You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Deed Procured by Fraud and Whether Mortgagee Had...
, ,

Question of Fact Whether Deed Procured by Fraud and Whether Mortgagee Had Notice of the Potential Fraud

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether a property transfer was procured by fraud.  If so, the deed and the related mortgage would be void with respect to the mortgagee/incumbrancer (Wells Fargo).  There was evidence the mortgagee was on notice about the possible fraud and there was evidence of fraud in the factum:

Real Property Law § 266 protects the “title of a purchaser or incumbrancer for a valuable consideration, unless it appears that he [or she] had previous notice of the fraudulent intent of his [or her] immediate grantor, or of the fraud rendering void the title of such grantor.” Thus, a mortgagee is not protected in its title if it had previous notice of potential fraud by the immediate seller, or knowledge of facts which put it on inquiry notice as to the existence of a right in potential conflict with its own … . A mortgagee has a duty to inquire when it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to inquire into the circumstances of the transaction at issue … . A mortgagee who fails to make such an inquiry is not a bona fide incumbrancer for value … . Here, Wells Fargo’s submissions contain information regarding the plaintiff’s possession of the property that put it on inquiry notice as to the plaintiff’s potential right to the property … . Thus, Wells Fargo failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether it lacked notice of a potential fraud … . Real Property Law § 266 also does not protect a bona fide incumbrancer for value where there has been fraud in the factum, as the deed is void and conveys no title … . Such a conveyance conveys nothing, and a subsequent bona fide incumbrancer for value receives nothing … . Here, Wells Fargo failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether the subject deeds are void ab initio on the ground of fraud in the factum … . Williams v Mentore, 2014 NY Slip Op 01449, 2nd Dept 3-5-14

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL.
THE BANK’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS OF THE SLIP AND FALL CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry After Learning of a Juror’s Comments During Trial Indicating Her Lack of Impartiality Required Reversal
ABSENCE OF SAFETY RAIL ON SCAFFOLDING ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Prompt Pay Law” Affords a Private Right of Action Against An Insurer... Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Test...