You are here: / / FORECLOSURE COULD PROCEED DESPITE ERRONEOUS SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE.

FORECLOSURE COULD PROCEED DESPITE ERRONEOUS SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE.

The Second Department determined foreclosure proceedings could proceed despite an erroneous, recorded satisfaction of mortgage:

“A mortgagee may have an erroneous discharge of mortgage, without concomitant satisfaction of the underlying mortgage debt, set aside, and have the mortgage reinstated where there has not been detrimental reliance on the erroneous recording” … . “Only bona fide purchasers and lenders for value are entitled to protection from an erroneous discharge of a mortgage based upon their detrimental reliance thereon” … . …

… [T]he complaint's factual allegations, i.e., that the plaintiff was the holder and owner of the subject note and mortgage, that the satisfaction of mortgage was erroneously executed and recorded, that the mortgage had not been satisfied, that the original mortgagor defaulted on the note and mortgage, and that the balance due under the note remained outstanding, were sufficient to set forth viable causes of action to foreclose the mortgage and to cancel and vacate the satisfaction of mortgage … . Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v E & G Dev. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 02988, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


You might also like
RETROACTIVE IMPOSTION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL SEX OFFENDER VICTIM FEE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE JUDGE IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSPENDED FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS WITHOUT HOLDING A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
EXTENSION OF A LEASE WITH A MUNICIPALITY WAS RATIFIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE; THE BANK NEED NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IF THE ISSUE IS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER; REPLY PAPERS CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES FIRST RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; BUT REPLY PAPERS MAY NOT PRESENT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVIDENCE ADDRESSING AN ISSUE RAISED IN THE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK.

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

VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DID NOT FAIL TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL... PARTY WHO SIGNS A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT IS CONCLUSIVELY BOUND BY ITS...