Massachusetts Mortgage Holders Beware — Foreclosure Winning Bids May Now Need to Consider Development Potential of a Property
2 min read
May 28, 2019
Under Massachusetts law, a foreclosing lender has a duty of good faith and reasonable diligence to obtain the highest possible price for a property at auction. Until recently, it was considered appropriate for the lender to make a credit bid up to the amount owed on the mortgage in order to satisfy this duty. However, a recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court has expanded the duty of good faith and reasonable diligence beyond a review of the property's assessed or appraised fair market value. A property's development potential may also need to be reviewed in order to calculate an acceptable winning bid.
In Property Acquisition Group, LLC v. Ivester, the property was auctioned for $355,000 to a third-party after the foreclosing lender credit bid up to the debt owed on the mortgage ($329,000). The borrower Ivester claimed a breach of the duty of good faith and reasonable diligence based on evidence that the lender did not obtain an appraisal, evaluation or expert opinion on the value of the nearly 5 acre property prior to foreclosure in order to justify its minimum bid or the eventual sale price. By contrast, Ivester had produced a property appraisal at $975,000 assuming variances from the town and additional site work to subdivide the property. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the lender, but the Appeals Court reversed.
The Appeals Court found that the foreclosing lender breached its duty of good faith and reasonable diligence at auction for failure to make any determination of the fair market value of the property. Specifically, the Court raised issue with the lender's failure to consider the development potential of the property. According to the Court, where Massachusetts allows non-judicial foreclosures, "it is imperative that the foreclosing mortgagee know or ensure that efforts are taken to ascertain the value of the property prior to the sale in order to protect the interests of the mortgagor." Citing law from 1897, the Appeals Court reiterated that a lender violates its duty with respect to an auction when it sells the property at an inadequate price without having made any efforts to determine if the sale price is reasonable, what the fair market value is, and whether the foreclosing entity could have obtained more value. Breach of this duty may result in damages awarded to the borrower comprising the difference between the value of the property and the actual auction sale price and renders the sale voidable.
Based on the Appeals Court's decision, foreclosing lenders may now need to review the development potential of a property in addition to its fair market value or appraised value in order to calculate an acceptable winning bid.
Topics
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Webinar
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

In The News
Apr 24, 2026
Michael Dowell Reviews New PBM Reform Reshaping Pharmacy Reimbursement

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case

Press Release
Apr 20, 2026
Tom Kuzmanovic Selected for BizTimes Milwaukee 2026 Notable Leaders in Law

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Bloomberg Law Recaps Panels Presented at Hinshaw's 25th Anniversary LMRM Conference

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses the Uncertain Impact of Growing Medicare Advantage Scrutiny

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Apr 9, 2026
6 Key Takeaways From the IAPP 2026 Global Summit for Privacy Compliance Professionals



