You are here: / / Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Procee...
, ,

Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Proceeding

The Third Department determined that the estate of one of the mortgage-holders was a necessary party in a foreclosure proceeding. The court explained the relevant law:

“In an action to foreclose a mortgage, all parties having an interest, including persons holding title to the subject premises, must be made a ‘party . . . to the action'” … . Although defendant did not specifically raise the argument that decedent’s estate was a necessary party to the instant action, “the absence of a necessary party may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion” … . …. [W]here two individuals are the co-holders of a mortgage and one dies, the plaintiffs in a related foreclosure action would be the living mortgagee — or, in this case, his assignee … — and the personal representative of the deceased mortgagee … .

Here, given the lack of evidence that the corpus and distribution of decedent’s estate have previously been determined, such determination for the first time could inequitably affect decedent’s estate … . We find that decedent’s estate is therefore a necessary party to this action, as “[t]he rights, interests and equities of all of the parties claiming an interest in the mortgaged premises . . . should be settled and determined before any judgment of foreclosure and sale is entered” … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Sulyman, 2015 NY Slip Op 05989, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

You might also like
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTION THAT THE DECEDENT LACKED TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, THE INQUIRY IS CONFINED TO THE TIME AT WHICH THE WILL IS SIGNED, TWO DISSENTERS (THIRD DEPT). ​
BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE INDICATED VISITATION WITH FATHER WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; FATHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
HEARING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHY AN INMATE WITNESS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO TESTIFY LATER REFUSED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
“Safety Consultant” Liable for Failure to Maintain Safe Work Site
THE SPEEDY TRIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WERE VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT).
THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT PARTICIPATED IN THE MUGGING, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE VICTIM SUFFERED PHYSICAL INJURY, AND INSUFFICENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED THE VICTIM’S WALLET AND CELL PHONE (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did Not Violate the Confrontation Clause/No Evidence the Party Conducted Any Testing or Analysis

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

Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,”... Claim for Psychological Injury Should Have Been Upheld—Retail Employee...