You are here: / / Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene in a Foreclosure Action...
,

Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene in a Foreclosure Action Did Not Prohibit, Under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, the Plaintiff’s Action to Be Declared the Owner of the Subject Property/A Person With an Interest in Real Property Who Is Not Joined in a Foreclosure Action Is Unaffected by the Judgment of Foreclosure

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s (Jamison’s) action to declare her the owner of property subject to foreclosure should not have been dismissed under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Plaintiff’s ownership of the property had not been determined in the foreclosure action in which she unsuccessfully sought to intervene.  In addition, a person with an interest in real property who is not joined in a foreclosure action remains unaffected by the judgment of foreclosure:

The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has been necessarily decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling … . The party seeking the benefit of the doctrine of collateral estoppel must establish that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action, and is determinative in the present action … . Once the party invoking the doctrine discharges his or her burden in that regard, the party to be estopped bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination … .

Here, the bank failed to establish that the issue of whether Jamison has an interest in the subject property had already been decided, since the order it relied upon expressly provided that no determination had made by the court with respect to the issue of whether or not Jamison was a necessary or indispensable party, and Jamison’s motion to intervene as of right in the foreclosure action was denied without explanation. In any event, where a person with an interest in real property is not joined as a party to an action to foreclose a mortgage on that property, that person’s rights are left unaffected by the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and the foreclosure sale may be considered void as to the omitted person … . Accordingly, Jamison’s interest, if any, in the subject property was neither litigated nor determined in the foreclosure action, and the order denying her motion to intervene as of right in the foreclosure action was not an adjudication of her rights on the merits. Jamison v Aquai, 2015 NY Slip Op 04097, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS REPLY TO A COUNTERCLAIM TO ADD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS NOT PALPABLY IMPROPER AND DEFENDANT SHOWED THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE BY NOT OPPOSING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
REQUESTS FOR RECORDS OF SURGICAL PROCEDURES PERFORMED ON NON-PARTIES AND RECORDS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST DEFENDANT SURGEON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.
DEFENDANT TOOK THE GUN FROM THE VICTIM AND KILLED THE VICTIM IN SELF DEFENSE; THE DEFENDANT’S BRIEF, TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON AFTER THE SHOOTING DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS CALLING DEFENDANTS CON ARTISTS, SCAMMERS AND THIEVES WERE DEFAMATORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COUNTERCLAIMS ALLEGING DEFAMATION PROPERLY DENIED; THE LAW OF DEFAMATION CONCISELY AND COMPLETELY EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED PETITIONER GUARDIAN OF THE CHILD AND SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SECOND DEPT).
REMAINDER INTERESTS WHICH CAN ONLY BE DIVESTED BY A POWER OF APPOINTMENT ARE VESTED REMAINDER INTERESTS.
Criteria for Derivative Neglect Finding Explained (Evidence Insufficient)

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Bankruptcy” Exclusion in a Political Risk Insurance Policy Applied—Insurer... Plaintiff Did Not Adequately Allege a Presuit Demand Would Be Futile