SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(US)(ca1) 5

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Emigrant Residential LLC – Appellant
Versus
Pinti – Respondent



No. 24-1404

EMIGRANT RESIDENTIAL, LLC,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

LINDA S. PINTI,

Defendant, Appellant,

LESLEY R. PHILLIPS; ANY AND ALL OCCUPANTS,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Denise J. Casper, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Montecalvo, Lynch, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

Eric E. Renner, with whom Duffy & Sweeney, Ltd., was on brief, for appellant. Brian C. Linehan, with whom Reneau J. Longoria and Doonan, Graves & Longoria, LLC were on brief, for appellee.

April 11, 2025 LYNCH, Circuit Judge. After long-running battles in the Massachusetts state and federal courts arising from a 2009 default on mortgage payments, this appeal arrives in a case we will call Pinti III. This time we affirm the entry of judgment for Emigrant Residential, LLC ("Emigrant"), which struck a recorded discharge of a mortgage mistakenly given by Emigrant Mortgage Company (EMC), a related entity. We also affirm entry of judgment against the counterclaims brought by appellant Linda Pinti.

I.

We recount the facts of this appeal in the light most favorable to Pinti and draw all reasonable inferences in Pinti's favor. See Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Bureau for Representing Ukrainian Ints. in Int'l & Foreign Cts., 87 F.4th 62, 65-66 (1st Cir. 2023). We review a grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, affirming the grant if the record "presents no genuine issue as to any material fact and reflects the movant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law." Mullane v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 113 F.4th 123, 130 (1st Cir. 2024) (quoting McKenney v. Mangino, 873 F.3d 75, 80 (1st Cir. 2017)). In doing so, we "must ignore conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation." Viscito v. Nat'l Plan. Corp., 34 F.4th 78, 83 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting Garcia-Garcia v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 878 F.3d 411, 417 (1st Cir. 2017)).

- 2 - In 1982, Lesley Phillips purchased an apartment located at 1643 Cambridge Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, assuming a preexisting mortgage with a balance of roughly $40,000. Pinti, Phillips's spouse, lived with Phillips at the property from 1987 onwards and was added to the deed in 2005. As part of refinancing a 2005 home equity loan, on March 13, 2008, Pinti and Phillips executed and delivered a promissory note to EMC for $160,000 (the "Note"). Pinti and Phillips mortgaged the property to EMC to secure the note and the mortgage was recorded (the "Mortgage"). On August 1, 2009, Pinti and Phillips defaulted on the Note by failing to make payments. On September 29, 2009, EMC sent Pinti and Phillips a 90-day notice of right to cure.

Various transactions are relevant between Emigrant affiliates and Federal Home Loan Bank of New York ("FHLBNY"). In December 1999, Emigrant's parent company, Emigrant Savings Bank ("Emigrant Bank"), entered into an Advances, Collateral Pledge and Security Agreement (the "Advances Agreement") with FHLBNY. The Advances Agreement provided, inter alia, that as security for loans that FHLBNY may advance to Emigrant Bank, Emigrant Bank "hereby assigns, transfers, and pledges to [FHLBNY], and grants to [FHLBNY] a security interest in all of the Capital Stock, Mortgage Collateral, Securities Collateral and Other Collateral." The Advances Agreement defined Mortgage Collateral as including "first

- 3 - mortgages and deeds of trust . . . and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top