The case is a wrongful foreclosure where due process of law has been denied, property rights have been violated, and a Massachusetts statute has been ignored or misinterpreted, which provides an exemption allowing a co-representative to bring a complaint without the concurrence of another representative for emergency action to preserve the estate. Serious procedural violations took place by the defendant, as is evidenced by the documentation submitted to the lower court, including a late modification notice sent after the auctioning of the Plaintiff's home. A failure to recognize legitimate standing has prevented the Plaintiff the justice he deserves, including discovery.

1. Whether a pro se beneficiary and co-representative of an estate, seeking to prevent the wrongful foreclosure and loss of estate property, has standing under Massachusetts General Law c. 190B, § 3-703 and § 3-717, when emergency action is necessary and concurrence from a co-representative is not reasonably obtainable.

2. Whether longstanding possession, use, and improvements of a property by an estate beneficiary constitutes ownership rights sufficient to invoke standing under doctrines of adverse possession or equitable title under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. Whether due process is violated when state courts bar a pro se litigant's claims without addressing substantial evidence of a lender's statutory violations under foreclosure laws, including wrongful notice and noncompliance with M.G.L. c. 244, § 35B.

4. Whether courts may disregard affidavits, documentary evidence, and constitutional claims of shelter, property rights, and religious exercise raised by a pro se litigant seeking to protect his home and property.

Whether a pro se beneficiary and co-representative of an estate has standing to prevent wrongful foreclosure when emergency action is necessary and concurrence from a co-representative is not obtainable