In Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency v. Bass, the Land Court rejected the defendants’ belated attempt to assert claims under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A against Mass Housing, concluding that the allegations failed as a matter of law and would not survive a motion to dismiss.

The court treated the Chapter 93A theory as substantively deficient. Specifically, the court concluded that the defendants failed to plead any unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of Chapter 93A. The defendants’ primary 93A theory rested on alleged misconduct concerning private mortgage insurance and supposed misrepresentations regarding coverage. The court rejected this argument outright, holding that the borrower was not a party to the mortgage insurance policy, which existed solely for the lender’s protection and expressly disclaimed borrower rights. Because no underlying consumer transaction existed between the borrower and Mass Housing concerning that insurance, the court found no predicate act capable of supporting Chapter 93A liability. 

The case demonstrates that ordinary mortgage enforcement disputes generally do not support unfair or deceptive practices claims. Also, it shows that courts typically look past rhetoric and examine whether the defendant engaged in conduct that runs afoul of Chapter 93A.