Webster Bank v. Oakley

In April 1993, Lorna Oakley (defendant) executed a mortgage deed and note on her condominium unit. The mortgage documents contained both an optional acceleration clause and a nonwaiver-of-remedies provision. In June 1999, Oakley fell behind on her payment obligations. In September, Webster Bank (plaintiff) sent Oakley a default-and-cure letter, informing her that if she did not pay the $2,885 past-due amount by October 13, the debt would be accelerated. On October 14, Webster Bank sent Oakley a second letter declaring the debt accelerated and stating the matter would be referred to collections. On October 19, Webster Bank’s attorney sent Oakley a third letter, stating that Oakley could cure the default if she paid the past-due amount by October 27. The third letter also warned that Oakley’s failure to pay might result in foreclosure and that the letter was not intended to waive or preclude any of Webster Bank’s other rights under the mortgage documents. Oakley failed to pay, and on November 17, Webster Bank filed for foreclosure of the mortgage, immediate possession, a deficiency judgment, and other equitable relief. During the proceedings, Oakley raised the special defense that she did not receive clear and unequivocal notice of Webster Bank’s intent to accelerate the mortgage as required by the mortgage documents, stating that the October 19 letter superseded the prior notices and constituted a new notice of default, thereby starting the process over. The trial court granted Webster Bank’s motion for summary judgment of strict foreclosure. Oakley appealed.