You are here: / / Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Procee...
, ,

Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Proceeding

The Third Department determined that the estate of one of the mortgage-holders was a necessary party in a foreclosure proceeding. The court explained the relevant law:

“In an action to foreclose a mortgage, all parties having an interest, including persons holding title to the subject premises, must be made a ‘party . . . to the action'” … . Although defendant did not specifically raise the argument that decedent’s estate was a necessary party to the instant action, “the absence of a necessary party may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion” … . …. [W]here two individuals are the co-holders of a mortgage and one dies, the plaintiffs in a related foreclosure action would be the living mortgagee — or, in this case, his assignee … — and the personal representative of the deceased mortgagee … .

Here, given the lack of evidence that the corpus and distribution of decedent’s estate have previously been determined, such determination for the first time could inequitably affect decedent’s estate … . We find that decedent’s estate is therefore a necessary party to this action, as “[t]he rights, interests and equities of all of the parties claiming an interest in the mortgaged premises . . . should be settled and determined before any judgment of foreclosure and sale is entered” … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Sulyman, 2015 NY Slip Op 05989, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

You might also like
Derivative Neglect Finding Reversed—Operative Principles Explained
BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT).
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT ENTRUSTED HER MOTORCYCLE TO AN OPERATOR WHO DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE (THIRD DEPT).
SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINER AFTER DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND HANDCUFFED NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, CONVICTION REVERSED.
CLAIMANT, WHO WAS ON THE JOB OUT-OF-TOWN, WAS INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WHILE DRIVING FROM HIS HOTEL TO WHERE THE EMPLOYEES PICKED UP THEIR TRUCKS; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS UNDER THE TRAVELING EMPLOYEE EXCEPTION (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Comply with a Time-Limit for a Buy-Out in a Shareholders’ Agreement Was Trumped by the Overall Purpose of the Agreement—Shareholder Properly Compelled to Sell His Shares
Waiver of Appeal Invalid—Failure to Afford Defendant His Right to Counsel Prior To and During Grand Jury Proceedings Required Dismissal of the Indictment—“Guilty-Plea” Forfeiture Rule Did Not Apply

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

Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,”... Claim for Psychological Injury Should Have Been Upheld—Retail Employee...