You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION INSPECTED THE VACANT PROPERTY...
,

ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION INSPECTED THE VACANT PROPERTY AND MADE PERIODIC REPAIRS, IT WAS NOT A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION” SUCH THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED; IN ORDER TO BE DEEMED A “MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION,” THE MORTGAGOR MUST CONSENT TO THE BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the statute of limitations had run on defendant bank’s foreclosure counterclaim. The bank argued that the statute of limitations had been tolled because it was a “mortgagee in possession,” in that it kept tabs on the property and made repairs. The majority held that, in order to be a “mortgagee in possession,” the mortgagor must consent to the possession. Such consent constitutes an acknowledgment of the debt. The mortgagor here did not consent to the mortgagee’s possession of the property:

We disagree with our dissenting colleague that determining whether a mortgagee qualifies as a mortgagee in possession for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations requires “an analysis of the actions taken by the mortgagee to secure the property financially and physically.” Rather, the determination only requires an analysis of whether the mortgagee took full possession of the property pursuant to an agreement with the mortgagor. Mardenborough v U.S. Bank N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 00034, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

You might also like
ABSENCE OF A COMMA, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DICTATE THE MEANING OF A CODE PROVISION.
Escalating Intrusiveness of Police-Encounter with Defendant Justified Under DeBour Criteria—Criteria Explained and Applied
NO PROOF DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY, AS OPPOSED TO TEMPORARILY, DEPRIVE COMPLAINANT OF POSSESSION OF HIS CAR, ATTEMPTED ROBBERY CONVICTIONS REVERSED.
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
NO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A TORT CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEW YORK.
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Student Assumed the Risk of Injury from Indoor Soccer Practice–Relevant Law Discussed In Some Depth
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS BY CONDITIONING ACCESS ON THE CONSENT OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
SIDEWALK DAMAGE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AFFIRMATIVE NEGLIGENCE BY THE CITY; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS PROPERLY APPLIED THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE... DEFENDANT PROPERLY REJECTED THE MACHINES AS NONCONFORMING GOODS, PLAINTIFF DID...