Archambault v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, No. 11-cv-10373, 2011 WL 4062379, at *1 (D.Mass. Sept. 13, 2011) (Stearns, J.); In re Marron, 455 B.R. at 7; Aliberti, 779 F.Supp.2d at 249; McKenna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 10-10417-JLT, 2011 WL 1100160, at *2 (D.Mass. Mar. 21, 2011) (Tauro, J.); Valerio v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 716 F.Supp.2d 124, 128 (D.Mass.2010) (Gorton, J.); Carlson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 10-41291-MSH, 2011 WL 3420436, at *6 (Bankr.D.Mass. Aug. 2, 2011); Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Arazi, No. 10 MISC 442037, 2011 WL 4790651, at *2 (Mass.Land Ct. July 12, 2011) (Piper, J.); Lyons v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., No. 09 MISC. 416377(JCC), 2011 WL 61186, at *3 (Mass.Land Ct. Jan. 4, 2011) (Cutler, J.); cf. In re Huggins, 357 B.R. 180, 184 (Bankr.D.Mass.2006) (<HOLDING>). But see In re Samuels, 415 B.R. 8, 20
holding that there is no impermissible modification of the note because the very terms of the note allow for prepayment without a penalty 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 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 because a mortgage provides the security for the repayment of the note the person having standing to foreclose a note secured by a mortgage may be either the holder of the note or a nonholder in possession of the note who has the rights of a holder