Section 17A. Actions on mortgage notes, whether witnessed or not, or on other obligations to pay a debt secured by mortgage of real estate, to recover judgments for deficiencies after foreclosure by sale under a power contained in the mortgage, and actions on such notes or other obligations which are subject to a prior mortgage, to recover the amount due thereon after the foreclosure by sale of such prior mortgage under power contained therein, shall, except as hereinafter provided, be commenced within two years after the date of the foreclosure sale or, if the principal of the note or other obligation does not become payable until after the foreclosure sale, then within two years after the time when the cause of action for the principal accrues.
Such actions in cases where the foreclosure sale shall have occurred or the cause of action shall have accrued prior to January first, nineteen hundred and forty-six shall be commenced within two years after said date. Nothing in this section shall extend any other period of limitation.
Notes of Decisions
Guempel v. Great Am. Ins., 420 N.E.2d 353 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981).
· cites it 2× “244, §§ 17A & 17B, inserted by St. 1945, c. 604, § 1. See § 17C, inserted by St.”
United States v. Jimenez, 946 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2019).
“It is hard to imagine that the conspirators would have gone through with the scheme if they had 4The Massachusetts statute of limitations for deficiency judgments is two years, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, § 17A, and the frauds took place between 2008 and 2010.”
Pagliarini v. Iannaco, 440 Mass. 1032 (Mass. 2003).
“G. L. c. 244, § 17A. The plaintiffs complain that the motion for directed verdict was not specifically based on the theory, now pressed on appeal, that they failed to show that they were induced to delay filing the lawsuit until after the limitations period had run.”
Cadle Co. v. Webb, 846 N.E.2d 1179 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006).
“Another issue presented below involved the determination that litigation against Webb on the notes was barred by the two-year period of limitations set forth in G. L. c. 244, § 17A, which governs a suit for any deficiency following foreclosure on a mortgage securing a promissory…”
Paiva v. Bank of New York Mellon, 120 F. Supp. 3d 7 (D. Mass. 2015).
“See also G.L. c. 244, § 17A (establishing a two-year limitations period for certain actions relating to *12 foreclosure sales).”
Newburyport Five Cents Sav. Bank v. MacDonald, 718 N.E.2d 404 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999).
“Under G. L. c. 244, § 17A, an action for a deficiency after the foreclosure must be commenced within two years from the date of the foreclosure sale.”
Hurley v. Merowitz, 774 N.E.2d 1168 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002).
“Along similar lines, the two-year statute of limitation set by G. L. c. 244, § 17A, applies to actions on a mortgage note or deficiency actions and does not bar the plaintiff’s action.”
BayBank v. George, 3 Mass. L. Rptr. 473 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1995).
“It is not contested that BayBank filed this deficiency action within the two years required by G.L.c. 244 §17A. 2 However, the defendants claim that they did not receive notice of BayBank’s intent to foreclose as required by G.”
Old Repub. Ins. v. Prostran, 2014 Mass. App. Div. 200 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2014).
· cites it 7× “The sole basis for the Prostrans’ unsuccessful motion was their contention that Old Republic’s claims against them were governed by the two-year statute of limitations applicable under G.L.c. 244, §17A to certain actions related to mortgage foreclosures, rather than the six-year…”
Ware Sav. Bank v. Gremo, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 1016 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981).
· cites it 2× “The defendants asserted in their answer that, because the action was not commenced within two years from the date of the foreclosure sales, it was barred by G. L. c. 244, § 17A. In reliance upon the pleadings and the affidavit in support of the plaintiff’s motion under rule 4.”
United Guar. Residential Ins. v. O'Neil, 2 Mass. L. Rptr. 295 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 3× “The defendants move for summary judgment asserting that the plaintiff s failure to comply with G.L.c. 244, §§17A, 17B preclude this action.”
Nab Asset Venture III, L.P. v. Rafter, 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 102 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 3× “3 Rafter argues that the two-year statute of limitations which G.L.c. 244, §17A (1994 ed.) (§17A) 4 imposes on an action to recover a deficiency after a mortgage foreclo *103 sure is applicable to this case because the six-year limitations period in §1821(d)(14) is (1) only for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.