MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendants appeal from a judgment of the Housing Court awarding possession and costs to the plaintiffs and ordering execution to issue. We affirm.
We summarize the facts drawn from the judges findings. In April 2006, defendant Jean E. Louis purchased a two-family house located at 60-62 Wellsmere Road in Roslindale (premises). In connection with the acquisition, he executed a promissory note in the amount of $400,000 in favor of the Geneva Mortgage Company (lender), and gave a mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), which “act[ed] solely as a nominee for the [l]ender and the [l]enders successors and assigns” (mortgage). MERS subsequently assigned the mortgage to “HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Ace Securities Corp., Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-HE4, Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates” (HSBC Bank).
When Mr. Louis defaulted on the loan, HSBC Bank, acting pursuant to the statutory power of sale in the mortgage, foreclosed on the mortgage on November 13, 2017. After submitting the highest viable bid at the foreclosure auction and tendering payment, HSBC Bank acquired a foreclosure deed to the premises.
4
By quitclaim deed executed on August 9, 2018, HSBC Bank conveyed title to the plaintiffs in consideration of $547,050. On September 10, 2018, the deed was recorded with the registered land division of the Suffolk County registry of deeds.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs served the defendants with a notice to quit. When the defendants refused to vacate, the plaintiffs filed a summary process complaint seeking possession of apartment two of the premises. Following a bench trial on April 1, 2019, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for possession and that the defendants had failed to establish a legal defense. Accordingly, she ordered judgment to enter for the plaintiffs for possession and costs and execution to issue.
5
On appeal, the defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the plaintiffs own the premises. They also argue that the judge “overlooked evidence” establishing that the plaintiffs defrauded them of their home. “[W]e accept [the trial judges] findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.” Youghal, LLC v. Entwistle, 484 Mass. 1019, 1019 (2020), quoting Anastos v. Sable, 443 Mass. 146, 149 (2004).
There was no error in the judges ruling that the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their right to possession. See Federal Natl Mtge. Assn v. Hendricks, 463 Mass. 635, 637, 642 (2012) (showing may be made by producing attested copy of recorded foreclosure deed and affidavit of sale). The plaintiffs submitted the necessary documents in evidence: the recorded foreclosure deed, the affidavit of sale, and a certified copy of the recorded quitclaim deed from HSBC Bank to them.
The defendants of course were entitled to put the question of the propriety of the sale or the plaintiffs legal title to the foreclosed property in issue. See Bank of N.Y. v. Bailey, 460 Mass. 327, 333 (2011). However, having heard the evidence, the judge found that the defendants did not raise a colorable challenge to the plaintiffs title.
Absent a transcript, we are unable to meaningfully review the judges findings of fact. See Cameron v. Carelli, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 83-84 (1995).
6
The defendants did not supply a trial transcript. Thus, from all that appears before us, the defendants arguments are based solely on unsubstantiated and disputed factual assertions. See id. at 85-86. We therefore affirm.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
4
. On March 29, 2018, HSBC Bank recorded the foreclosure deed and statutory form with the registered land division of the Suffolk County registry of deeds. In his affidavit of sale, an executive of HSBCs attorney-in-fact, Bank of America, N.A., averred that the bank had published notice of the sale on three specific dates in a particular local newspaper and that he had complied with the requirements of G. L. c. 244, § 14.
5
. The judge issued corrected findings of facts, rulings of law, and an order for judgment in order to correct a scriveners error.
6
. To the extent that the defendants claim that the plaintiffs failed to produce a purchase and sales agreement in discovery “proving they are [the] true owners of the property,” the plaintiffs produced copies of both a foreclosure deed in HSBC Banks name and a subsequent quitclaim deed from HSBC Bank conveying the premises to the plaintiffs. Those deeds provided sufficient proof of ownership.