Fraudulent Foreclosure Sale Case

Summary

The case involves allegations of fraudulent actions by a lender, including usurious interest rates and a fabricated foreclosure deed, violating Massachusetts usury and foreclosure laws. The appellant argues that the foreclosure sale was collusive and irregular, contravening specific state statutes. These actions are claimed to hinder, delay, or defraud the appellant, supporting a prima facie case of fraudulent conveyance. The appellant seeks to challenge the foreclosure under Massachusetts law, citing violations of lawful foreclosure procedures and usury regulations.

Full Conversation

fraudulent actions invalidate the Fraudulent ConveyanceFraudulent Conveyance *David G. Carlson, Foreclosure Sales as Fraudulent Transfers, * Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. * (*)* The Supreme Court has declared that noncollusive, regularly conducted foreclosure sales are not “constructive” fraudulent transfers voidable by a bankruptcy trustee. Uniform state legislation ratifies this instinct for private creditor enforcements. However, collusive or irregular foreclosure sales, or sales intended to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, are subject to creditor attack.In this case, the appellant argues that the foreclosure sale was conducted in a collusive
and irregular manner, violating MA foreclosure laws, specifically: - G.L. c. *, §§ *-17C: Detailing procedures and requirements for lawful foreclosure sales. - G.L. c. *, § *: Requirements for proper notice to the borrower. - Chapter *, § *: Governing usury laws, prohibiting excessive interest rates. The irregularities and collusive actions during the foreclosure sale,support the claim of fraudulent conveyance. These actions were intended to hinder, delay, or defraud the appellant. The appellant presents a prima facie showing of a fraudulent conveyance and has a right to "attack" under G.L. c. 109A
can you polish this