You are here: / / Purchaser of Mortgage Was Not a “Bona Fide Encumbrancer”—Another...

Purchaser of Mortgage Was Not a “Bona Fide Encumbrancer”—Another Previously Filed Mortgage Was the Operative Mortgage

The Second Department determined Deutsche Bank did not “win the race” to the recording office (so as to cut off another filed mortgage) and was not a “bona fide encumbrancer” because the person living in the mortgaged premises and paying taxes on the property was not consistent with Deutsche Bank’s mortgage:

“[T]o cut off a prior lien, such as a mortgage, the purchaser must have no knowledge of the outstanding lien and win the race to the recording office” … . * * *

” [W]here a purchaser has knowledge of any fact, sufficient to put him on inquiry as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with [what] he is about to purchase, he is presumed either to have made the inquiry, and ascertained the extent of such prior right, or to have been guilty of a degree of negligence equally fatal to his claim, to be considered as a bona fide purchaser'” … . “Similarly, a mortgagee is under a duty to make an inquiry where it is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue'” … . ” Actual possession of real estate is sufficient notice to a person proposing to take a mortgage on the property, and to all the world of the existence of any right which the person in possession is able to establish'” … . Mortgage Elec Registration Sys Inc v Pagan, 2014 NY Slip Op 05309, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

You might also like
Courts’ Limited Review Powers Re: an Administrative Determination Made After a Hearing Clearly Explained
DEFAULT JUDGMENT GIVEN RES JUDICATA EFFECT.
JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON PLAINTIFF’S INACTION RE A FORGED DEED NOT DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL THEREFORE NOT MET.
No Demonstrated Connection Between Stair-Related Code Violations and Injury
AN EYEWITNESS TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL TESTIFIED PLAINTIFF TOLD HER SHE TRIPPED OVER A MUDSILL BECAUSE OF DIM LIGHTING; PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, PROVIDED AN OPINION IN THE AREA OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, THE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATED THE EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER THE OPINION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER PROOF OF WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ARRESTING OFFICER OBSERVED SOME INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS BY THE DEFENDANT AT A LOCATION KNOWN FOR DRUG ACTIVITY, THE OFFICER DID NOT SEE ANY PROPERTY OR CURRENCY CHANGE HANDS AND DID NOT FIND ANY DRUGS OR CURRENCY ON THE DEFENDANT OR THE TWO MEN WITH HIM ON THE STREET; THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE HEROIN SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND IN THE POLICE CAR AND DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE HAD “DITCHED” THE DRUGS IN THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Claimant’s Inculpatory Statement Demonstrated to Be Product of Police... No Standing to Bring an Action Contending Foie Gras Produced by Forced Feeding...