You are here: / / THE SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ON RECORD WHEN DEFENDANT BANK ISSUED A LOAN...

THE SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ON RECORD WHEN DEFENDANT BANK ISSUED A LOAN SECURED BY THE PROPERTY WAS FORGED AND THEREFORE VOID; DEFENDANT BANK, THEREFORE, WAS NOT PROTECTED AS A BONA FIDE ENCUMBRANCER FOR VALUE PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY LAW 266 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Flagstar Bank was not protected as a bona fide encumbrancer for value under Real Property Law 266. The satisfaction of mortgage that was on record when Flagstar issue a loan secured by the property was forged and therefore void, not voidable:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that Flagstar’s interest in the subject property was protected by its status as a bona fide encumbrancer for value under Real Property Law § 266, since the satisfaction of mortgage executed and recorded before Flagstar’s issuance of a loan with respect to the subject property was determined to have been forged and was void, not merely voidable. A discharge or satisfaction of a mortgage is void at its inception when it is executed and recorded by one who has no interest in the mortgage … . Accordingly, the forged satisfaction of mortgage in this case was not entitled to any legal effect, and Flagstar’s encumbrance based on it is not protected … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Aspilaire, 2020 NY Slip Op 06510, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

You might also like
Failure to Plead Res Ipsa Loquitur Does Not Preclude Application of Theory.
Question of Fact Whether Movie Theater Breached Its Duty to Protect Patrons from Assault
ALTHOUGH SOME MONETARY RELIEF WAS SOUGHT, THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE CLAIM WAS A DECLARATION VERIZON HAD WRONGFULLY DISCONTINUED CLAIMANT’S LIFELINE SERVICE; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised About Whether Snow-Removal Contractor Created or Exacerbated the Dangerous Condition
Board of Commissioner’s Rejection of Hearing Officer’s Award of Supplemental Benefits Was Supported by Substantial Evidence—“Substantial Evidence” Defined and Review Criteria Explained
Unpreserved Erroneous Denial of Challenge to Juror Required Reversal
PLAINTIFF PLACED THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER ON SMALL LANDSCAPING ROCKS WHICH GAVE WAY CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ONE YEAR TIME-LIMIT IN CPLR 3404 FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE AN ACTION TO THE CALENDAR DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE WHERE THE ACTION WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND 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

THE MAJORITY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S... DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND...