The above-captioned cases, each brought pursuant to G.L. c. 240, § 6 to “remove a cloud from the title” of the properties in question, present two issues, one in common and the other in three variations. Each arises from a foreclosure sale of property in Springfield. The first issue is whether the Boston Globe, in which the notices of foreclosure sale were published, was “a newspaper with general circulation in the town where the land lies” (Springfield) within the meaning of G.L. c. 244, § 14 at the times of publication. The second is whether the published notices, which named the plaintiffs as the foreclosing parties even though they had no record interest in the property at the time of either publication or foreclosure, complied with G.L. c. 244, § 14.

For the reasons set forth in the court’s Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs’ Motions for Entry of Default Judgment of this date, I find and rule that none of the three foreclosures at issue in these lawsuits were rendered invalid because notice was published in the Boston Globe. I also find and rule that LaSalle Bank’s foreclosure in Rosario was not rendered invalid by its failure to record the assignment reflecting its status as holder of the mortgage prior to the foreclosure since it was, in fact, the holder by assignment at the time of the foreclosure, it truthfully claimed that status in the notice, and it could have produced proof of that status (the unrecorded assignment) if asked. Finally, I find and rule that the other two foreclosures (U.S. Bank’s in Ibanez and Wells Fargo Bank’s in Larace) are invalid because the notices (which named those entities) failed to name the mortgage holder as required by G.L. c. 244, § 14. They were not assigned an interest in those mortgages until after the foreclosure sales had taken place.

SO ORDERED.

By the court (Long, J.)