Massachusetts Homeowners Protest Controversial Mortgage Scheme

Homeowners in Massachusetts are increasingly facing foreclosure, with over 5,300 foreclosures reported in the state last year, according to the Massachusetts Division of Banks. This alarming trend has sparked public outcry, particularly following the introduction of a controversial mortgage program known as the Shared Appreciation Mortgage (SAM). This program aims to assist individuals grappling with foreclosure but has also drawn significant criticism for its terms and implications for homeowners.

In November 2024, during a speech by Gov. Maura Healey, a protester interrupted, demanding a veto of section 269 of a newly signed law that legalizes SAMs. The protester accused the initiative of enabling predatory lending practices by a nonprofit organization called Blue Hub Capital (BH). He claimed that the organization sought up to 50% of homeowners’ equity, raising concerns about the fairness of the arrangement.

Governor Healey clarified that she did not sponsor the bill but defended the SAM as a means to aid homeowners facing dire financial situations. “The SAM allows people in a tough situation facing foreclosure to actually have somebody come in and help them refinance and stay in their home,” she stated.

The controversy surrounding Blue Hub Capital stems from ongoing litigation. Since 2020, BH has faced a lawsuit brought by 18 homeowners, backed by the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA), alleging deceptive lending practices. Many homeowners, overwhelmed by tax liens and the threat of losing their properties, have turned to BH, which purchases properties in distress and resells them at a markup, often adding a 25% increase to the original price.

This new law not only legitimizes SAMs but also protects lenders like BH from lawsuits related to their past practices. The Massachusetts Attorney General has publicly opposed any retroactive legal immunity for these lenders, asserting that homeowners should retain their right to seek legal recourse for potential past wrongdoings.

Critics argue that homeowners were misled about the risks associated with SAMs, particularly regarding the potential loss of equity. Concerns have also been raised over the compensation of BH’s CEO, who reportedly earns an annual salary of $1.3 million. The head of NACA, Bruce Marks, condemned the new legislation, claiming it would allow BH to misrepresent its offerings and impose exorbitant interest rates.

In response, the CEO of BH defended the program, asserting that it provides families facing foreclosure with a lifeline to save their homes and build equity. He claimed that participants in the program would ultimately have more equity than their neighbors who did not engage with BH.

The legal battle took a significant turn in August 2025, when Chief Justice Michael Ricciuti ruled that BH’s activities exceeded charitable intent, stating, “They mark up the resale prices of the homes by 25% and collect a percentage of any further appreciation.” Following this ruling, NACA reiterated its stance, accusing BH of exploiting vulnerable homeowners through its SAM program.

In the aftermath of the court’s decision, BH announced it would pause its SAM offerings in Massachusetts and ten other states. A trial date to determine potential relief and damages for the plaintiffs has yet to be scheduled. One plaintiff expressed skepticism about BH’s commitment to public welfare, stating, “There is no way that anybody could say that this organization serves the public good.”

As the foreclosure crisis affects many families, the implications of the SAM program and its associated practices continue to unfold. Each foreclosure represents not just a financial loss but a deeper social issue impacting communities across Massachusetts and beyond.