Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
874 F. Supp. 2d 25 (2012)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
The City of Springfield (city) (defendant) enacted a municipal ordinance that affected mortgage contracts between borrowers and lenders. Under a mortgage contract, the borrower assumed responsibility for maintaining the property. But the ordinance stated that if a lender was foreclosing on a property, the lender was required to maintain the property during the foreclosure process. Maintenance included removing hazardous material from the property and ensuring that the property was free from overflow trash. The ordinance did not alter the fundamental aspects of a mortgage contract, such as the value of the property or the lender’s ability to foreclose on the property. A group of banks (plaintiffs) had mortgages in the city. The banks brought suit against the city, contending that the ordinance violated the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. The banks filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, asking the district court to declare the ordinance invalid. The district court took the motion under advisement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ponsor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.