus, the shareholder did not have to plead a derivative action under R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 23.1.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cuevas, C.A. No. PD 2010-0988, C.A. No. PC 2010-0553 (Consolidated), SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 61, April 19, 2012, Filed.

Deutsche Bank v. Falconer, C.A. No. PD 2010-1588 (Consolidated), C.A. No. PD 2010-1591, C.A. No. PC 2010-1996, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 90, May 1, 2012, Filed. In former mortgagors’ action for quiet title, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-16-5, foreclosure of mortgagors’ property by original mortgagee, who was not note-holder, was proper because mortgagee was nominee of original lender under mortgage and had standing to enforce statutory power of sale contained in mortgage, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-11-22.

Smith v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2011-1833, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 181, December 4, 2012, Filed. Where plaintiffs filed action to quiet title, alleging the foreclosure sale of their home was a nullity, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied because the complaint alleged that the note was current or had been satisfied, and for purposes of the motion, the court had to assume these allegations were true.

Cook v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2010-1323, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 106, July 10, 2012, Filed.Intercity Maint. Co. v. Local 254, SEIU, No. 00-1522, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 241 F.3d 82; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3121; 166 L.R.R.M. 2656; 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,923, March 2, 2001, Decided , Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 5553. Where plaintiff did not allege and prove damages, its claim of defamation was unrecoverable. Where there was insufficient evidence as matter of law to provide plaintiff lost its account by reason of local affiliate’s activity claim was dismissed.

Ball v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed

In re Mortg. Foreclosure Cases, Misc. No. 11-mc-88-M-LDA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125474, September 3, 2013, Decided, September 3, 2013, Filed. Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of court’s stay order which, inter alia, prohibited any foreclosure and eviction proceedings was denied. Defendants were not likely to succeed on merits.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., Civil No. 11-cv-373-PB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2012 DNH 40; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093, February 8, 2012, Decided, February 8, 2012, Filed. Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata. In plaintiff’s prior state suit, the factual transaction was the chain of events from mortgage through foreclosure pertaining to the ownership and encumbrance of plaintiff’s property. Because all of plaintiff’s claims in the instant case were based on that same factual transaction, they were barred.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., No. 2011-CV-0542, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59, December 7, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093 (D.N.H., 2012)

Ingress v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 226-2010-CV-571, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 58, April 6, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at, Dismissed by Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59 (2011).

Sullivan v. Decision One Mortg. (In re Sullivan), Chapter 13, Case No. 04-19022-JNF, Adv. P. No. 05-1350 , UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 346 B.R. 4; 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1441, July 21, 2006, Decided. Debtor’s fraud claims against lenders were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, and the discovery rule did not toll § 2A because debtor had sufficient facts in her possession at the time she executed the loan documents with the lenders to ascertain whether she had a cause of action against them.

Odoms-Harris v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Chapter 13, Case No. 06-11300-FJB, Adversary Proceeding No. 08-1258, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1254, May 21, 2009, Decided, May 21, 2009, Filed; May 21, 2009, Entered v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed.

Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691, September 11, 2013, Decided, September 11, 2013, Filed. Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129694, June 14, 2013, Decided, June 14, 2013, Filed, Adopted by, Dismissed by Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691 (D. Mass., Sept. 11, 2013)

Ross v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10586-WGY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47056, March 27, 2013, Decided, March 27, 2013, Filed.

Da Silva v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 11-11416-JLT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 885 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111046, August 8, 2012, Decided, August 8, 2012, Filed.

Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), Bk. No. 08-13121-MWV, Chapter 13, Adv. No. 09-1109-MWV, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2010 BNH 7; 427 B.R. 197; 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 480, February 11, 2010, Decided, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Complaint dismissed at, Findings of fact/conclusions of law at Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), 427 B.R. 200, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 482 (Bankr. D.N.H., 2010). Abstention under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(c) was appropriate in a Chapter 13 debtor’s adversary proceeding against a mortgage lender and other defendants. The debtor’s claims, which included state and federal statutory violations, breach of contract, and fraud, fell under non-core, related-to jurisdiction and largely concerned state law.

Darden v. Noyes, Opinion No.: 113296, Docket Number:2007-1909-D, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 27 Mass. L. Rep. 448; 2010 Mass. Super. LEXIS 285, August 12, 2010, Decided, August 13, 2010, Filed.

Thelemaque v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Opinion No.: 115866, Docket Number: SUCV2008-5179-BLS1, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 28 Mass. L. Rep. 430; 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 98, March 22, 2011, Decided, March 23, 2011, Filed.

Miles v. Beneficial Mass., Inc., Docket Number: 2005-02371 , SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, 22 Mass. L. Rep. 161; 2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 37, February 12, 2007, Decided.

Doe v. Burkland, No. 2001-95-Appeal. , SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 808 A.2d 1090; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 198, November 12, 2002, Opinion Filed. The alleged consideration was not illegal, irrespective of the fact that the parties may have been living together when they entered into the contract. Thus, the counterclaims against the former cohabitant should not have been dismissed.

Strynar v. Rahill, No. 2000-247-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 793 A.2d 206; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 51, March 28, 2002, Opinion Filed. The exclusivity of the injured-on-duty remedy applied to claims of intentional misconduct. It also embodied the former detective’s exclusive remedy for all his claims. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed his complaint.

Testa v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 99-243-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 764 A.2d 119; 2001 R.I. LEXIS 12, January 8, 2001, Opinion Filed. Plaintiff’s award for car theft claim against insurer affirmed. There was no evidence that plaintiff misrepresented in which state the car was to be parked.

Gammell-Roach v. Howland, C.A. No. PB 09-3501, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2010 R.I. Super. LEXIS 34, February 16, 2010, Filed. Claims by a minority shareholder of a closely held corporation of oppressive acts by CEO could constitute an oppressive “freezing out” of the shareholder’s voice in the corporation, creating an individual rather than a derivative cause of action; thus, the shareholder did not have to plead a derivative action under R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 23.1.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cuevas, C.A. No. PD 2010-0988, C.A. No. PC 2010-0553 (Consolidated), SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 61, April 19, 2012, Filed.

Deutsche Bank v. Falconer, C.A. No. PD 2010-1588 (Consolidated), C.A. No. PD 2010-1591, C.A. No. PC 2010-1996, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 90, May 1, 2012, Filed. In former mortgagors’ action for quiet title, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-16-5, foreclosure of mortgagors’ property by original mortgagee, who was not note-holder, was proper because mortgagee was nominee of original lender under mortgage and had standing to enforce statutory power of sale contained in mortgage, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-11-22.

Smith v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2011-1833, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 181, December 4, 2012, Filed. Where plaintiffs filed action to quiet title, alleging the foreclosure sale of their home was a nullity, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied because the complaint alleged that the note was current or had been satisfied, and for purposes of the motion, the court had to assume these allegations were true.

Cook v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2010-1323, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 106, July 10, 2012, Filed.Intercity Maint. Co. v. Local 254, SEIU, No. 00-1522, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 241 F.3d 82; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3121; 166 L.R.R.M. 2656; 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,923, March 2, 2001, Decided , Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 5553. Where plaintiff did not allege and prove damages, its claim of defamation was unrecoverable. Where there was insufficient evidence as matter of law to provide plaintiff lost its account by reason of local affiliate’s activity claim was dismissed.

Ball v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed

In re Mortg. Foreclosure Cases, Misc. No. 11-mc-88-M-LDA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125474, September 3, 2013, Decided, September 3, 2013, Filed. Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of court’s stay order which, inter alia, prohibited any foreclosure and eviction proceedings was denied. Defendants were not likely to succeed on merits.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., Civil No. 11-cv-373-PB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2012 DNH 40; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093, February 8, 2012, Decided, February 8, 2012, Filed. Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata. In plaintiff’s prior state suit, the factual transaction was the chain of events from mortgage through foreclosure pertaining to the ownership and encumbrance of plaintiff’s property. Because all of plaintiff’s claims in the instant case were based on that same factual transaction, they were barred.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., No. 2011-CV-0542, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59, December 7, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093 (D.N.H., 2012)

Ingress v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 226-2010-CV-571, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 58, April 6, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at, Dismissed by Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59 (2011).

Sullivan v. Decision One Mortg. (In re Sullivan), Chapter 13, Case No. 04-19022-JNF, Adv. P. No. 05-1350 , UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 346 B.R. 4; 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1441, July 21, 2006, Decided. Debtor’s fraud claims against lenders were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, and the discovery rule did not toll § 2A because debtor had sufficient facts in her possession at the time she executed the loan documents with the lenders to ascertain whether she had a cause of action against them.

Odoms-Harris v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Chapter 13, Case No. 06-11300-FJB, Adversary Proceeding No. 08-1258, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1254, May 21, 2009, Decided, May 21, 2009, Filed; May 21, 2009, Entered v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed.

Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691, September 11, 2013, Decided, September 11, 2013, Filed. Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129694, June 14, 2013, Decided, June 14, 2013, Filed, Adopted by, Dismissed by Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691 (D. Mass., Sept. 11, 2013)

Ross v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10586-WGY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47056, March 27, 2013, Decided, March 27, 2013, Filed.

Da Silva v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 11-11416-JLT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 885 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111046, August 8, 2012, Decided, August 8, 2012, Filed.

Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), Bk. No. 08-13121-MWV, Chapter 13, Adv. No. 09-1109-MWV, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2010 BNH 7; 427 B.R. 197; 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 480, February 11, 2010, Decided, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Complaint dismissed at, Findings of fact/conclusions of law at Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), 427 B.R. 200, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 482 (Bankr. D.N.H., 2010). Abstention under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(c) was appropriate in a Chapter 13 debtor’s adversary proceeding against a mortgage lender and other defendants. The debtor’s claims, which included state and federal statutory violations, breach of contract, and fraud, fell under non-core, related-to jurisdiction and largely concerned state law.

Darden v. Noyes, Opinion No.: 113296, Docket Number:2007-1909-D, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 27 Mass. L. Rep. 448; 2010 Mass. Super. LEXIS 285, August 12, 2010, Decided, August 13, 2010, Filed.

Thelemaque v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Opinion No.: 115866, Docket Number: SUCV2008-5179-BLS1, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 28 Mass. L. Rep. 430; 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 98, March 22, 2011, Decided, March 23, 2011, Filed.

Miles v. Beneficial Mass., Inc., Docket Number: 2005-02371 , SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, 22 Mass. L. Rep. 161; 2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 37, February 12, 2007, Decided.

Doe v. Burkland, No. 2001-95-Appeal. , SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 808 A.2d 1090; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 198, November 12, 2002, Opinion Filed. The alleged consideration was not illegal, irrespective of the fact that the parties may have been living together when they entered into the contract. Thus, the counterclaims against the former cohabitant should not have been dismissed.

Strynar v. Rahill, No. 2000-247-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 793 A.2d 206; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 51, March 28, 2002, Opinion Filed. The exclusivity of the injured-on-duty remedy applied to claims of intentional misconduct. It also embodied the former detective’s exclusive remedy for all his claims. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed his complaint.

Testa v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 99-243-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 764 A.2d 119; 2001 R.I. LEXIS 12, January 8, 2001, Opinion Filed. Plaintiff’s award for car theft claim against insurer affirmed. There was no evidence that plaintiff misrepresented in which state the car was to be parked.

Gammell-Roach v. Howland, C.A. No. PB 09-3501, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2010 R.I. Super. LEXIS 34, February 16, 2010, Filed. Claims by a minority shareholder of a closely held corporation of oppressive acts by CEO could constitute an oppressive “freezing out” of the shareholder’s voice in the corporation, creating an individual rather than a derivative cause of action; thus, the shareholder did not have to plead a derivative action under R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 23.1.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cuevas, C.A. No. PD 2010-0988, C.A. No. PC 2010-0553 (Consolidated), SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 61, April 19, 2012, Filed.

Deutsche Bank v. Falconer, C.A. No. PD 2010-1588 (Consolidated), C.A. No. PD 2010-1591, C.A. No. PC 2010-1996, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 90, May 1, 2012, Filed. In former mortgagors’ action for quiet title, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-16-5, foreclosure of mortgagors’ property by original mortgagee, who was not note-holder, was proper because mortgagee was nominee of original lender under mortgage and had standing to enforce statutory power of sale contained in mortgage, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-11-22.

Smith v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2011-1833, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 181, December 4, 2012, Filed. Where plaintiffs filed action to quiet title, alleging the foreclosure sale of their home was a nullity, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied because the complaint alleged that the note was current or had been satisfied, and for purposes of the motion, the court had to assume these allegations were true.

Cook v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2010-1323, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 106, July 10, 2012, Filed.Intercity Maint. Co. v. Local 254, SEIU, No. 00-1522, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 241 F.3d 82; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 3121; 166 L.R.R.M. 2656; 142 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,923, March 2, 2001, Decided , Certiorari Denied October 1, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. LEXIS 5553. Where plaintiff did not allege and prove damages, its claim of defamation was unrecoverable. Where there was insufficient evidence as matter of law to provide plaintiff lost its account by reason of local affiliate’s activity claim was dismissed.

Ball v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed

In re Mortg. Foreclosure Cases, Misc. No. 11-mc-88-M-LDA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125474, September 3, 2013, Decided, September 3, 2013, Filed. Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of court’s stay order which, inter alia, prohibited any foreclosure and eviction proceedings was denied. Defendants were not likely to succeed on merits.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., Civil No. 11-cv-373-PB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2012 DNH 40; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093, February 8, 2012, Decided, February 8, 2012, Filed. Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata. In plaintiff’s prior state suit, the factual transaction was the chain of events from mortgage through foreclosure pertaining to the ownership and encumbrance of plaintiff’s property. Because all of plaintiff’s claims in the instant case were based on that same factual transaction, they were barred.

Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., No. 2011-CV-0542, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59, December 7, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15093 (D.N.H., 2012)

Ingress v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 226-2010-CV-571, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 58, April 6, 2011, Decided, THE ORDERS ON THIS SITE ARE TRIAL COURT ORDERS THAT ARE NOT BINDING ON OTHER TRIAL COURT JUSTICES OR MASTERS AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT., Related proceeding at, Dismissed by Ingress v. Merrimack Mortg. Co., 2011 N.H. Super. LEXIS 59 (2011).

Sullivan v. Decision One Mortg. (In re Sullivan), Chapter 13, Case No. 04-19022-JNF, Adv. P. No. 05-1350 , UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 346 B.R. 4; 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1441, July 21, 2006, Decided. Debtor’s fraud claims against lenders were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2A, and the discovery rule did not toll § 2A because debtor had sufficient facts in her possession at the time she executed the loan documents with the lenders to ascertain whether she had a cause of action against them.

Odoms-Harris v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Chapter 13, Case No. 06-11300-FJB, Adversary Proceeding No. 08-1258, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1254, May 21, 2009, Decided, May 21, 2009, Filed; May 21, 2009, Entered v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-40086-TSH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140790, September 30, 2013, Decided, September 30, 2013, Filed.

Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691, September 11, 2013, Decided, September 11, 2013, Filed. Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11714-PBS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129694, June 14, 2013, Decided, June 14, 2013, Filed, Adopted by, Dismissed by Lindsay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129691 (D. Mass., Sept. 11, 2013)

Ross v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10586-WGY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47056, March 27, 2013, Decided, March 27, 2013, Filed.

Da Silva v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 11-11416-JLT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 885 F. Supp. 2d 500; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111046, August 8, 2012, Decided, August 8, 2012, Filed.

Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), Bk. No. 08-13121-MWV, Chapter 13, Adv. No. 09-1109-MWV, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2010 BNH 7; 427 B.R. 197; 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 480, February 11, 2010, Decided, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Complaint dismissed at, Findings of fact/conclusions of law at Maroun v. New York Mortg. Co., LLC (In re Maroun), 427 B.R. 200, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 482 (Bankr. D.N.H., 2010). Abstention under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1334(c) was appropriate in a Chapter 13 debtor’s adversary proceeding against a mortgage lender and other defendants. The debtor’s claims, which included state and federal statutory violations, breach of contract, and fraud, fell under non-core, related-to jurisdiction and largely concerned state law.

Darden v. Noyes, Opinion No.: 113296, Docket Number:2007-1909-D, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 27 Mass. L. Rep. 448; 2010 Mass. Super. LEXIS 285, August 12, 2010, Decided, August 13, 2010, Filed.

Thelemaque v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, Opinion No.: 115866, Docket Number: SUCV2008-5179-BLS1, SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT SUFFOLK, 28 Mass. L. Rep. 430; 2011 Mass. Super. LEXIS 98, March 22, 2011, Decided, March 23, 2011, Filed.

Miles v. Beneficial Mass., Inc., Docket Number: 2005-02371 , SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT MIDDLESEX, 22 Mass. L. Rep. 161; 2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 37, February 12, 2007, Decided.

Doe v. Burkland, No. 2001-95-Appeal. , SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 808 A.2d 1090; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 198, November 12, 2002, Opinion Filed. The alleged consideration was not illegal, irrespective of the fact that the parties may have been living together when they entered into the contract. Thus, the counterclaims against the former cohabitant should not have been dismissed.

Strynar v. Rahill, No. 2000-247-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 793 A.2d 206; 2002 R.I. LEXIS 51, March 28, 2002, Opinion Filed. The exclusivity of the injured-on-duty remedy applied to claims of intentional misconduct. It also embodied the former detective’s exclusive remedy for all his claims. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed his complaint.

Testa v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 99-243-Appeal., SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 764 A.2d 119; 2001 R.I. LEXIS 12, January 8, 2001, Opinion Filed. Plaintiff’s award for car theft claim against insurer affirmed. There was no evidence that plaintiff misrepresented in which state the car was to be parked.

Gammell-Roach v. Howland, C.A. No. PB 09-3501, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2010 R.I. Super. LEXIS 34, February 16, 2010, Filed. Claims by a minority shareholder of a closely held corporation of oppressive acts by CEO could constitute an oppressive “freezing out” of the shareholder’s voice in the corporation, creating an individual rather than a derivative cause of action; thus, the shareholder did not have to plead a derivative action under R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 23.1.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cuevas, C.A. No. PD 2010-0988, C.A. No. PC 2010-0553 (Consolidated), SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 61, April 19, 2012, Filed.

Deutsche Bank v. Falconer, C.A. No. PD 2010-1588 (Consolidated), C.A. No. PD 2010-1591, C.A. No. PC 2010-1996, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 90, May 1, 2012, Filed. In former mortgagors’ action for quiet title, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-16-5, foreclosure of mortgagors’ property by original mortgagee, who was not note-holder, was proper because mortgagee was nominee of original lender under mortgage and had standing to enforce statutory power of sale contained in mortgage, R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-11-22.

Smith v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2011-1833, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 181, December 4, 2012, Filed. Where plaintiffs filed action to quiet title, alleging the foreclosure sale of their home was a nullity, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied because the complaint alleged that the note was current or had been satisfied, and for purposes of the motion, the court had to assume these allegations were true.

Cook v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., C.A. No. PC 2010-1323, SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE, 2012 R.I. Super. LEXIS 106, July 10, 2012, Filed.