By Bob Paterson Recording a mortgage discharge tells the public that a lender’s security interest has been released from a property. But what happens when a bank later says that document was filed by mistake? That question was at the heart of a Massachusetts lawsuit in which Bank of America tried to revive a mortgage after its agent had executed and recorded a discharge. The bank won an early judgment, only to have the Massachusetts Appeals Court reverse it in June 2025. The appellate decision turned not on whether money was still owed, but on the bank’s failure to prove precisely why the recorded release was a mistake.
How Did the Mortgage Dispute Arise?
A married couple, including Neil Druker, bought property in Newton, Massachusetts, in 2000. In 2004, they entered a revolving loan agreement with Fleet National Bank secured by a mortgage. Bank of America later became holder of the note and mortgage following a corporate merger.
On January 28, 2022, Eric Ferguson, a vice president of First American Mortgage Solutions acting as Bank of America’s attorney-in-fact, executed a release of the mortgage. It was recorded at the registry of deeds in February 2022. The recording mattered because it changed the public land records on which borrowers, buyers and title companies may rely.
Bank of America subsequently sued, asking the court to declare the release void on the ground that it had been executed through “inadvertence and error.” The homeowners challenged the bank’s right to reinstate the lien based on such a limited explanation.
What Did the Trial Court Decide?
The bank sought summary judgment, arguing the mortgage discharge had been a mistake. It submitted an employee affidavit asserting mistake or inadvertence and evidence that it still held the original note, which was not marked canceled. The trial court granted judgment for Bank of America.
The borrowers appealed. Their dispute centered on whether the bank had proved the specific circumstances that caused an authorized release to be signed. A conclusory statement that something was an error, they argued, should not be enough to undo a formally recorded mortgage discharge.
Why Did the Appeals Court Reverse?
On June 27, 2025, the Massachusetts Appeals Court decided *Bank of America, N.A. v. Neil Druker & another*, No. 24-P-593. It vacated the bank’s summary judgment and remanded the case.
The court explained that a lender seeking to set aside an allegedly mistaken mortgage discharge must produce “full, clear, and decisive” proof of the mistake. The bank’s affidavit failed to describe what actually happened. It also blurred two distinct actions: executing the discharge and recording it. Claiming that the recording was accidental did not show that the decision to execute the release was an error.
The appellate judges held that retaining an unpaid note was not enough to prove that the lender never intended to release the collateral. Banks can release a mortgage for reasons other than full repayment. The lower court also could not treat the existence of other lawsuits alleging mistaken Bank of America releases as proof of what happened in this particular transaction.
Does a Mortgage Discharge Cancel the Loan?
Not necessarily. A promissory note records a borrower’s repayment obligation, while a mortgage secures that obligation against property. A valid mortgage discharge may release the lien without extinguishing the underlying debt. That distinction is why the case is about the property records and security interest, not a declaration that the couple received free money or that their loan balance was automatically forgiven.
The ruling also matters to lenders: if a bank wants to correct a recorded release, it needs reliable records identifying the actual error, not just a standard statement that the document should never have been recorded.
Lawsuit Status and Outcome
The June 2025 appellate ruling vacated the bank’s earlier victory. It did not enter final judgment for the homeowners or conclusively validate the discharge. It returned the dispute to the trial court for further proceedings. No subsequent final merits ruling or cash settlement was independently verified for this particular case through October 15, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Did the court rule that the homeowners no longer owed their loan?
No. The decision addressed whether Bank of America proved the recorded mortgage release was mistaken, not whether the underlying note was paid off.
Q. Can a bank correct a mortgage discharge after it has been recorded?
Potentially, but it must meet the legal standard and present convincing evidence of the specific error. A bare assertion of inadvertence may be insufficient.
Q. Does this ruling affect every Bank of America mortgage?
No. The appeal concerned one mortgage, one recorded release and the evidence submitted in that case.
Q. Did the borrowers receive a settlement payment?
No compensation award or settlement for the borrowers was verified. The appellate court ordered further proceedings rather than damages.