Skip to main content
· 2/16/2023

Raymond Paul Montaquila v. Flagstar Bank, FSB.

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, Raymond and Paula Montaquila, appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court following the grant of defendant Flagstar Bank, FSB's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On appeal, the Montaquilas challenged the trial justice's decision to grant Flagstar's motion, arguing that the trial justice erred in finding that Flagstar complied with G.L. 1956 §§ 34-11-22 and 34-27-4(b) in mailing Paula a notice of foreclosure to the subject property. The Montaquilas also contended that the trial justice erred in finding that Flagstar complied with 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 by sending only Raymond a face-to-face-meeting letter and by leaving a door hanger at the subject property that allegedly failed to mention, among other things, the door hanger's purpose.<br><br>The Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice erred in granting Flagstar's motion for judgment on the pleadings by not taking as true the Montaquilas' allegation that Paula's last known address listed with the tax assessor's office for the City of Providence was 25 Enfield Avenue, Providence, Rhode Island 02908, in determining whether Flagstar complied with §§ 34-11-22 and 34-27-4(b). However, the Supreme Court also concluded that the trial justice did not err in finding that Flagstar complied with 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 by sending only Raymond a face-to-face-meeting letter because the Montaquilas specifically alleged that Paula's last known address was 25 Enfield Avenue, and, thus, Flagstar was under no obligation to send Paula a face-to-face-meeting letter pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(c)(1). Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial justice did not err in finding that Flagstar complied with 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(d) because Raymond resided at the subject property, Raymond received a certified face-to-face-meeting letter, and a door hanger was left at the subject property by a third-party vendor. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the Superior Cou

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.