execution of the mortgage, buttressed by its covenants, conveyed his entire interest in the property to the bank, subject to defeasance, and effectively subordinated any homestead interest he possessed to the mortgage lien. Atlantic Savings, 9 Mass.App.Ct. at 288, 400 N.E.2d at 1291 (1980) (emphasis supplied). Again, this Court recognizes that its responsibility is to anticipate how the SJC would decide the issue and that a lower court decision on the matter is not dispositive. In re Miller, 113 B.R. 98, 101 (Bankr.D.Mass.1990). However, this Court finds the Atlantic Savings decision well reasoned and substantiated by the statutory provisions underlying standard mortgage covenants: [I]n a conveyance of real estate the words “mortgage covenants” shall h 187 N.E. 118, 119 (1933) (<HOLDING>). Given the foregoing, this Court holds that
holding creditors who obtained judgment subsequent to corporations execution of mortgage had no right to challenge mortgages execution holding that in a case in which an omitted junior mortgagee foreclosed its mortgage the junior mortgagee had the absolute right to redeem from the senior mortgagee who had purchased the property at a sale following foreclosure of the senior mortgage holding that the mortgagors legal incompetence at the time of the execution of the mortgage was a covered risk under the title policys invalidity or unenforeeability provision holding that the mortgage conveys such interests that the mortgagee is the holder of the paramount title holding that the mortgagee named in the mortgage at the time of the mortgages execution acquired the legal title to the property