approximately $156,870.83 to satisfy its mortgage and the costs of foreclosure. By the mortgage terms, any remaining funds must then be applied to “the person legally entitled thereto.” The individual who was legally entitled to receipt of the surplus was the “mortgagor, or his heirs, successors, or assigns . . .” See G.L.c. 183, §27. Despite Wachovia’s unsupported contention to the contrary, Wells Fargo, as senior mortgagee, was not a “successor or assign” of the mortgagor. By the plain language of G.L.c. 183, §27, the mortgagor, Mr. Thorpe, was entitled to receipt of the surplus. Wachovia was not permitted to unilaterally disburse the excess proceeds elsewhere in order to satisfy additional debts of the mortgagor. See generally United Bank v. Maní, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 75, 78-79 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Wachovia’s contention, the
holding that a mortgagor in possession is not a fiduciary of the mortgagee within the meaning of the bankruptcy act even though the mortgagor has obligated himself to keep the security intact holding that it is evident that no harm is suffered when the mortgagor would have been in no better position had notice been fully proper and   the mortgagor lost no potential opportunity to preserve some or any portion of his interest in the property holding that the foreclosing bank was required to remit the surplus to the mortgagor and was prohibited from keeping a portion of the surplus in satisfaction of unrelated debts of the mortgagors husband holding the assignment of the mortgage once the original grant by the mortgagor to the mortgagee has been perfected does not involve a transfer of the property of the debtor  holding that despite the absence of a contractual relationship and no formal authority over the mortgagor since the defendant was a member of the mortgagors inner circle the mortgagee could sustain his 93a claim