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


/by
You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Two Options to Recover on Note and Mortgage; One in Law (Note); One in Equity (Foreclosure)
COURT-APPROVED CUSTODY AND PARENTAL ACCESS STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED WITHOUT A HEARING; UPON REMITTAL AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD BE APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO ATTACH PLEADINGS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DISREGARDED BY THE MOTION COURT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPAIRS, THEY DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT CREATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF IT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Civil Forfeiture Should Not Have Been Made Part of Defendant’s Sentence In the Absence of Defendant’s Voluntary Agreement
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT BECAUSE THE CONDUCT DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...