APPELLANT BRIEF

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT

DOCKET NO. 2021-P-0931

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
GRACE RUNGU,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

A REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT FROM THE
NORTHEAST HOUSING COURT

APPELLANT BRIEF

GRACE RUNGU
46 KEENE STREET

LOWELL MA 01852

FEBRUARY 20 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
A. ?
B. ?
C. ?
STATEMENT OF CASE
STATEMENT OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
CONCLUSION
ADDENDUM
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (Rule 16)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

4

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

  1. Whether Plaintiff-Appellee was the title-holder of
    the mortgage;
  2. Whether the title-holder of a mortgage is required
    to produce the original note to prove ownership of
    title; and
  3. Whether Ms. Mary L. Cataudella’s legal
    representation of both parties constitutes conflict
    of interest.
    4.

5

STATEMENT OF CASE

NOW COMES, Grace Rungu, Appellant in the above-titled
matter, and files this Appellate Brief of the final
judgment and order dated [DATE], and for cause shown in
this Appellate Brief, requests this Honorable Court to
reverse the final judgment and order dated [DATE].
Plaintiff-Appellee filed a Complaint against Defendant-
Appellant for declaratory relief and quiet title.
On [DATE], the Northeast Housing Court issued a final
judgment and order. Exhibit 1.
This Appeal has been filed to reverse the final judgment
and order above.

6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The subject property was purchased at a foreclosure
auction by Reynold J. D’Arezzo and Grace Rungu.
Unfortunately, Reynold J. D’Arezzo died without a will
and Grace Rungu’s name was not on the mortgage. The
property was auctioned off and was purchased by
Defendant-Appellant.
She paid money for the house but Plaintiff-Appellee
still gave her a subprime mortgage.
Plaintiff-Appellee later claimed that it had foreclosed
the property when it had not. When the auctioneer came
on the day of the purported foreclosure, he was blocked
from entering the property by more than 22
demonstrators. Therefore, the claim by Plaintiff-
Appellee that it completed foreclosure of the property
is false.
There have been a lot of irregularities regarding the
alleged mortgage by Plaintiff-Appellee. For instance, it
is required to produce the original note of the mortgage
upon request. However, as at the filing of this
Appellate Brief, Plaintiff-Appellee had not produced the
original note of the alleged mortgage despite multiple
requests.

7
There was a conflict of interest that was not disclosed
by the involved attorney during trial. Ms. Mary L.
Cataudella, Esq., State Bar No. 553350, of the firm of
Smolak & Vaughan, LLP, acted as legal counsel for
Plaintiff-Appellee. She failed to disclose that she had
also acted as legal counsel on behalf of Defendant-
Appellant in the past.

8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Defendant-Appellant contends that Plaintiff-Appellee
does not own the mortgage loan on the subject property
as it cannot produce the original note. Therefore,
Plaintiff-Appellee cannot recover damages and costs.
Defendant-Appellant also contends that there was
conflict of interest when Ms. Mary L. Cataudella
represented Plaintiff-Appellee during the course of the
trial, knowing very well that she had represented
Defendant-Appellant earlier.

9

ARGUMENT

“In order to foreclose under Massachusetts law,
mortgagee must possess the legal title to the mortgage
and either hold the note or establish that it is
servicing the loan on behalf of the note holder.” Eaton
v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 969 NE 2d 1118
(2012), citing Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servs. Of Neb.,
826 F. Supp. 2d 352, 367 (D. Mass. 2011).
Plaintiff-Appellee failed to produce a valid original
note that transferred title of the mortgage to it. It
failed to establish that it held the note or that it was
servicing the loan on behalf of the note holder.
Defendant-Appellant reiterates that the mortgage does
not exist because she bought the property at an auction.
The trial court erred by stating that Plaintiff-Appellee
held the mortgage when it had not produced the original
note or provided proof that it was servicing the loan.
Rule 1.8(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct states
as follows: “A lawyer who represents two or more clients
shall not participate in making an aggregate settlement
of the claims of or against the clients, or in a
criminal case an aggregated agreement as to guilty or
nolo contendere pleas, unless each client gives informed
consent, in a writing signed by the client. The lawyer’s

10
disclosure shall include the existence and nature of all
the claims or pleas involved and the participation of
each person in the settlement.”
There was conflict of interest in Ms. Mary L.
Cataudella’s representation of Plaintiff-Appellee after
representing Defendant-Appellant prior.
Defendant-Appellant contends that the above-named
attorney used information she had about her to help the
case of Plaintiff-Appellee. Her actions were contrary to
Rule 1.8(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

11

CONCLUSION

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant-
Appellant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
grant her the following reliefs:
a. GRANT this Appeal;
b. ISSUE an Order setting aside the order granting
Plaintiff-Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and all reliefs in that order;
c. ISSUE a declaration that Defendant-Appellant is the
rightful owner of the subject property;
d. GRANT Defendant-Appellant costs of this Appeal;
e. AWARD Defendant-Appellant such equitable relief as
this Court deems fair; and
f. AWARD Defendant-Appellant such further relief as
this Court deems necessary and proper.

Respectfully submitted,


Grace Rungu, Appellant
46 Keene Street Lowell

MA 01852

12
DATE: February 20th, 2022


ADDENDUM


13

ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS

Laws
Massachusetts Constitution Article XI
Chapter 89 of the Acts of 1825
Chapter 104 of the Acts of 1836
Chapter 237 of the Acts of 1879
Chapter 239 of the Acts of 1882
Chapter 181 of the acts of 1902
MGL Chapter
MGL Chapter
MGL Chapter
MGL Chapter
MGL Chapter
MGL Chapter 261, §§ 27A-27G

Rules
Mass Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 6
Mass Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 16
Administrative Regulation No. 1-17; Best Practices in
the Housing Court Department

14

RULE 16(k) STATEMENT

I hereby certify that the foregoing Appellate Brief
complies, to the best of my knowledge and belief, with
the rules of Court pertaining to the filing of appellate
briefs, including those specified in Mass. R. App. P
16(k).


Grace Rungu, Appellant
46 Keene Street Lowell

Massachusetts
01852

DATE: FEBRUARY 20 th 2022

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of
the above and foregoing has been furnished on February
20 2022
US Mail upon the following:
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esquire
℅ Rich May, P.C.
176 Federal Street 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Kevin Polansky, Esquire
Christine Kingston, Esquire
Lyndsey Stults, Esquire
℅ Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

15
One Financial Center 35th Floor
Boston, MA 02111


Grace Rungu

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )