Did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court err in affirming the Housing Court's decision granting possession to Fannie Mae and the third-party purchaser without addressing the Federal constitutional arguments raised by the Petitioner, and did the deficient notice of default and Massachusetts non-judicial foreclosure process fail to provide homeowners with the procedural safeguards required by Due Process?

This Court has determined that the loss of an individual ’s home constitutes a final, lasting deprivation of property entitling him/her to the protection of the due process clause. Los Angeles v. David, 538 U.S. 715, 717 (2003). The questions presented involve not only the statespecific issues of foreclosure procedures in Massachusetts but also a national concern: whether homeowners nationwide are entitled to constitutional due process protections when their homes are taken in non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. The conflicting rulings between the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which ignored or misapplied fundamental due process principles, highlight a constitutional conflict that this Court is best positioned to resolve. This is not merely an issue of state procedural law; it is a matter of federal constitutional rights that warrant Supreme Court intervention. Here, Rev. Anthony Michael Branch's home was foreclosed on, although his evidence showed a legally deficient notice of default was sent by an entity that masked the Federal National Mortgage Association as the property ’s owner. During Branch ’s various legal challenges to the foreclosure, he argued his evidence unsuccessfully, evidence that showed the foreclosure notice was legally deficient, the wrong party foreclosed, and the third-party purchaser could not intervene while the case was on appeal and take his property without allowing him to challenge the purchaser ’s title. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court err in affirming the Housing Court's decision granting possession to Fannie Mae and the third-party purchaser without addressing the Federal constitutional arguments raised by the Petitioner and his abihty to challenge the title of the third-party purchaser in the context of an unlawful foreclosure? 2. Did the deficient notice of default and the Massachusetts non-judicial foreclosure process fail to provide homeowners with the procedural safeguards required by Due Process? Ill LIST OF ALL PARTIES All parties appear in the case caption on the cover page. RELATED CASES Pentagon Federal Credit Union v. Anthony Branch (Massachusetts Land Court, Suffolk County, No. 15SM001297 (Military Service Case, February 23, 2015). Petitioner Anthony Michael Branch, District of Massachusetts, United States Bankruptcy Court, No. 16-10039, (Chapter 7 discharge, May 15, 2016). Federal National Mortgage Association v. Anthony Michael Branch, Southeastern Housing Court, Brockton, Massachusetts, No. 17-H83-SP-02483BR (Summary process eviction filed June 12, 2017, case administratively transferred to Metro South Housing Court, No. 18-H82-SP-0281, amended summary judgment entered May 4, 2018). Federal National Mortgage Association & Roberto Pina Cardoso v. Anthony Michael Branch, Massachusetts Appeals Court, No. 2019-J-0333 (Single Justice Session), July 18, 2019 (Cardoso ’s appeal from a denial of intervention in the Housing Court was denied). Federal National Mortgage Association u. Anthony Michael Branch (Massachusetts Appeals Court, No. 2019-P-0004, January 3, 2019, use and occupancy payments, decided as moot, SJC answered the questions in the King decision, September 21, 2020). Federal National Mortgage Association u. Anthony Michael Branch, Massachusetts Appeals Court, January 25, 2022, 2021-J-0470 (Appeal bond affirmed). Federal National Mortgage Association v. Anthony Michael Branch, Massachusetts Appeals Court, No. 2021 -P-0899, May 23, 2023 (Main appeal in the summary process case dismissed as moot; further appellate review allowed under No. FAR 29376, and the case transferred to Supreme Judicial Court No. 13510).