USA Foreclosure Wiki

Massachusetts

55 min read

Massachusetts — Tax & Mortgage Foreclosure

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited primary sources before acting. Last verified: 2026-06-01.

Massachusetts is structurally unusual: it does not run a true public tax-lien auction in most municipalities. Instead the municipality makes a “tax taking” (or, less commonly, a sale) under G.L. c. 60, which creates a tax title held by the city/town; the right of redemption is then foreclosed by a judicial petition in the Land Court (G.L. c. 60 §§ 65–75). A municipality may also assign its tax receivables to a private buyer (e.g., “Tallage”), who then forecloses in the Land Court in its own name. Until St. 2024, c. 140 (effective largely Nov. 1, 2024), the foreclosing holder kept the entire property regardless of surplus equity — the exact “home-equity theft” condemned in tyler-v-hennepin-county. Massachusetts has now reformed that scheme (excess-equity return + interest rate cut from 16% to 8%).

0. Identity & Classification

  • Recording unit: county (Registries of Deeds; some counties have multiple registry districts). The selling/foreclosing layer is municipal (each city or town’s treasurer/collector). Massachusetts has 14 counties / 21 registry districts and 351 cities and towns.
  • Tax sale type: redeemable tax title via municipal “taking” (a hybrid; the municipality takes title subject to a right of redemption, then forecloses judicially). True public tax-lien-certificate auctions are not the norm. — G.L. c. 60 §§ 53, 54, 61.
  • Tax foreclosure process: judicial — exclusive jurisdiction in the Land Court, G.L. c. 60 §§ 64, 65.
  • Mortgage foreclosure process: both, but predominantly non-judicial power of sale under G.L. c. 244 § 14.
  • Selling/foreclosing authority: municipal treasurer/collector (or a private assignee of the tax title); the foreclosure court is the Land Court.
  • Statutory home: Tax — Title IX, Chapter 60 (Collection of Local Taxes). Mortgage — Chapter 244 (Foreclosure and Redemption of Mortgages).
  • Tyler v. Hennepin compliance: reformed_post_Tyler — St. 2024, c. 140 added G.L. c. 60 § 64A requiring the former owner to receive excess equity after a foreclosure, and created a retroactive superior-court claim for judgments entered on/after May 25, 2021. (Mass. House press release; Nat’l Law Review summary)

1. Tax Sale Mechanics

  • What is sold / created: the collector “takes” the parcel for unpaid taxes and records an instrument of taking at the registry (G.L. c. 60 § 53), creating a tax title in the municipality. (A collector’s sale under §§ 43–45 is an alternative but is rarely used today.) The municipality may later assign the tax title/receivable to a private buyer under G.L. c. 60 § 2C/52.
  • Bidding method: not a competitive lien auction in the typical case; the taking is administrative. Where a municipality assigns receivables in bulk, pricing is by negotiated/bulk sale, not a redemption-period bid-down. — see Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams, 485 Mass. 449 (2020) (assignment of tax title).
  • Interest / penalty: 8% per annum on the tax-title account, running from the date of the taking/sale, per G.L. c. 60 § 62 (rate reduced from 16% to 8% by St. 2024, c. 140). Pre-taking delinquent taxes accrue interest at 14% under G.L. c. 59 § 57 until the taking. (§ 62)
  • Minimum bid composition (redemption/payoff): unpaid tax + interest + lawful charges added to the tax-title account (subsequent-year taxes are certified to the account under G.L. c. 60 § 61).
  • Sale frequency / typical month: takings occur on the municipality’s own schedule after the demand and 14-day notice of taking are satisfied; no fixed statewide auction calendar.
  • Venue / platforms: administrative taking recorded at the registry; bulk assignments are private transactions. No standard statewide online auction platform. — needs_verification for current municipal vendors.
  • Subsequent taxes (“subs”): the municipality (or assignee) certifies later unpaid taxes to the existing tax-title account under G.L. c. 60 § 61. Per Tallage Lincoln, an assignee may not add its own post-assignment tax payments to the redemption amount in the manner the statute reserves to the municipality. (485 Mass. 449)

2. Right of Redemption → see right-of-redemption

  • Pre-foreclosure right (broad): any person with an interest in the land (or heirs/assigns) may redeem at any time before a petition to foreclose is filed by paying the tax-title account + 8% interest + lawful charges — G.L. c. 60 § 62. (§ 62)
  • Post-petition redemption: even after the foreclosure petition is filed, the owner may redeem on terms set by the Land Court until judgment of foreclosure enters — G.L. c. 60 § 76 (Land Court jurisdiction; petition for redemption). (cited in Land Court FAQ)
  • Who may redeem: the owner, mortgagee, lienholder, heir, or assign — any “person having an interest in” the land. — G.L. c. 60 § 62.
  • Amount formula: tax-title account balance (taxes + certified subs) + 8% interest from date of taking + lawful charges (and, if redeeming from a private purchaser/assignee, that party’s costs and recording/examination fees as capped by statute). — G.L. c. 60 § 62.
  • Premium to certificate holder: N/A — Massachusetts does not pay a bid-down premium to a certificate holder; the holder’s return is the 8% statutory interest on the account.
  • Procedure / extinguishment: redemption is made to the treasurer, who issues a certificate of redemption; recording it at the registry ends the municipality’s interest. The right of redemption is extinguished only by the Land Court’s judgment of foreclosure — G.L. c. 60 §§ 64, 69; thereafter title is absolute (subject to the post-judgment vacatur window). (§ 64 via Justia)
  • Special tolling: post-judgment, a petition/motion to vacate the foreclosure may be filed within one year for “extraordinary circumstances” (Land Court FAQ); the one-year bar may be excused where due-process notice was defective — Town of Andover v. State Financial Services, Inc., 48 Mass. App. Ct. 536 (2000). Standard SCRA / minority / incapacity tolling — needs_verification for the precise c. 60 cross-reference.

3. Surplus / Excess Proceeds → see surplus-funds, third-party-recovery-rules

  • Belongs to: the former owner (post-reform). Before St. 2024, c. 140, the foreclosing municipality/assignee kept the entire property/equity — the practice struck down in tyler-v-hennepin-county and, as applied, in Mills v. City of Springfield (Hampden Sup. Ct. 2024). (Boston Globe coverage)
  • Mechanism (G.L. c. 60 § 64A, eff. ~Nov. 1, 2024): after a final Land Court judgment of foreclosure, the municipality must elect either to (a) retain the property for municipal use, or (b) list it for sale; in either case the excess equity must be accounted for and returned to the former owner on written request. “Excess equity” = surplus above the tax-title account balance as of the judgment date plus the reasonable costs of selling/appraising the property under § 64A. (D’Ambrosio LLP summary quoting § 64A; Nat’l Law Review)
  • Claim waterfall: tax-title account (taxes + interest + charges) → reasonable sale/appraisal/holding costs → former owner (subject to other recorded liens per the title report). — G.L. c. 60 § 64A.
  • Filing venue: written request to the municipality (or to the purchaser of tax receivables) under § 64A; disputes are resolved in court. Retroactive claims (judgments entered on/after May 25, 2021 but before the Act) are filed by complaint in the Superior Court. (Nat’l Law Review)
  • Claim deadline: retroactive Superior Court claims must be filed within 12 months of the Act’s effective date (commentators note ambiguity whether that is July 1, 2025 or Nov. 1, 2025). The prospective § 64A claim deadline (post-judgment window) — needs_verification for exact statutory text. (Nat’l Law Review)
  • Escheat: disposition of unclaimed excess equity (whether it routes to the state Treasurer’s unclaimed-property under G.L. c. 200A) — needs_verification; the § 64A text retrieved does not pin the escheat destination.
  • Documentation required: written request identifying the former owner and property; proof of identity/interest; title evidence of any senior liens — per § 64A process. — needs_verification for the standardized form.
  • Third-party recovery (recovery agents):
    • No tax-surplus-specific recovery-agent statute governs c. 60 § 64A excess- equity claims as of this verification. The closest analog is the unclaimed- property “finder” rule, G.L. c. 200A § 13, which (for property reported to the state Treasurer) makes finder agreements unenforceable if signed within 24 months of the property’s delivery to the Division; agreements after 24 months are valid only if in writing, signed by the owner, disclosing the nature and value of the property and the holder’s name/address, with the fee capped at 10%, and an owner may always challenge “excessive or unjust” compensation. Implementing reg: 960 CMR 4.06. (c. 200A § 13 / 960 CMR 4.06, summarized)
    • fee_cap_pct: 10% for c. 200A unclaimed-property finders; no statutory cap confirmed for direct c. 60 § 64A excess-equity claims against a municipality. needs_verification whether c. 200A § 13 reaches § 64A funds.
    • licensing_required: no general license; debt-collection-style conduct is constrained by G.L. c. 93 § 49 and Ch. 93A consumer-protection law.
    • assignment_of_claim_allowed: needs_verification.
    • cooling_off_period: the c. 200A 24-month unenforceability window functions as one for unclaimed-property finders. — G.L. c. 200A § 13.
    • prohibited_practices: unfair/deceptive collection conduct under G.L. c. 93 § 49; unfair/deceptive acts under G.L. c. 93A. (c. 93 § 49)
  • Notice to former owner required? Yes — § 64A is triggered by/contemplates notice and a written request from the former owner; the reform’s purpose is to return equity to the former owner.

▸ For Investors / Operators — Massachusetts does not run a typical lien auction; the municipality makes a “tax taking” under G.L. c. 60 and forecloses the right of redemption by judicial petition in the Land Court, and may assign the tax title to a private buyer (the “Tallage model”). Before committing capital, weigh the redemption risk (§2/2b — any interest-holder may redeem at 8% interest until the Land Court judgment, and Tallage Lincoln limits what an assignee may add to the redemption amount), the path to marketable title (§5b — the § 64 judgment is “absolute” but subject to the § 69A one-year vacatur window, and there is no Marketable Title Act), and which liens survive (§7b — the c. 183A § 6 condominium 6-month super-lien, the c. 21E § 13 environmental super-lien on commercial property, and the IRS § 7425 120-day redemption).

▸ For Former Owners — Under the St. 2024, c. 140 reform, when a c. 60 foreclosure leaves excess equity above the tax-title account, the former owner is entitled to it (G.L. c. 60 § 64A); the judgment holder must send a certified-mail accounting and a claim is made by written request to the municipality (or to a purchaser of tax receivables), with an 18-month claim window from the notice. Foreclosure judgments entered on/after May 25, 2021 but before the Act carry a retroactive Superior Court claim, filed by complaint within 12 months of the Act’s effective date.

4. Mortgage Foreclosure

  • Process: both available; non-judicial power of sale under G.L. c. 244 § 14 is the dominant method (most mortgages contain a statutory power of sale). A separate “Servicemembers case” is filed to confirm the borrower is not entitled to SCRA protection before sale. (Mass. mortgage-foreclosure law overview)
  • Pre-acceleration cure / loss mitigation:
    • G.L. c. 244 § 35A — 90-day right to cure a payment default before acceleration (once per 5-year period). (§ 35A)
    • G.L. c. 244 § 35B — for “certain mortgage loans,” creditor must send a loan-modification notice; the modification-review process runs up to 150 days. (§ 35B)
  • Timeline (days): notice of default/right to cure 90 days (§ 35A); § 35B review up to 150 days; notice of sale by publication + mailing per § 14; sale; no confirmation hearing for a power-of-sale foreclosure.
  • Reinstatement right: yes via the § 35A 90-day cure before acceleration.
  • Redemption after sale: none for a non-judicial power-of-sale foreclosure — the borrower’s equity of redemption ends at the sale; redemption rights exist only before sale (equity of redemption). (Mass. mortgage-foreclosure overview)
  • Deficiency judgment: allowed, but the lender must mail a statutory “Notice of Intent to Foreclose and of Deficiency” at least 21 days before the sale and sue within 2 years of the sale — G.L. c. 244 § 17B. (Mass. mortgage-foreclosure overview)
  • Surplus distribution: after the mortgage and foreclosure costs are paid, surplus from a power-of-sale foreclosure is held for junior lienholders then the former owner; the foreclosing mortgagee holds proceeds as trustee. — G.L. c. 244 § 14. needs_verification for the exact distribution-priority subsection.
  • Sale officer: the mortgagee/trustee conducts the power-of-sale auction (not a sheriff).

5. Sale Procedure Playbooks

  • Municipal tax taking & Land Court foreclosure — ordered steps → see treasurer-sale:
    1. Collector issues demand for unpaid tax (G.L. c. 60 § 16).
    2. Collector publishes/posts and gives 14-day notice of taking (G.L. c. 60 § 53).
    3. Collector records the instrument of taking at the registry → municipal tax title (§ 53); subsequent unpaid taxes certified to the account (§ 61).
    4. Optional: municipality assigns the tax title/receivable to a private buyer (§ 2C/52).
    5. After the statutory waiting period (generally 6 months from the taking; immediate where parcel is low-value/abandoned per §§ 65, 81A/81B), holder files a petition to foreclose all rights of redemption in the Land Court (§ 65). (§ 65)
    6. Land Court orders title examination, issues citation/notice to all interested parties (sometimes by publication); answer; hearing; finding.
    7. Owner may redeem on court-set terms until judgment (§ 76).
    8. Judgment of foreclosure → absolute title in the holder (§ 64), now subject to § 64A excess-equity accounting.
  • Sheriff sale: N/A for tax foreclosure (judicial Land Court process, not a sheriff sale). Sheriff/levy sales arise in execution on money judgments, not c. 60 tax foreclosure.
  • Notice requirements: demand + 14-day notice of taking (§ 53); Land Court citation to all parties of record, with publication where required, and actual mailed notice to known parties as a constitutional floor (Andover; mullane-v-central-hanover). (Land Court FAQ)
  • Upset bid / confirmation: none — the Land Court judgment, not a bid auction, transfers title.
  • Payment terms: redemption/payoff to the treasurer; assignment purchase per the municipality’s bulk-sale terms.
  • Deed issued: the instrument of taking (or collector’s deed) plus the Land Court judgment; title is statutorily absolute post-judgment (§ 64), not a warranty deed.

6. Due Process & Notice → see due-process-notice

  • Standard: notice “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties” — mullane-v-central-hanover (339 U.S. 306 (1950)), expressly applied to Massachusetts tax foreclosure in Town of Andover v. State Financial Services, Inc., 48 Mass. App. Ct. 536 (2000).
  • Required attempts: Land Court citation to all parties named in the title examination; actual mailed notice to parties whose identity and address are known; publication for unknown/unlocatable parties.
  • Consequence of defective notice: voidable — the foreclosure judgment may be vacated (the one-year statutory bar is excused where due process was denied), but title is not automatically void. — Andover, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 536.
  • Leading cases: tyler-v-hennepin-county, town-of-andover-v-state-financial-services, tallage-lincoln-v-williams, mills-v-city-of-springfield, mullane-v-central-hanover.

7. Title & Marketability

  • Deed warranty level: none — title passes by instrument of taking + Land Court judgment (statutorily “absolute,” not warranted). — G.L. c. 60 § 64.
  • Marketable immediately? Practically no until the one-year vacatur window has run and any § 64A excess-equity obligation is resolved; many purchasers quiet title or wait out the vacatur period.
  • Quiet title required? Often advisable; the § 64 judgment is intended to be conclusive but is subject to the vacatur/due-process exceptions.
  • SOL to challenge deed: generally 1 year to move to vacate the foreclosure judgment (Land Court FAQ), extendable where due process was denied (Andover). needs_verification for the exact c. 60 § 69A text.
  • Title insurance availability: generally available after the vacatur window / quiet title; underwriters scrutinize notice compliance and § 64A. — needs_verification for current underwriter standards.
  • Common defects: defective/absent mailed notice to known parties; certified- mail returned-unclaimed (cf. jones-v-flowers); assignee over-stating the redemption amount (Tallage); pre-reform foreclosures that retained surplus equity (Tyler/§ 64A exposure).

8. Case Law (real, verified)

CaseYearTopicHolding (plain English)Source
tyler-v-hennepin-county2023surplusKeeping surplus equity beyond the tax debt is an unconstitutional taking (5th Am.); 598 U.S. 631.https://www.mbmllc.com/chapter-60-foreclosure-massachusetts.html
tallage-lincoln-v-williams2020redemption / surplusSJC: a private assignee of a municipal tax title may not add its own subsequent tax payments to the redemption amount under G.L. c. 60 § 52; 485 Mass. 449.https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2020/sjc-12847.html
town-of-andover-v-state-financial-services2000due_process / sale_procedureApp. Ct.: where the owner’s identity and address are known, actual notice is constitutionally required; foreclosure decree vacated despite the one-year bar; 48 Mass. App. Ct. 536, citing Mullane.https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/court-of-appeals/volumes/48/48massappct536.html
mills-v-city-of-springfield2024surplusHampden Superior Court (Callan, J.): G.L. c. 60 is unconstitutional as applied where it lets a municipality keep equity far exceeding the tax debt (~$1,636 debt vs.$145k–$230k property); statute “requires legislative correction.” (trial-level; persuasive, not binding)https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/21/business/massachusetts-court-property-unpaid-taxes-equity-theft/
mullane-v-central-hanover1950due_processNotice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties”; 339 U.S. 306.https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/339/306.html

9. Edge Cases (state-specific notes)

  • bankruptcy-automatic-stay — a Chapter 13 filing can halt a Land Court tax foreclosure and treat the tax-title account through the plan; the redemption right is property of the estate if the petition precedes judgment. — needs_verification for MA-specific Land Court bankruptcy interplay.
  • federal-tax-lien-redemption — an IRS lien junior to the municipal tax title carries a 120-day federal right of redemption (26 U.S.C. § 7425) after the foreclosure. — needs_verification for MA application.
  • heirs-property — co-tenant heirs each hold an “interest” that can redeem under § 62; defective notice to one heir supports vacatur (Andover logic).
  • tyler-v-hennepin-county — Massachusetts reformed via St. 2024, c. 140 (§ 64A excess equity; retroactive Superior Court claims for judgments on/after May 25, 2021).
  • HOA super-priority — N/A in Massachusetts (no Nevada-style HOA super-lien for the foreclosure context). — needs_verification.
  • Manufactured homes / SCRA / life estates — needs_verification for MA-specific c. 60 treatment; SCRA is enforced via the Servicemembers case in the mortgage context (G.L. c. 244 § 14).
  • Assignee abuse — Tallage Lincoln limits what an assignee may charge the redeeming owner, a recurring edge case where municipalities sell receivables.

10. Operations

Local pages

County deep dives: barnstable-ma, bristol-ma, essex-ma, hampden-ma, middlesex-ma, norfolk-ma, plymouth-ma, suffolk-ma, worcester-ma Unclaimed funds agency: unclaimed-property-massachusetts

Who this page is for

▸ For Investors / Operators — Start with §1 (the municipal “taking” and tax-title account at 8% interest, certification of subsequent taxes under § 61, and bulk assignment of receivables), §2/2b (redemption until the Land Court judgment, installment redemption at the court’s § 68 discretion, and the Tallage Lincoln limit on what an assignee may charge), §5b (path to marketable title — the “absolute” § 64 judgment, the § 69A one-year vacatur window, quiet title under c. 240 § 6 in the Land Court, and the absence of a Marketable Title Act), §7b (liens that survive — the c. 183A § 6 condominium 6-month super-lien, the c. 21E § 13 environmental super-lien on non-residential property, and the IRS § 7425 120-day redemption), and §11b (broad entity eligibility for tax-title assignees, c. 268A insider-conflict limits, no deficiency after a tax foreclosure).

▸ For Former Owners — Start with §3 (the § 64A excess-equity return — surplus above the tax-title account and reasonable sale/appraisal costs belongs to you; the judgment holder must send a certified-mail accounting and you submit a written request within the 18-month window, with a retroactive Superior Court route for judgments on/after May 25, 2021), §2 (redemption — paying the tax-title account plus 8% interest until the Land Court judgment, including on court-set terms post-petition), and §5c (grounds, the discretionary Rule 65 bond, and procedure for an emergency motion to halt a sale).

11. Meta

2b. Redemption Advanced

Assignability of Redemption Right

  • Assignable? The statutory redemption right under G.L. c. 60 § 62 is held by “any person having an interest in land” including “heirs and assigns” — the statute’s text expressly contemplates that the right passes to assigns. Mortgagees who redeem may add the amount paid to the mortgage debt (§ 62, mortgagee sub-clause). The statute does not prohibit an owner from assigning the redemption right to a third party; however, there is no express authorization for outright assignment to a stranger-to-title either. Practical rule: assignment of the redemption right to a third party is permitted insofar as the assignee acquires the owner’s “interest in land” (e.g., by deed or court-approved assignment), because § 62 defines the eligible party by their property interest, not personal identity. — G.L. c. 60 § 62. (§ 62)
  • Restrictions: No statutory restriction limits assignment to heirs or mortgagees only; the category is open to any person with a cognizable property interest. A purchaser of the owner’s equity (e.g., a judgment creditor or a deed grantee) steps into the owner’s shoes and may exercise the redemption right. — G.L. c. 60 § 62. needs_verification — no MA appellate decision directly addresses outright assignment of the bare redemption right without a transfer of the underlying property interest.
  • Statute or case: G.L. c. 60 § 62 (statutory text “heirs and assigns”); Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams, 485 Mass. 449 (2020) (confirms that private assignees of the municipal tax title — distinct from the redemption right — are bound by § 62 redemption terms).
  • Purchase mechanism: deed conveying the underlying property interest or court-approved assignment; no separate “assignment of redemption right” instrument is contemplated by the statute.

Equitable Redemption

  • Distinct from statutory? In Massachusetts, “redemption of real estate from a tax sale is wholly by statute” — the right is a creature of statute, not equity. Courts have declined to imply equitable redemption rights beyond what c. 60 provides. The equitable power of the Land Court under § 68 to “fix terms” and “impose such other terms as justice and the circumstances warrant” is a procedural equity, not a substantive equitable redemption right separate from the statutory one. — G.L. c. 60 § 68; goldmanpease.com noting redemption is “wholly by statute.” needs_verification for a specific SJC case stating this doctrine explicitly.
  • Available pre-sale only? Yes, in practical terms: the statutory redemption right exists from the taking until the Land Court judgment of foreclosure (§ 62 / § 68); after judgment, the only avenue is a motion to vacate under § 69A (within 1 year; extraordinary circumstances required). There is no post-judgment equitable redemption track.
  • Notes: The Land Court’s § 68 discretion includes allowing installment redemption on terms the court deems just. The interest rate applicable in Land Court redemption orders is 8% per annum (post-St. 2024 c. 140).

Installment Redemption

  • Permitted? Yes, at the Land Court’s discretion under § 68 (“fix the terms” for redemption; “impose such other terms as justice and the circumstances warrant”). — G.L. c. 60 § 68.
  • Statute: G.L. c. 60 § 68.

Assignment of Tax Certificate / Deed Mid-Redemption

  • Permitted? Yes — the municipality may assign the tax title (not a certificate per se) to a private buyer under G.L. c. 60 § 52 via public auction (minimum 14-day notice by publication and posting; minimum price ≥ redemption amount; 10-day advance notice to owner of record; multilingual notice for Class One residential). The assignee is bound by the same redemption terms as the municipality. (§ 52 via mass.gov fetch)
  • Restrictions: price must not be less than the redemption amount; any foreclosure extension granted before assignment binds the assignee. An assignee may not add its own subsequent tax payments to the redemption amount in the manner § 52 reserves to the municipality. — Tallage Lincoln, 485 Mass. 449 (2020). (Justia)
  • Statute: G.L. c. 60 § 52.

3b. Surplus Advanced

Claim Assignability

  • Full assignment permitted? G.L. c. 60 § 64 expressly preserves the right of “the owner of the land at the time of foreclosure, and of those holding an interest in the land at the time of foreclosure and their heirs, successors and assigns,” to receive excess equity under § 64A. This language recognizes that the excess-equity claim may pass by succession, but it does not affirmatively authorize outright sale of the claim to a third-party recovery agent. No Massachusetts statute expressly permits or prohibits full assignment of the § 64A excess-equity claim. needs_verification — post-reform litigation will likely clarify whether a bare-claim assignment (not a conveyance of property interest) is enforceable.
  • Assignment vs. fee agreement distinction: A contingency-fee agreement with a recovery agent (the agent collects a percentage if recovery succeeds) is likely enforceable under general contract law. A full assignment (owner conveys the entire claim to the agent, who collects 100% and remits the remainder) is legally untested for § 64A claims. For G.L. c. 200A unclaimed property, the finder-fee framework (G.L. c. 200A § 13) limits fees and voids agreements signed within 24 months of delivery to the Division — but it is needs_verification whether § 200A § 13 governs § 64A claims held by a municipality (vs. only those delivered to the State Treasurer).
  • Fee cap applies to assignments? If c. 200A § 13 applies (10% cap), it would apply to the finder’s fee regardless of whether the instrument is called a fee agreement or an assignment. needs_verification.
  • Statute: G.L. c. 60 §§ 64, 64A; G.L. c. 200A § 13.

Statute of Limitations

  • Period: Parties entitled to excess equity must submit a claim within 18 months of the date of the notice (the certified-mail accounting notice the judgment holder must send within 30 days of sale or appraisal). — G.L. c. 60 § 64A (retrieved via mass.gov search summary; direct text fetch blocked).
  • Trigger date: date of the judgment holder’s certified-mail notice of written itemized accounting (sent within 30 days after sale of property or receipt of appraisal). — G.L. c. 60 § 64A.
  • Dispute SOL: A party may file a complaint in Superior Court within 12 months of the date of the notice of written itemized accounting to challenge the accounting. — G.L. c. 60 § 64A. (Mass.gov search result)
  • Retroactive claims: For judgments entered on/after May 25, 2021 but before the Act’s effective date (~Nov. 1, 2024), a separate Superior Court complaint must be filed within 12 months of the Act’s effective date. needs_verification for the exact trigger date (July 1 vs. Nov. 1, 2025).
  • Escheat: Excess equity unclaimed within 19 months is disposed of “pursuant to chapter 200A” (unclaimed property). — G.L. c. 60 § 64A (via § 64A fetch from malegislature.gov).
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 § 64A (St. 2024, c. 140, § 93, eff. Nov. 1, 2024).

Competing Claimant Procedure

  • Priority rules: § 64A gives the judgment holder a “claim waterfall” in the written itemized accounting: tax-title account (taxes + interest + lawful charges) → reasonable costs of sale/appraisal/holding → excess to claimants. Among competing claimants (multiple mortgagees, lienholders, former owner), G.L. c. 60 § 64A vests jurisdiction in the Superior Court of the county where the property is located to resolve disputes. (§64A via mass.gov search)
  • Interpleader used? The Superior Court mechanism under § 64A effectively functions as an interpleader proceeding; parties may file a complaint to determine their entitlements. No explicit interpleader statute is cited in § 64A itself, but standard Mass. R. Civ. P. interpleader is available. — needs_verification for confirmed interpleader practice under § 64A.
  • Filing race: No — the statute does not award priority on a first-to-file basis. Priority follows established lien priority (senior liens paid first).
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 § 64A; G.L. c. 244 § 14 (mortgage surplus priority logic by analogy).

Deceased Owner Procedure

  • Probate required first? Not always first, but the personal representative of the estate has standing to make the § 64A written request and file a Superior Court complaint. G.L. c. 60 §§ 64 and 64A use the phrase “their heirs, successors and assigns,” allowing direct heir claims; however, where the estate is the legal title holder, a properly appointed personal representative (G.L. c. 190B, the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code) must act.
  • Personal rep has standing? Yes — as the legal representative of the deceased owner’s estate. — G.L. c. 190B § 3-807 (claimant against an estate) by analogy; G.L. c. 60 § 64A (“heirs, successors and assigns”).
  • Direct heir claim permitted? Yes — the “heirs” language of §§ 64/64A permits direct heir claims without requiring a formally appointed administrator, provided heirs can establish their interest (intestate succession under G.L. c. 190B Article II, or by will). needs_verification for a Land Court or Superior Court decision confirming direct-heir standing under § 64A.
  • Notes: Where title was in a deceased owner’s name at the time of foreclosure, the municipality’s § 64A certified-mail notice goes to the “last known address.” For heirs who discover the foreclosure after the notice window, the 18-month claim deadline runs from the date of that notice.

Fraudulent Conveyance Exposure

  • Assignment voidable by creditors? Yes — under G.L. c. 109A (the Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the state’s UFTA), a transfer of the § 64A excess-equity claim by an insolvent owner could be challenged by creditors as a fraudulent transfer if made without receiving “reasonably equivalent value” or with intent to hinder/delay/defraud creditors. (c. 109A table of contents retrieved)
  • Applicable statute: G.L. c. 109A (Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). Massachusetts has not yet enacted the revised UVTA as of this verification; the UFTA framework remains operative.
  • Notes: A 4-year lookback period applies to constructive fraud claims; actual fraud claims have a 4-year limitations period from discovery. If a distressed owner assigns a § 64A claim for nominal consideration while insolvent, a creditor could claw back the claim value; an assignment for fair consideration is less exposed to such a challenge.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 109A §§ 5–6, 10.

Surplus Claimant Notice

  • Court must notify lienholders? Under § 64A, the judgment holder (not the court) must send certified-mail notice of the accounting to “any parties entitled to claim excess equity, or their successors in interest, to their last known address or place of business” within 30 days of the sale or appraisal. The Superior Court, once a complaint is filed, may issue further notice. — G.L. c. 60 § 64A. (Mass.gov §64A search result)
  • Method: Certified mail to last known address.
  • Timeline: Within 30 days after sale of property or receipt of the appraisal; claim deadline 18 months from notice; dispute complaint deadline 12 months from notice.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 § 64A.

5b. Title Advanced

Quiet Title Action

  • When required: A formal quiet title action under G.L. c. 240 § 6 is not automatically required after a Land Court judgment of foreclosure — the judgment itself is intended to be “absolute” (§ 64) and conclusive as to all parties cited in the proceeding. However, a quiet title action is strongly recommended (and frequently required by title insurers) where: (a) the one-year post-judgment vacatur window (§ 69A) has not yet run; (b) there is a potential due-process notice defect (known parties not actually notified); (c) the title examiner identifies pre-taking defects not resolved by the Land Court proceeding; or (d) the property is registered (Torrens) land requiring a separate Land Court proceeding. Practically, many practitioners treat quiet title as “often advisable” rather than mandatory. — G.L. c. 240 § 6; G.L. c. 60 § 64; Town of Andover v. State Financial Services, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 536 (2000) (due-process defect permits vacatur, underscoring risk of not clearing title). (G.L. c. 240 § 6)
  • Action type: Judicial — filed as a civil action in the Land Court (most common for real property title matters), or alternatively in the Superior Court or Supreme Judicial Court. G.L. c. 240 § 6 authorizes all three venues. The Land Court is preferred given its specialized expertise in title matters. (massrealestatelawblog.com)
  • Court with jurisdiction: Land Court Department (primary); Superior Court (available). G.L. c. 240 §§ 6–10.
  • Typical timeline: 3–6 months for an uncontested matter; significantly longer if contested or if service by publication is required (add 2–3 months for publication). — massrealestatelawblog.com.
  • Typical cost: Minimum $5,000 in attorney fees and expenses (filing fees, service, publication where applicable); contested matters substantially more. — massrealestatelawblog.com.
  • Cures all pre-sale defects? The Land Court’s § 60 foreclosure judgment itself is designed to extinguish all pre-taking claims of the cited parties. A subsequent G.L. c. 240 quiet title action can address defects the § 60 proceeding may have missed (e.g., parties not cited, registered-land issues, boundary disputes). — G.L. c. 240 § 6.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 240 § 6; G.L. c. 60 § 64; G.L. c. 60 § 69A.

Deed Seasoning

  • Insurers require seasoning? Yes — general-market title insurers treat Massachusetts tax-title (Land Court judgment + instrument of taking) titles with caution given the § 69A one-year vacatur window and due-process notice risks. Industry guidance (Agents National Title, referencing general tax deed underwriting practice) suggests insurers typically want 20 years of post- tax-deed record (or the state’s adverse-possession period) before insuring without a quiet title or other cure. In the Massachusetts-specific context, many practitioners apply a 1-year minimum (waiting out § 69A) and underwriters then assess notice compliance on a case-by-case basis. needs_verification for current Stewart/Old Republic/First American specific MA requirements.
  • Typical seasoning years: needs_verification — general industry default is 20 years for tax deeds without a quiet title; Massachusetts’s judicial Land Court process (producing a judgment rather than a deed alone) may allow underwriting after the § 69A 1-year window if notice is demonstrably clean.
  • Rationale: The § 69A vacatur right (1 year from judgment, extendable for due-process violations) creates a title cloud that underwriters must assess. Prior to St. 2024, c. 140, the additional Tyler-reform exposure also discouraged immediate coverage.

Title Insurance

  • Immediate availability: Generally not available immediately after judgment — underwriters require at minimum expiration of the § 69A 1-year vacatur window, clean title examination, and verified notice compliance.
  • Conditions for immediate: Title insurers may issue coverage earlier if: (a) notice was served personally or by certified mail (not publication only), (b) no known due-process defect exists, and (c) the § 64A excess-equity accounting has been completed. needs_verification for specific MA underwriter forms.
  • Insurers known to write: Stewart Title, First American, Old Republic — all write Massachusetts residential and commercial title insurance; their specific requirements for post-Land-Court-judgment policies are needs_verification.
  • Quitclaim or special warranty only? The instrument itself is an instrument of taking + Land Court judgment (no warranty deed); subsequent resale by the municipality typically uses a quitclaim deed or municipal deed.

Marketable Title Act

  • Exists? No — Massachusetts has not enacted a Marketable Record Title Act. Proposed legislation (“Landowner’s Title Protection Act”) has been introduced in prior sessions but not enacted. — see Mass. Bill SD.84 (190th session, proposed; not enacted). needs_verification for any post-2024 legislation.
  • Lookback years: N/A.
  • Statute: None enacted as of 2026-06-02.

Judicial Confirmation

  • Required before deed issues? The Land Court judgment of foreclosure under G.L. c. 60 § 64 is itself the judicial act that transfers and “absolutely” vests title. No separate confirmation hearing or deed-issuance hearing is required — the judgment is self-executing as to title. The instrument of taking (recorded at the registry) plus the judgment are the operative title documents. — G.L. c. 60 §§ 53, 64.
  • Tribunal: Land Court Department.
  • Timeline: Judgment issues at the conclusion of the Land Court foreclosure proceeding (typically 1–2+ years from petition filing).
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 §§ 64, 65.

Chain of Title Cure

  • Depth: The Land Court § 60 foreclosure extinguishes all redemption rights of all cited parties (§ 64 “absolute title”); it functions like a quiet title as to those parties. Pre-taking defects involving uncited parties are not resolved by the foreclosure judgment and require a separate G.L. c. 240 quiet title action. Municipal tax liens are senior to virtually all pre-existing encumbrances under Massachusetts recording/lien-priority law.
  • Notes: Chain of title searches conventionally cover 50 years (REBA standard); the earliest instrument should be a warranty or quitclaim deed with no facial defects. Without a Marketable Title Act, ancient defects may persist unless a quiet title addresses them.

5c. TRO & Injunctive Relief

Recognized Grounds

A TRO or preliminary injunction to halt a Massachusetts tax (Land Court) or mortgage (non-judicial) foreclosure sale may be sought on the following grounds:

  1. Due-process / defective notice — the foreclosing party failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice to known parties (Town of Andover; Mullane).
  2. Payment dispute — the stated redemption amount is incorrect (e.g., an assignee inflated charges as in Tallage Lincoln).
  3. Constitutional / Tyler surplus — the foreclosure would result in unconstitutional retention of equity (now partially addressed by § 64A, but transition-period cases remain).
  4. Bankruptcy automatic stay — 11 U.S.C. § 362 operates as an automatic injunction; no separate TRO needed in bankruptcy, but the Land Court must acknowledge the stay.
  5. SCRA / Servicemembers — borrower is on active duty; in the mortgage context, the Servicemembers case procedure prevents foreclosure without court approval.
  6. Procedural defect in taking — collector failed to comply with demand / notice-of-taking requirements (§ 53).

Massachusetts four-part preliminary-injunction test (common law, applied via Mass. R. Civ. P. 65): the moving party must show (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm in the absence of relief, (3) the balance of harms favors the plaintiff, and (4) the public interest does not weigh against issuance. Rule 65 addresses only procedure; the substantive standard is common-law. (Rule 65 procedural framework — mass.gov search summary) For a TRO specifically, the moving party must show “immediate and irreparable harm” on affidavit or verified complaint — Massachusetts Rule 65(a).

Court with Jurisdiction

  • Tax foreclosure (Land Court proceeding): The Land Court Department has exclusive jurisdiction over c. 60 tax-title foreclosure cases and is the proper court for injunctive relief within those proceedings. A respondent may also seek emergency injunctive relief from the Superior Court in parallel if a separate constitutional claim is asserted.
  • Mortgage foreclosure (non-judicial): Since there is no pending court case, the borrower must affirmatively file suit in Superior Court (or the Land Court if title is implicated) and move for a TRO simultaneously with the complaint. The Superior Court hears most mortgage-foreclosure injunction matters. — Mass. R. Civ. P. 65; G.L. c. 240 § 6 (Land Court title jurisdiction).

Bond Required?

  • Discretionary under Mass. R. Civ. P. 65(c): “no restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security…in such sum as the court deems proper.” However, Rule 65(c) explicitly allows the court to waive or reduce the bond where the applicant’s means are limited or the opposing party’s interest is otherwise secured (e.g., the secured lender has collateral exceeding the debt). needs_verification for Land Court-specific bond practice in tax-foreclosure TRO motions.
  • Post-judgment possession bond (c. 239 § 6A): If the foreclosing holder brings a summary-process action for possession after judgment, the occupant may be required to post a bond covering accrued “rent” (from foreclosure judgment date to possession) and damages. — G.L. c. 239 § 6A. (Justia)

Emergency Timeline

24–72 hours if the motion is properly filed with an affidavit showing imminent irreparable harm (e.g., a sale scheduled within days). The Land Court and Superior Court each have emergency sessions for TROs without notice. A sale scheduled in weeks typically generates a preliminary injunction hearing set within 7–14 days. needs_verification for current Land Court TRO practice.

Effect on Completed Sale

  • Tax foreclosure (Land Court judgment): The Land Court judgment is a judicial act; a sale cannot be “completed” without the judgment. If a § 69A motion to vacate is granted (within 1 year; extraordinary circumstances), all § 64A excess-equity obligations are also suspended. A judgment that issued before effective TRO can be vacated under § 69A but title protection for innocent third-party purchasers for value may limit vacatur. — G.L. c. 60 § 69A.
  • Mortgage foreclosure (non-judicial): Massachusetts courts have ruled that a completed non-judicial power-of-sale foreclosure generally cannot be unwound once a bona fide purchaser for value acquires the property; injunctive relief is unavailable as a practical matter after the gavel falls unless the sale itself was void (not merely voidable). needs_verification for a controlling SJC decision on post-sale TRO effect in mortgage context.

Non-Judicial Foreclosure Notes

Massachusetts mortgage foreclosures are predominantly non-judicial (power of sale, G.L. c. 244 § 14). A borrower seeking to enjoin a non-judicial foreclosure must file a complaint in Superior Court (or Land Court for title issues) concurrently with a TRO motion, because there is no pending court case in which to seek relief. Grounds narrow considerably for non-judicial sales: the borrower must show a likely defect in the lender’s power-of-sale compliance (e.g., failure to send § 35A cure notice, failure to conduct § 35B modification review, or failure to send § 17B deficiency-notice) — not just dissatisfaction with the outcome. — G.L. c. 244 §§ 14, 35A, 35B, 17B.

Leading Cases

town-of-andover-v-state-financial-services (due-process defect; vacatur of Land Court judgment); mullane-v-central-hanover (constitutional notice standard underlying TRO grounds); tallage-lincoln-v-williams (assignee overreach supporting payment-dispute ground).

7b. Lien Survival & Purchaser Exposure

IRS 120-Day Redemption Right

  • Applies? Yes — 26 U.S.C. § 7425(d) grants the federal government a right to redeem real property within 120 calendar days of a sale that discharges a federal tax lien senior to the selling authority’s claim, or the period allowed by state law, whichever is longer. Massachusetts’s c. 60 tax-title foreclosure is a judicial proceeding (Land Court), so the IRS must also be given 25-day advance notice of the sale under § 7425(b) if a federal tax lien is of record; failure to give that notice means the sale does not extinguish the federal lien and the IRS retains its lien position against the new titleholder. (26 U.S.C. § 7425; IRS IRM 5.12.4)
  • Procedure: The IRS sends its redemption offer within the 120-day window to the title holder of record; the redemption amount equals the price paid at sale plus interest. In the Massachusetts judicial-foreclosure context, the IRS must be joined as a defendant in the Land Court proceeding if its lien is of record; failure to join means the IRS lien survives the judgment. — 28 U.S.C. § 2410; 26 U.S.C. § 7425(d).
  • Citation: 26 U.S.C. § 7425(d); 26 CFR § 301.7425-4; 28 U.S.C. § 2410.

HOA / Condominium Super-Priority

  • Super-priority exists? Yes — Massachusetts is a super-lien state for condominium associations under G.L. c. 183A § 6(c). The condominium association’s assessment lien has priority over even a first mortgage for up to 6 months of common expense assessments immediately preceding the association’s enforcement action, plus enforcement costs and attorney fees (when proper notice is given to the first-lien holder). (G.L. c. 183A § 6 — fetched; newenglandcondo.com)
  • Statute: G.L. c. 183A § 6(c).
  • Cap: 6 months of regular monthly common-expense assessments plus enforcement costs and attorney fees (with proper notice to first lienholder).
  • Survives tax sale? No — a Massachusetts tax-title foreclosure (Land Court judgment) extinguishes the condominium association’s lien for common charges that accrued prior to the foreclosure decree. However, the foreclosing holder (municipality or assignee) becomes responsible for common charges accruing after the date of taking through the date of the judgment. — Land Court decisions cited in newenglandcondo.com “Ahead of the Line” (2011). needs_verification for a reported Land Court case citation.
  • Survives mortgage foreclosure? The super-priority portion (6 months) must be paid from the mortgage foreclosure sale proceeds before the first mortgagee is satisfied; the remainder of the HOA lien is junior to the first mortgage and is extinguished by the foreclosure. — G.L. c. 183A § 6(c).
  • Leading cases: needs_verification for a reported MA case specifically on HOA lien survival in tax sale context.

Environmental Liens (CERCLA / Chapter 21E)

  • CERCLA lien survives tax sale? The federal CERCLA lien (42 U.S.C. § 9607(l)) is subordinate to all liens perfected under state law before the Notice of Federal CERCLA Lien is recorded; it is senior to liens recorded after. Whether a Massachusetts tax-title foreclosure extinguishes a junior CERCLA lien is needs_verification — the federal CERCLA statute provides that the lien continues on the property unless the government consents to its release; the IRS/EPA must be joined in the Land Court proceeding (28 U.S.C. § 2410) for the lien to be extinguished.
  • State superfund super-lien (G.L. c. 21E § 13)? Yes — Massachusetts has a state environmental super-lien under G.L. c. 21E § 13. For non-residential property (excluding property devoted primarily to single- or multi-family housing), the c. 21E lien is senior to all previously recorded encumbrances as to the contaminated site. The super-lien persists until the commissioner issues a release. (G.L. c. 21E § 13 — fetched)
    • needs_verification whether the G.L. c. 21E § 13 super-lien survives a municipal tax-title foreclosure (i.e., is senior to the municipal tax lien itself). Tax liens are generally given first priority under G.L. c. 60, but federal and state environmental super-liens may present a competing claim.
  • Notes: For residential property (single/multi-family), the c. 21E lien is subordinate to prior-recorded encumbrances — no super-lien status.

Municipal Code / Blight Liens

  • Survive tax sale? Municipal code-enforcement liens (e.g., for building-code violations, demolition orders, abandoned-property abatements) are statutory liens that typically have priority under the municipality’s specific authorizing statute. In the Land Court foreclosure process, liens of parties cited in the proceeding are extinguished by the foreclosure judgment. Code liens recorded before the taking and cited in the Land Court proceeding are extinguished; uncited liens may survive. needs_verification for specific statutory authority on post-taking code liens.
  • Statute: Varies by municipality; most derive from G.L. c. 139 (nuisance), G.L. c. 143 (building code), or municipal ordinances.
  • Notes: Post-taking code violations (accruing while the municipality holds the tax title) are a municipality’s own obligation and do not burden the eventual purchaser from the municipality. Post-assignment (assignee holds tax title) code-violation liability is needs_verification.

Mechanic Liens

  • Survive tax sale if noticed? Mechanic’s liens under G.L. c. 254 must be recorded to perfect priority. A mechanic’s lien recorded before the instrument of taking may have priority equal to or junior to the municipal tax lien depending on the specific statutory priority rules. Parties holding perfected mechanic’s liens should be cited in the Land Court proceeding; if cited, their lien is extinguished by the judgment. If not cited, the lien may survive. needs_verification for direct authority.
  • Notes: In practice, a thorough title examination for the Land Court proceeding should identify all recorded mechanic’s liens; the Land Court citation process notifies all parties of record.

Junior Mortgage / Senior Lien Exposure

  • Purchaser takes subject to senior liens? The municipal tax lien under G.L. c. 60 has priority over all mortgages and other liens (municipal tax liens are always senior to private encumbrances in Massachusetts). After a Land Court judgment under § 64, the foreclosing holder takes absolute title free of all junior liens of cited parties. A purchaser from the foreclosing holder (post-judgment) acquires free-and-clear title as to cited parties; lienholders who were not cited are not bound by the judgment.
  • Common mistake notes: Purchasing a tax title (the municipal’s interest in the taking) before the Land Court judgment does not give absolute title; the purchaser of the tax title (not a post-judgment purchaser) still faces the redemption right of the owner and all cited parties.

Due Diligence Items

Items bearing on a Massachusetts tax-title or post-Land-Court-judgment purchase:

  1. IRS tax lien search — federal liens of record; if the IRS was not cited, its lien survives the Land Court judgment.
  2. State tax lien search — DOR liens (G.L. c. 62C § 50).
  3. G.L. c. 21E environmental lien search — MassDEP records for super-lien filings on commercial/industrial property.
  4. UCC search — for personal property liens that may attach to fixtures.
  5. Condominium/HOA status (G.L. c. 183A § 6) — 6-month super-priority assessment arrears, even against a first mortgagee.
  6. Mechanic’s lien search — G.L. c. 254 filings at the registry.
  7. Municipal code violations — local building/health department records.
  8. § 64A excess-equity obligation — does the property still have an open excess-equity claim or Superior Court dispute?
  9. SCRA / Servicemembers status — if the property is owner-occupied, confirm no active-duty protected borrower.
  10. § 69A vacatur window — if the Land Court judgment is less than 1 year old, the foreclosure judgment is still subject to vacatur on extraordinary- circumstances grounds.

10b. Purchaser Obligations During Redemption

Must Pay Subsequent Taxes?

  • Required? The municipality (or its private assignee) that holds the tax title is responsible for ensuring subsequent taxes are certified to the tax-title account under G.L. c. 60 § 61. The collector must certify all subsequent unpaid taxes to the treasurer by September 1 of the following year. Once certified, those taxes become part of the redemption amount the owner must pay. The municipality does not “pay” subsequent taxes in the conventional sense — it certifies them; for an assignee, paying subsequent taxes out-of-pocket and then seeking reimbursement at redemption was limited by Tallage Lincoln (the assignee may not add post-assignment tax payments to the redemption amount in the manner § 52 reserves to the municipality). — G.L. c. 60 § 61; Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams, 485 Mass. 449 (2020). (§ 61 fetch)
  • Consequence of failure: If subsequent taxes are not certified to the account by the collector, they are not included in the redemption amount and cannot be collected from the redeeming owner. The municipality retains its right to pursue those taxes independently.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 § 61.

Must Notify Owner of Expiration?

  • Required? Under G.L. c. 60 § 64A (St. 2024, c. 140), after the Land Court enters a final judgment of foreclosure, the judgment holder must: (a) within 14 days of the judgment becoming final, elect whether to retain or sell the property, and (b) notify the former owners and all others known to hold the right of redemption by certified mail to their last known address of the election and applicable rights under § 64A. This notice functions as the “expiration notice” — it informs the former owner that the redemption right has been extinguished by the judgment. — G.L. c. 60 § 64A. (mass.gov §64A search)
  • Form: Certified mail; content must explain the judgment holder’s election (retain or sell) and the rights/procedures applicable under § 64A (excess equity claim).
  • Timing: Within 14 days of the Land Court judgment becoming final.
  • Consequence of failure: Failure to give § 64A notice could expose the judgment holder to Superior Court claims by the former owner for excess equity. needs_verification for an express statutory consequence of late/failed notice under § 64A beyond the excess-equity liability.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 § 64A (St. 2024, c. 140, § 93, eff. Nov. 1, 2024).

Owner Occupancy Right

  • Owner may remain? After the Land Court judgment of foreclosure, the former owner has no automatic right to remain in possession against the foreclosing holder. The judgment gives absolute title to the holder (§ 64). If the former owner remains, the holder may bring a summary-process action for possession under G.L. c. 239. — G.L. c. 60 § 64; G.L. c. 239 § 6A.
  • Purchaser may enter? The judgment holder (or its successor) may take possession after judgment, subject to any summary-process proceeding required to remove a remaining occupant. The holder is not required to provide any specific notice to vacate beyond what summary process requires (G.L. c. 239). needs_verification for any c. 60-specific occupancy protection for the former owner between judgment and possession.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 § 64; G.L. c. 239 §§ 1, 6A.

Costs Collectible Upon Redemption

If the owner redeems before the Land Court judgment, the redeeming party pays the tax-title account balance plus:

  • Bid/taking amount plus 8% interest (post-reform) from the date of the taking — G.L. c. 60 § 62.
  • Subsequent taxes certified to the account — G.L. c. 60 § 61.
  • Lawful charges added to the account (recording fees, title examination costs, etc.) — G.L. c. 60 § 62.
  • Court costs and reasonable attorney fees (if petition to foreclose has been filed) — G.L. c. 60 § 68; § 65 (court may award legal fees to municipality/assignee upon motion).
  • Documented improvements? The statute does not provide a right to collect for improvements made to the property during the redemption period; the statutory redemption amount is limited to the charges enumerated in §§ 61, 62, 65, and 68. needs_verification for any equity-based improvement recovery outside the statute.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 §§ 61, 62, 65, 68.

Property Maintenance Obligation

  • Required? No express statutory maintenance obligation on the municipality or assignee holding the tax title during the redemption period (between taking and Land Court judgment). The municipality is responsible for maintaining property it owns in its governmental capacity under general municipal law, but the tax title is a security interest, not full ownership — the original owner remains in legal possession pre-judgment and bears maintenance obligations.
  • Standard: General municipal property maintenance standards apply to municipally-held properties post-judgment (after the holder acquires absolute title); prior to judgment, the owner-in-possession remains responsible.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 §§ 53, 64 (ownership transfer mechanics); needs_verification for a specific c. 60 maintenance-obligation provision.

11b. Restrictions & Special Rules

Entity Purchase Restrictions

  • Natural persons only? No — G.L. c. 60 § 52 permits municipalities to assign tax titles to the highest bidder at public auction, with no restriction limiting buyers to natural persons. Entities (LLCs, corporations, trusts) may acquire tax titles and tax receivables. Private-party assignees such as Tallage LLC and Tallage Lincoln LLC have been active in Massachusetts and their entity status has not been challenged. — G.L. c. 60 § 52; Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams, 485 Mass. 449 (2020). (§ 52 fetch)
  • LLC permitted? Yes.
  • Foreign entity permitted? Yes — G.L. c. 60 imposes no residency or domestic-entity requirement for purchasers of tax titles. Foreign LLCs must register to do business in Massachusetts if they acquire property (Secretary of State foreign LLC registration), but this is a business-registration requirement, not a bar to purchasing. needs_verification for any new restrictions in St. 2024, c. 140.
  • Notes: Massachusetts allows municipalities to assign tax receivables in bulk to private investment entities (the “Tallage model”). No statutory prohibition on entity purchasers was identified in G.L. c. 60 as reviewed.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 60 § 52.

Insider Prohibition

  • Who prohibited? G.L. c. 60 does not contain an express insider bidding prohibition analogous to sheriff-sale conflict-of-interest rules. However, the tax collector and municipal treasurer who conduct the taking and manage the tax-title account are subject to general conflict-of-interest law under G.L. c. 268A (the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest Law), which prohibits public employees from participating in decisions in which they have a financial interest.
  • Scope: Municipal officials involved in tax-title decisions cannot acquire those same titles for personal gain. The § 52 public-auction process is designed to prevent insider self-dealing by requiring public notice and minimum price.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 268A (conflict-of-interest law); G.L. c. 60 § 52 (public auction requirement). needs_verification for a DLS or AG opinion specifically addressing tax-title insider bidding.

Right of First Refusal

  • Municipalities? No general right of first refusal by the municipality on private tax-lien/deed resales — the municipality already holds the tax title and may choose to foreclose, assign, or retain. No ROFR in the reverse direction (municipality first-refusal on private resales of post-judgment properties) was identified in G.L. c. 60. needs_verification.
  • CDCs / nonprofits? No right of first refusal for CDCs or nonprofits under G.L. c. 60 was identified. (Compare G.L. cc. 61, 61A, 61B — agricultural and conservation land — where municipalities and certain entities have ROFR before a property is converted to non-qualifying use; this does not apply to ordinary tax-title sales.)
  • Land banks? needs_verification — see Land Bank Program below.
  • Match window: N/A (no ROFR confirmed in c. 60 context).
  • Citation: needs_verification for any ROFR in the Massachusetts tax-sale context.

Land Bank Program

  • Exists? Massachusetts does not have a single statewide land-bank statute specifically for tax-foreclosed properties comparable to Michigan’s or Ohio’s land-bank programs. Individual municipalities may establish local land-bank-type entities under their home-rule authority or pursuant to specific enabling acts (e.g., urban renewal, MGL c. 121A). The DLS (Division of Local Services) provides guidance on municipalities retaining tax-title properties for redevelopment.
  • Name: No single statewide program name. Some municipalities (e.g., Boston) operate urban renewal/affordable housing agencies that receive tax-title properties from the city.
  • Statute: No unified land-bank statute for tax-foreclosed properties identified as of 2026-06-02. needs_verification for any post-2024 legislation.
  • Receives unsold properties? Municipalities that hold tax titles after Land Court judgment and elect to retain under § 64A may convey to housing authorities, CDCs, or affordable-housing trusts under general municipal law. needs_verification for a specific statutory program.
  • Operational notes: Massachusetts’s model is municipal retention and discretionary conveyance (under § 64A’s elect-to-retain option), not a formal land-bank clearinghouse.

Deficiency Judgment

  • Permitted after tax sale? No — a tax-title foreclosure is a Land Court judgment that extinguishes the former owner’s equity; there is no “deficiency” concept because the municipality’s claim is for unpaid taxes (a fixed amount), not a loan. The excess-equity obligation runs in the other direction (§ 64A requires the foreclosing holder to return excess equity above the tax debt). A deficiency action is not applicable in the c. 60 tax context.
  • Permitted after mortgage foreclosure? Yes — under G.L. c. 244 § 17B, the lender may pursue a deficiency action if it sent written notice of intent to seek a deficiency at least 21 days before the foreclosure sale by registered mail with return receipt. The lender must commence the deficiency suit within 2 years of the foreclosure sale (G.L. c. 244 § 17A). — (§ 17B; § 17A fetch)
  • Fair value defense? Massachusetts does not have a statutory fair-value defense (credit bidding at the foreclosure sale against the deficiency amount). The deficiency is the difference between the sale price and the outstanding loan balance. needs_verification for any judicial fair-value doctrine in Massachusetts.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 244 §§ 17A, 17B.

Anti-Deficiency Statute

  • Exists? No general anti-deficiency statute in Massachusetts — lenders are not broadly barred from seeking deficiency judgments after mortgage foreclosure. The procedural prerequisite (§ 17B pre-sale notice) is a condition of pursuit, not a prohibition. Borrowers who were not given the required § 17B notice cannot be subjected to a deficiency action.
  • Scope: N/A — no anti-deficiency statute; the § 17B notice requirement is a procedural safeguard, not a substantive bar.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 244 § 17B (notice requirement as de facto bar if not given).

One-Action Rule

  • Exists? No — Massachusetts does not have a one-action rule. The lender may pursue the non-judicial power-of-sale foreclosure (under c. 244 § 14) and then file a separate civil action for the deficiency judgment (within 2 years, § 17A). The two actions are sequential, not prohibited. — G.L. c. 244 §§ 14, 17A, 17B.
  • Citation: G.L. c. 244 §§ 14, 17A.
  • Notes: The lack of a one-action rule means that Massachusetts lenders face minimal procedural constraint in pursuing both the collateral and the borrower, subject only to the § 17B notice prerequisite and the 2-year deficiency SOL.

Graph View

Backlinks