You are here: / / THE DEFAULT LETTER DID NOT DECLARE THE MORTGAGE DEBT IMMEDIATELY DUE AND...

THE DEFAULT LETTER DID NOT DECLARE THE MORTGAGE DEBT IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE; THEREFORE THE LETTER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default letter did not accelerate the debt and, therefore, the foreclosure action was not time-barred:

The appealed case directly on point with the dispositive issue here is Vargas v Deutsche Bank [2021 NY Slip Op. 01090], in which the Court of Appeals set a clear standard for determining whether a default letter constitutes a “clear and unequivocal acceleration of a debt.” Applying the long-standing rule … “that a noteholder must effect an ‘unequivocal overt act’ to accomplish such a substantial change in the parties’ contractual relationship,” the Court, in Vargas, held that to constitute a “clear and unequivocal” acceleration of a debt, a default letter must demand from a noteholder an immediate repayment of the entire outstanding loan, and must not also refer to acceleration only as a future event, indicating the debt was not accelerated at the time the letter was written.

… The default letter notified plaintiff that the subject mortgage loan was in default as of September 1, 2010. The letter gave plaintiff 30 days to cure the default by payment of the amount due and owing, which was just over $9,000. It also stated: “Unless we receive full payment of all past-due amounts, we will accelerate the maturity of the loan, declare the obligation due and payable without further demand, and begin foreclosure proceedings.” Thus, as in Vargas, the default letter did not effectuate an unequivocal acceleration of the debt because it did not seek an immediate repayment of the entire balance outstanding on the loan, but rather “referred to acceleration only as a future event, indicating the debt was not accelerated at the time the letter was written.” Kirschenbaum v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2021 NY Slip Op 02073, First Dept 4-1-21

Similar issue and result in Ditech Fin., LLC v Rector 70 LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 02062, First Dept 4-1-21

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION–A STEEP EMBANKMENT NEXT TO A GRASSY WALKWAY–SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE SAFE BY THE INSTALLATION OF A RAILING OR BARRIER (FIRST DEPT).
THREE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FALSE ARREST CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 BEGAN TO RUN UPON ARRAIGNMENT.
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WAS NOT RETROACTIVE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH FROM COVID-19 (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE COLLISION; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
CHILD WAS ASLEEP DURING THE INCIDENT INVOLVING FATHER, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME APARTMENT BUILDING WAS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL HUD REGULATION UNTIL THE HUD MORTGAGE WAS PAID OFF IN 2011, AFTER THAT THE BUILDING WAS SUBJECT TO THE NYC RENT STABILIZATION LAW (FIRST DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE AND INSTRUCTED THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
STATE’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL COMMITMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED. ​

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

A CONDITIONAL JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF A CHILD FOR ADOPTION MUST BE REVOKED WHERE... PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING...