You are here: / / Bank Did Not Negotiate a Mortgage Modification in Good Faith as Required...
,

Bank Did Not Negotiate a Mortgage Modification in Good Faith as Required by CPLR 3408—Applicable “Good Faith” Standard Determined and Explained

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that Supreme Court had properly found that plaintiff bank did not negotiate in good faith a mortgage modification pursuant to the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) (CPLR 3408).  In the course of the opinion, the court described the applicable “good faith” standard:

…[W]e hold that the issue of whether a party failed to negotiate in “good faith” within the meaning of CPLR 3408(f) should be determined by considering whether the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the party’s conduct did not constitute a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution. We reject the plaintiff’s contention that, in order to establish a party’s lack of good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f), there must be a showing of gross disregard of, or conscious or knowing indifference to, another’s rights. Such a determination would permit a party to obfuscate, delay, and prevent CPLR 3408 settlement negotiations by acting negligently, but just short of deliberately, e.g., by carelessly providing misinformation and contradictory responses to inquiries, and by losing documentation. Our determination is consistent with the purpose of the statute, which provides that parties must negotiate in “good faith” in an effort to resolve the action, and that such resolution could include, “if possible,” a loan modification (CPLR 3408[f]…).

Where a plaintiff fails to expeditiously review submitted financial information, sends inconsistent and contradictory communications, and denies requests for a loan modification without adequate grounds, or, conversely, where a defendant fails to provide requested financial information or provides incomplete or misleading financial information, such conduct could constitute the failure to negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

In this case, the totality of the circumstances supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to act in good faith, as the plaintiff thwarted any reasonable opportunities to settle the action, thus contravening the purpose and intent of CPLR 3408. US Bank NA v Sarmiento, 2014 NY Slip Op 05533, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

You might also like
Naming an Entity Other than the Lender as Mortgagee Did Not Render the Mortgage Null and Void
DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Action Against Broker for Failure to Procure Correct Coverage Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Question of Injured Worker’s Employment Status Must First Be Determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board
DSS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP, TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REVERSED.
A Slip and Fall Defendant Who Moves for Summary Judgment Must Demonstrate When the Area Where the Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected or Cleaned
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Skater Assumed the Risk of a Collision with a Skating Guard Who May Have Acted Recklessly
THE COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN A FELONY; THE LENGTH OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT AFFECTED (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

Defendant’s Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders Warranted Striking... Advertising in New York and an Interactive Website Not Enough to Exercise Long-Arm...