Massachusetts foreclosure law has been shaped significantly over the past decade by a Supreme Judicial Court case called Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage Co. Many professionals—estate planning attorneys, real estate agents, financial advisors, and even homeowners themselves—have come to understand Pinti as a powerful protection for borrowers.
A recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, however, clarifies an important limitation: not everyone can raise a Pinti defense, even if they own or live in the property.
This distinction matters more than ever in today’s environment of historically low mortgage interest rates, divorces without refinancing, inherited homes, and estate planning transfers.
A Quick Refresher: What Is the Pinti Case?
In Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage Co., 472 Mass. 226 (2015), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a lender must strictly comply with Paragraph 22 of the standard Massachusetts mortgage before foreclosing.
Paragraph 22 requires that a notice of default clearly inform the borrower of:
- The right to cure the default
- The right to reinstate the mortgage after acceleration
- The right to bring a court action to challenge the foreclosure
The SJC went further and held that if this notice is defective, the foreclosure is void, not merely voidable. That means title does not properly pass to the purchaser at foreclosure.
This was a major decision, and it gave borrowers a powerful tool to challenge foreclosures where lenders failed to strictly follow the rules.
The New Case: MTGLQ Investors, LP v. McIntosh
In late 2025, the Massachusetts Appeals Court decided MTGLQ Investors, LP v. McIntosh, a case that limits who can raise a Pinti defense.
The Basic Facts
- A husband purchased a home and later took out a mortgage in his own name.
- During a divorce, he transferred ownership of the property to his ex-wife.
- Critically, he remained the only borrower on the mortgage.
- Years later, the lender sent a Paragraph 22 notice of default to the husband.
- The property was foreclosed.
- The ex-wife, who still lived in the home, raised a Pinti defense, arguing that the notice was defective.
Her argument was straightforward: if a defective Paragraph 22 notice renders a foreclosure void, then the foreclosure should be invalid regardless of who raises the issue.
The Appeals Court disagreed.
The Holding: Standing Matters
The Appeals Court held that the ex-wife lacked standing to raise a Pinti defense. The Court reasoned that because Pinti rights belong to the mortgagor (the person who signed the mortgage) and to intended beneficiaries of the mortgage contract. The ex-wife was:
- Not a party to the mortgage
- Not an intended beneficiary
- Not personally obligated on the note
Even though she owned the property and lived there, she did not have contractual rights under the mortgage itself.
The court emphasized a fundamental legal principle:
Only parties to a contract (or intended beneficiaries) can enforce rights under that contract.
Ownership Is Not the Same as Mortgage Rights
This case highlights a point that often surprises clients:
Owning a property is not the same as having rights under the mortgage.
A person may:
- Own the home
- Live in the home
- Pay the bills
- Maintain the property
And still lack standing to:
- Communicate with the lender
- Receive default notices
- Challenge foreclosure defects
- Raise Pinti defenses
Those rights belong to the borrower on the mortgage unless and until someone legally “steps into their shoes.”
Why This Matters in Estate Planning
I’m often asked: “What happens to my mortgage if I die?”
Death is not an event of default under a standard mortgage. However, practical problems arise quickly after death:
- The lender may not speak with family members
- Notices may continue to go only to the deceased borrower
- Occupants may not realize a default exists
- Critical deadlines may pass
Unless a personal representative opens probate and formally has authority to act, family members may have no enforceable rights under the mortgage.
This new case reinforces that reality. Even where a foreclosure notice is defective, only someone with legal rights under the mortgage can raise the issue.
Divorce and Low-Interest Mortgages: A Growing Risk
This issue is especially important in divorce cases.
With many mortgages carrying interest rates below 3%, refinancing may be financially impossible. As a result:
- One spouse keeps the home
- The other remains on the mortgage
- Ownership and mortgage liability are split
That arrangement may seem workable—until there’s a default.
As this case shows, the spouse who owns and occupies the property may lack standing to challenge foreclosure defects if they are not on the loan.
Not Every Occupant Can Unwind a Foreclosure
The Appeals Court also addressed a broader concern.
If anyone in possession of a property could raise Pinti defenses, foreclosure sales could be unwound years later by:
- Holdover occupants
- Former spouses
- Tenants at sufferance
The court rejected that outcome, emphasizing fairness to bona fide purchasers, lenders, and investors who rely on completed foreclosure sales.
The result is a clearer rule:
A defective Paragraph 22 notice may void a foreclosure—but only if raised by someone with rights under the mortgage.
Key Takeaways for Professionals
If you advise clients in Massachusetts, here are the practical lessons:
- Always Ask: Who Is on the Mortgage?
Do not assume ownership equals mortgage rights.
- Estate Planning Must Address Mortgage Authority
Probate authority, powers of attorney, and clear planning matter.
- Divorce Agreements Should Be Viewed Through a Foreclosure Lens
Low-interest mortgages create long-term risk if names are not aligned.
- Buyers and Lenders Gain Greater Certainty
This decision limits late-stage challenges by non-borrowers.
The Bottom Line
Pinti remains powerful law in Massachusetts—but it is not unlimited.
A foreclosure can be void due to a defective notice, but only someone with legal rights under the mortgage can raise that issue. Ownership, occupancy, and good intentions are not enough.
When advising clients, always distinguish between:
- Who owns the property, and
- Who has contractual rights under the mortgage
That distinction can determine whether a home is protected—or vulnerable.
Disclaimer:
This article is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. The law depends on specific facts, and only by consulting with an attorney can the law be applied to a particular situation.