Law Office of Todd S. Dion

04/03/2026

Attorney Dion Convinces Massachusetts Superior Court To Deny Mortgage Servicer’s Motion For Summary Judgment Where Pre-Foreclosure Default Notice Failed To Adequately Specify The Amount Required To Cure Default.

Often times mortgage servicers commit errors in their required pre-foreclosure default notices by failing to “specify” the “amount required to cure the default” in strict compliance with the terms of the mortgage. This may be grounds to reverse a foreclosure under the standard of strict compliance for such default notices according to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In the case of Rozmarin v. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Attorney Dion argued that a pre-foreclosure default notice failed to strictly comply with the requirement that the notice “specify” the “action required to cure the default” where the breakdown of the past-due amount specified differed from the amount demanded by approximately 23k. In denying Shellpoint motion for summary judgment the Worcester Superior Court agreed. As a post-foreclosure case, the outcome of the Rozmarin decision based on Attorney Dion’s theory may pave the way for new foreclosure challenges for both pre and post foreclosure situations. If you are currently behind on your mortgage or have already been foreclosed on you may be entitled to relief ranging from money damages to a rescission of your foreclosure based on this surprisingly common error.

12/27/2025

This week’s edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly featured Attorney Dion’s take on a recent decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court that limited foreclosure challenges in Housing Court eviction cases to actual parties to a mortgage. As an attorney who is frequently on the front lines of the legal battles concerning foreclosure law in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Attorney Dion’s known experience and expertise is often looked to for insight into how developments in foreclosure law may effect homeowners, mortgage companies, the Courts and the housing markets within these jurisdictions.

05/21/2025

Attorney Dion Reverses Another Foreclosure In Boston Housing Court Based On Lack Of “Actual Delivery” Of Default Notice.
In the often complex jurisprudence of foreclosure law even the smallest of details and nuances matter. Such was the case of Bank of New York v. Hicks, where Attorney Dion highlighted the differences between the Massachusetts Right To Cure Default Statute and the Default Notice requirements of a standard form Freddie Mac/ Fannie Mae residential mortgage, an instrument widely used across Massachusetts and Rhode Island. While the Massachusetts Right to Cure Default Statute requires that the Notice only be “sent” via first-class and certified mail, the standard form residential mortgage requires that the Notice be “actually delivered” if the notice is sent by a method other than first-class mail. In the Hicks case Attorney Dion convinced the Boston Housing Court that despite his client’s failure to pick up the Notice from the post office via certified mail, the Notice was not “actually delivered” to the Property address, thereby rendering the foreclosure void under the standard of strict compliance that default notices must adhere to pursuant to the terms of the mortgage. The well reasoned decision by the Boston Housing Court is attached.

02/25/2024

Attorney Dion Successfully Alleges In Federal Court That Mortgage Company Failed To Establish A Proper Chain Of Title Concerning “Rogue” Assignment Of Mortgage.

In several instances, mortgage companies attempt to foreclose on homeowners without properly establishing a consistent and marketable chain of title of the mortgage that clearly establishes their power to foreclose. In the case of Benson v Deutsche Bank, the foreclosing entity’s motion to dismiss was denied by the Massachusetts Federal Court on February 16th, 2024 because Attorney Dion made the Court aware of an unexplained, “rogue” assignment of the mortgage that contradicted the foreclosing entity’s chain of title and suggested that the mortgage was transferred to a different entity. If you are facing foreclosure it is important that you make sure that the company attempting to take your property has the legal right to do so.

02/10/2024

Attorney Dion Obtains Judgment In Massachusetts Housing Court Declaring Foreclosure By Carrington Mortgage “Void Ab Initio” With Proper Baseball Stadium Metaphor.

On February 6, 2024 Attorney Dion successfully reversed a foreclosure in Massachusetts Housing Court against Carrington Mortgage Services and Bank of New York. In a decision that articulated a clear understanding of the standard of strict compliance that pre-foreclosure notices must adhere to, the Court cited to Attorney Dion’s case of Thompson v. JP Morgan Chase in concluding that in order to avoid potential deception, mortgage servicers must structure their pre-foreclosure notices “with clarity and precision” and should not “bury the lead and seat critical language in the upper section of the bleachers” when it comes to proper notification of a homeowner’s important rights. The relevant portions of the decision entitled Bank of New York v. Gerinian can be found in the attached photos.

02/20/2023

Attorney Dion wins another Appeal before the RI Supreme Court in a decision that ensures that property owners who do not reside at a property be notified of a foreclosure. The decision clarifies and strengthens the consumer protection concerns that the RI foreclosure laws were designed to defend.

Opinion of the Day ⚖️ Where a defendant bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was allowed, the judgment must be vacated because an issue exists regarding whether the bank complied with ... CONTINUE: http://bit.ly/3KgEzZo

01/23/2023

Making a difference, one homeowner at a time.

01/03/2023

In another solid victory for homeowner rights, Attorney Dion convinced the First Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States to reverse the RI Federal District Court and hold that a 2018 foreclosure was invalid and void. The opinion held that additional language in the bank’s pre-foreclosure default notice was presented in a deceptive manner that could lead homeowners to misunderstand their unequivocal right to challenge a foreclosure.

Opinion of the Day ⚖️ Where two plaintiff borrowers filed a complaint alleging that there was no strict compliance with the notice requirements in their mortgage contract prior to a foreclosure, a judgment dismissing their complaint should be ... CONTINUE: https://bit.ly/3Zk9Z6n

10/06/2022

This mornings edition of GoLocalProv headlined Attorney Dion’s multiple class action lawsuits against unlicensed mortgage servicers that foreclosed on hundreds of homeowners in Rhode Island from 2015 through 2017. The lawsuits allege that the foreclosures breached the “applicable law” provisions of the mortgage contracts.

A lawsuit filed in federal court alleges that a third-party mortgage servicer acted illegally when it foreclosed on multiple properties in Rhode Island.

11/05/2021

Attorney Dion Petitions the US Supreme Court in Class Action Against Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
In the case of Montilla v. Fannie Mae Attorney Dion petitioned the United States Supreme Court alleging that Fannie Mae was controlled by the US government when it foreclosed on thousands of homeowners without judicial due process. The case presents several unique issues and conflicts of case law throughout the country concerning the nature of Fannie Mae’s relationship with the US government and its alleged failure to afford homeowners due process while funneling billions of dollars into the US Treasury under the guise of a so-called “conservatorship” since 2008.

09/30/2021

Faith + Hard Work = Results.
Another foreclosure reversed.