Appeals court considers Deutsche Bank challenge to summary judgment tied to mortgage assignment timing

Brian Linehan, arguing for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, urged the panel to treat the bank’s motion as one for relief under Rule 60(b) and to correct what he described as factual errors in the housing court’s summary-judgment ruling — chiefly a finding that the originating lender sold the loan after filing bankruptcy. Linehan said the pooling-and-servicing agreement shows the loan was sold before bankruptcy, and that the housing court’s conclusion, if left intact, would extinguish the bank’s mortgage interest.

The justices extensively questioned timeliness and waiver: whether the bank had adequate notice of the defendants’ argument below, whether the bank should have raised the issue on appeal or in earlier post-judgment motions, and whether the bank’s 60(b) vehicle was properly invoked. Bench and defense counsels debated Massachusetts law separating the note and mortgage and whether a recorded mortgage absent the note confers enforceable rights.

Defense counsel responded that the trial court carefully considered the parties’ contentions, that the bank had opportunities to fill record gaps, and that revisiting the merits via a late 60(b) motion would improperly delay finality. The panel submitted argument for decision.