You are here: / / PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT MEET FACE TO FACE WITH DEFENDANT BEFORE THREE MONTHLY...
,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT MEET FACE TO FACE WITH DEFENDANT BEFORE THREE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WERE MISSED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been denied. Plaintiff bank did not seek a face to face meeting with defendant before three mortgage payments were missed:

In her pro se answer to the amended complaint, defendant alleged that the loan was subject to Federal Housing Administration guidelines and that plaintiff failed to comply with the regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development requiring the mortgagee to undertake certain pre-foreclosure measures, including a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor, with respect to such loans. Although defendant did not specifically cite 24 CFR 203.604, the regulation establishing the face-to-face meeting requirement, in her answer, we afford the pro se answer a liberal reading … , and conclude that defendant “sufficiently apprise[d] plaintiff” that she was challenging plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements of that regulation … .

Plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with the requirements of 24 CFR 203.604 and thus failed to establish that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the amended complaint… . More specifically, plaintiff did not arrange or attempt to arrange a face-to-face interview with defendant at any time “before three full monthly installments . . . [were] unpaid” (§ 203.604 [b]). Instead, the first attempt was made in June 2011, i.e., more than six months after the first installment went unpaid. Moreover, plaintiff did not establish that it sent notices to defendant by certified mail, as required by section 203.604 (d).  Bank of Am., N.A. v Spencer, 2018 NY Slip Op 07573, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT MEET FACE TO FACE WITH DEFENDANT BEFORE THREE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WERE MISSED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/BANKING LAW (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT MEET FACE TO FACE WITH DEFENDANT BEFORE THREE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WERE MISSED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
References to Defendant’s Prior Bad Acts in a Recorded Phone Call Were Not Inextricably Intertwined with Admissible Statements and Should Have Been Redacted—Conviction Reversed
THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS HAVE HELD THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (K) WILL NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAS HELD THE VIOLATION OF THAT SAME PROVISION SUPPORTS A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
INCARCERATION AFTER A PROBATION VIOLATION IN THIS VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE DEEMED HARSH AND SEVERE, PROBATION REINSTATED WITH 100 HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE (FOURTH DEPT).
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND ABUSE OF PROCESS CAUSES OF ACTION NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED.
Homeowners’ Association Had Power to Direct Property Owners to Remove Chickens
Ordinance Imposing a Duty Upon Abutting Property Owners to Keep Sidewalks in Good Repair Raised a Question of Fact whether a Defect Caused by a Tree Root Should Have Been Repaired by the Defendant—The Defect Was Not So Significant As to Allow a Determination of Defendant’s Liability as a Matter of Law
JUROR NEVER STATED SHE COULD PUT ASIDE HER BIAS IN FAVOR OF POLICE OFFICERS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
COUNTY COURT ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THREE INDICTMENT COUNTS AFTER IMPROPERLY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.

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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND MANNER OF... ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) APPROVED THE GAS PIPELINE,...