You are here: / / In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed...
,

In an Action Stemming from the Purchase of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, the Breach of Defendant’s Representations and Warranties Concerning the Borrowers’ Incomes, Occupancy Status and Debt Obligations Occurred on the Date the Contract Was Executed (Starting the Six-Year Statute of Limitations at that Point)—Defendant’s Obligation to Cure or Repurchase Did Not Constitute a Second Contract—Defendant’s Refusal to Cure or Repurchase, Therefore, Did Not Start the Running of Another Six-Year Limitations Period

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, in an action involving residential mortgage-backed securities, determined that a cause of action based upon breach of representations and warranties accrued on the date the contract was executed. A few years after the parties executed a mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA) and a pooling a servicing agreement (PSA) borrowers began to default, resulting in hundreds of millions in losses.  Upon investigation it was determined that the underlying mortgage loans failed to comply with the defendant’s representations and warranties about the borrowers’ incomes, occupancy status and existing debts.  The Court of Appeals held that the breach of the representations and warranties occurred when the MLPA was executed on March 28, 2006.  The action was commenced on the last day of the limitations period (on March 28, 2012), but was untimely because the contractual conditions precedent to suit had not been complied with as of that date. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s refusal to cure or repurchase after notification in January, 2012, breached a second contract and started the six-year statute running from that point. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s repurchase obligation was not a valid agreement “to undertake a separate obligation, the breach of which does not arise until some future date…”.  “[Defendant’s] cure or repurchase obligation could not reasonably be viewed as a distinct promise of future performance. It was dependent on, and indeed derivative of, [defendant’s] representations and warranties, which did not survive the closing and were breached, if at all, on that date…” . ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04873, CtApp 6-11-15

 

You might also like
Gabriela A’s Actions Constituted Disobedience Under PINS Criteria, Not Criminal Actions (Resisting Arrest/Obstruction of Governmental Administration) Under Juvenile Delinquency Criteria
MOTHER’S APPEALS FROM EXPIRED PERMANENCY HEARING ORDERS (RE: CHILDREN’S PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE) WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS MOOT, TWO COMPREHENSIVE DISSENTING OPINIONS (THREE DISSENTING JUDGES) (CT APP).
BECAUSE NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROVIDED BY A SELF-INSURER ARE A CREATURE STATUTE, NOT AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE THREE-YEAR (NOT SIX-YEAR) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO NO-FAULT CLAIMS AGAINST A SELF-INSURER (CT APP).
PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM A WEBSITE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CONNECTED TO THE DEFENDANT, CONVICTION REVERSED.
DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED.
CONSULT THIS OPINION FOR IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS OF WHEN POSTREADINESS DELAY SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PEOPLE; THE DISSENT ARGUED THIS RULING UPENDS DECADES OF PRECEDENT BY ATTRIBUTING A DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COURT TO THE PEOPLE, RESULTING IN A SPEEDY-TRIAL VIOLATION (CT APP). ​
THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE TO THE MURDER CHARGE; THAT FAILURE ALSO MAY HAVE TAINTED THE CRIMINAL-POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CONVICTION, WHICH REQUIRES THE INTENT TO USE THE WEAPON UNLAWFULLY (CT APP). ​
IN THIS FIRE-DAMAGE CASE, THE INSURANCE POLICY IMPOSED A TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD; THE ACTION WAS NOT BROUGHT UNTIL SIX YEARS AFTER THE FIRE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY DETAILS DEMONSTRATING WHY THE RESTORATION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

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

Florida’s Law of Restrictive Covenants Re: Non-Solicitation of Customers... Although a Close Case, the Evidence Supported Defendant’s Manslaughter...