You are here: / / WHEN THE BALANCES OF FIRST MORTGAGES ARE INCREASED WITH SECOND MORTGAGE...

WHEN THE BALANCES OF FIRST MORTGAGES ARE INCREASED WITH SECOND MORTGAGE LOANS AND A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION, AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) IS ENTERED CONSOLIDATING THE MORTGAGES INTO SINGLE LIENS, THE FIRST NOTES AND MORTGAGES STILL EXIST; WHEN A MORTGAGE IS ERRONEOUSLY DISCHARGED WITHOUT A SATISFACTION OF THE DEBT, THE MORTGAGE MAY BE REINSTATED IF THERE HAS BEEN NO DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE ON THE ERRONEOUS DISCHARGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that where balances of first mortgage loans are increased with second mortgage loans and a Consolidation, Extension, and Modification Agreement (CEMA) is entered consolidating the mortgages into single liens, the first notes and mortgages still exist. And where, as here, there has been an erroneous discharge of mortgage without a satisfaction of the mortgage debt, the mortgage may be reinstated where there has been no detrimental reliance on erroneous discharge:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated … that MERS [Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc] erred in executing and filing the satisfaction of mortgage dated October 31, 2005, which certified that the first mortgage in the principal sum of $600,000 was paid. … [T]he satisfaction references the second mortgage, dated April 12, 2005, in the sum of $8,421.28, and acknowledges that the two mortgages were combined and consolidated to form a “single first lien.” Accordingly, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or support their contention that no mortgage existed upon which the plaintiff can foreclose. Bank of Am., N.A. v Schwartz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06602, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

You might also like
PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AS SHE WAS CROSSING THE ENTRANCE TO A PARKING LOT; DEFENDANT TESTIFIED HE NEVER SAW THE PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HER MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ALLEGING PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED MOTHER GUARDIAN OF THE JUVENILE, DISPENSED WITH SERVICE ON FATHER, AND MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL JUVENILE IMMIGRATION STATUS (SJIS); ALL OF THE COMPLICATED, INTERTWINED STATUTORY LAW EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Corporations Owned by the Individual Operating the Businesses Were Not the “Alter Ego” of the Individual Owner—Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Not Met—Corporation Which Leased the Property from the Corporation Which Owned the Property Was Entitled to Compensation for Fixtures
THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH ALLOWED THE SEIZURE OF BUSINESS COMPUTERS, COMPUTER FILES AND BUSINESS DOCUMENTS WITH ONLY A DATE-RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO A GENERAL WARRANT, THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE BUT BEFORE THE CLOSING, THE MORTGAGOR STARTED AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUD IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; THE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT RENDER THE TITLE UNMARKETABLE SUCH THAT THE PURCHASER COULD SET ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE AND HAVE THE DOWN PAYMENT RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).
IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT IT MUST CONSIDER, THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED AND THE MATTER REMITTED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE BUILT-IN WATER HEATER WAS A “STRUCTURE” AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED... THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER RESIDED IN ITALY, THEREFORE NEW YORK WAS NOT...