of the Homestead, and the Mortgage was taken subject thereto because it did not contain a release of the Homestead. While acknowledging that the instant facts are indistinguishable from those in Atlantic Savings, the Debtors nevertheless urge this Court to reach a contrary conclusion. In this regard, the Debtors’ argument is twofold. From a jurisprudential standpoint, the Debtors fault the Atlantic Savings decision as erroneously based on a narrow reading of § 7 that cannot be squared with, and renders a nullity, the “and containing a release thereof’ language of § 6. This they label an unsupportable deviation from the canons of statutory construction because neither that language in § 6 nor the term “deed” as used in § 7 is ambiguous. As suc , 275-76, 44 N.E.2d 665, 666-67 (1942) (<HOLDING>). This Court can locate no cases to the
holding that the mortgage conveys such interests that the mortgagee is the holder of the paramount title holding that where a mortgagee is acting on behalf of the note holder there is no disconnection between note and mortgage and the mortgagee may foreclose holding that a mortgage transfer does not take effect until the mortgagee gives value in exchange for the mortgage holding that the mortgagee named in the mortgage at the time of the mortgages execution acquired the legal title to the property 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