You are here: / / THE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE SOLE...
,

THE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE SOLE REMEDY OF CURE AND REPURCHASE, PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENERAL CONTRACT DAMAGES DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined plaintiff trustee (HSBC) was limited to the cure and replurchase remedy described in the contracts for these residential mortgage-backed securities, and could not sue for general contract damages:

​

In these appeals stemming from four residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions, we are asked to decide whether claims for general contract damages based on alleged breaches of a “no untrue statement” provision can withstand a motion to dismiss based on a contract provision mandating cure or repurchase as the sole remedy for breaches of mortgage loan-specific representations and warranties. We hold that, inasmuch as the claims for general contract damages at issue here are grounded in alleged breaches of the mortgage loan-specific representations and warranties to which the limited remedy fashioned by the sophisticated parties applies, plaintiffs’ claims for general contract damages should be dismissed. * * *

​

.. .[I]t is readily apparent from the face of the complaints that the alleged breaches of the No Untrue Statement Provision are, in fact, based upon alleged breaches of the Mortgage Representations. … [T]he sole remedy for breaches of the Mortgage Representations is cure or repurchase. HSBC cannot “subvert this ‘exclusive remedies’ limitation” of liability by simply re-characterizing its claims … . Rather, “[r]eading the [contracts] as a harmonious and integrated whole” …  and honoring “the exclusive remedy that the[se] [sophisticated] parties fashioned” … , we conclude that the Sole Remedy Provision applies, precluding HSBC from seeking general contract damages for the particular claims challenged on this appeal. Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2 v Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08622, CtApp 12-12-17

 

SECURITIES (THE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE SOLE REMEDY OF CURE AND REPURCHASE, PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENERAL CONTRACT DAMAGES DISMISSED (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW (THE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE SOLE REMEDY OF CURE AND REPURCHASE, PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENERAL CONTRACT DAMAGES DISMISSED (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (THE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE SOLE REMEDY OF CURE AND REPURCHASE, PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENERAL CONTRACT DAMAGES DISMISSED (CT APP))/SOLE REMEDY PROVISIONS (THE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE SOLE REMEDY OF CURE AND REPURCHASE, PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENERAL CONTRACT DAMAGES DISMISSED (CT APP))

You might also like
DOCTORS, WHO ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO WARN PATIENT OF DISORIENTING EFFECTS OF DRUGS, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE DRIVEN BY THE PATIENT.
DEFENDANT’S PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL BECAUSE OF COUNSEL’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WITHOUT A HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (CT APP).
Court Can Not Use Its Contempt Power to Compel the District Attorney to Prosecute a Criminal Matter
Conviction for Selling T-Shirts without a Vendor’s License Upheld—Constitutional Expression vs. Commercial Enterprise
Proof Requirements for Criminal Enterprise Explained/Sufficiency of Evidence and Weight of Evidence Review Criteria Explained
Expired Fire Fighters’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Was Not “In Effect” Pursuant to Statute With Respect to Fire Fighters’ Mandated Contributions to Pension Plan
THE MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED MOTHER’S APPEAL OF FAMILY COURT’S FINDING MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING HER CUSTODY/HABEAS CORPUS PETITION STEMMING FROM THE OUT-OF-STATE FATHER’S FAILURE TO RETURN THE CHILDREN; THE MAJORITY SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE STANDING ISSUE; THREE DISSENTERS ARGUED FAMILY COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION BECAUSE NO CUSTODY ORDER WAS IN PLACE (CT APP).
AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (CT APP).

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

SUBSTITUTE TEACHER WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AS... UNDER THE TERMS OF THE RELEVANT CONTRACTS, WHICH MUST BE INTERPRETED TOGETHER...