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
Reports by Attorneys Which Relate to an Insurer’s Decision to Accept or Reject a Claim Are Discoverable—Reports by Attorneys Made After the Claim Is Rejected Are Not Discoverable
AN UNRESTRICTED EASEMENT ALLOWING ACCESS TO A LAKE ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN AND USE A DOCK (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Resentencing After Original Sentence Expired Violates Double Jeopardy Clause
A FACTUAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD CONVICTION AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Separation Agreement Found Unconscionable
GIVEN WHAT THE INFORMANT TOLD THE POLICE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED HIM ON THE STREET PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION THE DEFENDANT HAD A WEAPON AND THEREBY JUSTIFIED PURSUIT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION FROM THE INFORMANT WAS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFDENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND BEFORE OR AFTER THE CHASE STARTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMBIGUITY IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY WAS NOT CLEARED UP BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE INSURER; THE INSURER SHOULD NOT HAVE DISCLAIMED COVERAGE FOR WATER DAMAGE CAUSED BY FROZEN PIPES (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED FATHER’S ATTORNEY TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO FATHER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED IN FATHER’S ABSENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

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,...