You are here: / Debtor-Creditor

RECOVERY OF A $280,000 SETTLEMENT PURPORTEDLY PAID TO DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF IS BARRED BY THE STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PROTECTION ACT WHICH REQUIRES COURT APPROVAL PRIOR TO PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint seeking to recover settlement funds ($280,000) purportedly made to the defendants should have been dismissed. The settlement was never approved by a court in violation of the Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA) (General Obligations Law 5-1701):

… [D]efendants demonstrated that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, on the ground that the plaintiff’s claims are prohibited by the SSPA. Enacted in 2002, the purpose of the SSPA … was to establish “procedural safeguards for those who sell settlements that are awarded as a result of litigation,” due to a recognition that “[m]any of the people who receive such settlements are being compensated for very serious, debilitating injuries, and have been unfairly taken advantage of in the past by the businesses that purchase their settlements” … . “Under this law, transfers such as the one at issue are prohibited unless approved by a court of competent jurisdiction based upon express findings … that the transfer is in the best interest of the payee and that the discount rate, fees and expenses used to determine the net amount advanced are fair and reasonable” (… General Obligations Law § 5-1706). In circumstances … where payment for a structured settlement transfer is made to the payee prior to the court’s approval of the transfer, whether intentionally or due to a mistaken belief that the transfer had already been approved, a proposed transferee must seek nunc pro tunc approval of the transfer, and such approval is not guaranteed … . Pinnacle Capital, LLC v O’Bleanis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01540, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: The Structured Settlement Protection Act (General Obligations Law 5-17-1 et seq) requires court approval of structured settlements. If, as here, there was no court approval before plaintiff purportedly paid the funds to defendants, the plaintiff seeking to recover the funds from the defendants may be out of luck.

,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION RELIED ON EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT AN ACTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT BY SUMMONS IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 (FOURTH DEPT),

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s cause of action was not for the payment of money only (CPLR 3213) for which a summons in lieu of  a complaint was an appropriate vehicle:

As proof of the agreement to reduce defendant’s liability under the guaranty and the amount of that reduction, plaintiff relies on evidence extrinsic to the instrument consisting of representations in the affidavit of its chief operating officer, deposit receipt printouts from the online system of plaintiff’s bank, and a guaranty balance chart apparently generated by plaintiff showing the calculation of defendant’s revised liability.

In our view, “[g]oing that far afield from the [financial] instrument itself does not appear to comport with the simple standards” embodied in the statute and related case law … . Indeed, inasmuch as plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that outside evidence beyond “simple proof of nonpayment or a similar de minimis deviation from the face of the document[s]” is needed to determine the amount due, we conclude that “[p]laintiff’s action falls far short of satisfying the [CPLR] 3213 threshold requirement” … . Counsel Fin. II LLC v Bortnick, 2023 NY Slip Op 01441, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff relied on extrinsic evidence. The action was not, therefore, for the “payment of money only” within the meaning of CPLR 3213 and was not properly brought by a summons in lieu of complaint.

 

, ,

THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF COLLATERAL TO THE MAJORITY LENDERS WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO THE MINORITY LENDERS IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS IN THIS PRIVATE FORECLOSURE; THE MINORITY LENDERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined the breach of contract claims by the minority lenders against the majority lenders and a collateral agent should not have been dismissed. Collateral was sold to the majority lenders but the proceeds were not distributed to the minority lenders in the manner required by the credit and security agreements. The opinion is fact-specific and far too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he pro rata sharing provisions required that all minority lenders receive pro rata treatment of their debt obligations, which meant that the proceeds of the sale of the collateral (notes and equity) should have been distributed to all secured lenders pro rata in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement. … While the Collateral Agent, as directed by the majority lenders, was authorized to define the terms, conditions, and limitations of how the restructuring sale should be carried out, the reorganization had to be for the pro rata benefit of all those holders of secured debt, including minority lenders. Thus, the minority lenders have the right to object to the restructure sale conducted through credit bidding based upon the failure to provide them adequate protection of their pro rata interest on the foreclosed collateral. AEA Middle Mkt. Debt Funding LLC v Marblegate Asset Mgt., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01157, First Dept 3-7-23

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion concerns a private foreclosure of collateral and the distribution of the proceeds to the majority and minority lenders pursuant to complex credit and security agreements.

 

, ,

THE ACTION BY PLAINTIFF SELLER TO RECOVER ON A SECURITY INTEREST IN COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN TAKEN OUT BY THE BUYER AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE BARRED BY THE STANDSTILL AGREEMENT WHICH ASSIGNED PRIORITY TO TWO OTHER SECURITY INTERESTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, determined the language of a so-called standstill provision barred the action by plaintiff Intrepid seeking to recover a security interest in collateral for the $28.7 million loan taken out by the buyer, Selling Source, as consideration for the purchase. Plaintiff was a third priority lender and the standstill agreement provided plaintiff could not seek a remedy until payment was made to the first and second priority lenders:

… Selling Source agreed to acquire a number of Internet businesses from plaintiff Intrepid. In partial consideration, Selling Source executed a $28.7 million junior secured promissory note … . …

In connection with the transaction, the parties executed an intercreditor and subordination agreement (ICA) delineating the priority of each party’s security interest in the collateral pledged by the guarantors. Plaintiff, as the “third priority representative” of the “third priority lenders,” received third priority liens as security for the repayment of the $28.7 million note … .

The ICA contains standstill provisions that circumscribe Intrepid’s ability to exercise its remedies in the event of a default by Selling Source, providing, inter alia, that “[n]o Third Priority Lender shall commence or exercise any Remedies in respect of any default or event of default. . . until such time as the Payment-in-Full of the First Priority Obligations and Second Priority Obligations” … . * * *

This action is barred by the plain language of the standstill provision, which states that “[n]o Third Priority Lender shall commence or exercise any Remedies in respect of any default or event of default . . . until such time as the Payment-in-Full of the First Priority Obligations and Second Priority Obligations” … . Intrepid Invs., LLC v Selling Source, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00396, First Dept 1-31-23

Practice Point: Here priority was assigned to those holding security interests in collateral for a loan taken out by the buyer as consideration for the purchase. The plaintiff seller was a third priority lender. The seller’s action to recover on its security interest was barred by standstill agreement which did not allow the seller to seek a remedy until the payment of the first and second priority lenders.

 

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A BAR OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WERE NOT MET; THE OVER $2,000,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court after a non-jury trial awarding plaintiff over $2,000,000, determined plaintiff was not entitled to pierce the corporate veil to hold defendant Traina, the sole member of defendant limited liability company (LLC), personally liable. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the bar owned and operated by the LLC and was awarded a default judgment:

Generally, a member of a limited liability company cannot personally be held liable for any debts, obligations or liabilities of the limited liability company, “whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise” (Limited Liability Company Law § 609[a]). The concept of piercing the corporate veil is an exception to this general rule, permitting, in certain circumstances, the imposition of personal liability on members for the obligations of the limited liability company … . ” … [G]enerally . . . piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation [or LLC] in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the [party seeking to pierce the corporate veil] which resulted in [the party’s] injury” … . * * *

… [A]lthough Traina did not observe all corporate formalities, the evidence established that he ran a real business, with employees, customers, and vendors, and the petitioner presented no evidence that the LLC was undercapitalized or that Traina commingled the assets of the LLC with his own or used corporate funds for personal use … . … w[W]ile the petitioner demonstrated that Traina exercised complete domination and control over the LLC, he failed to show that Traina’s actions, including abandoning certain fixtures and equipment to his landlord, were for the purpose of leaving the LLC judgment proof or to perpetrate a wrong against the petitioner … .  … [P]etitioner did not meet his burden of proof to establish that there was a basis to pierce the corporate veil … . Matter of DePetris v Traina, 2022 NY Slip Op 07232, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: The criteria for piercing the corporate veil in this personal injury action against a bar owned and operated by a limited liability company were not met. The over $2,000,000 judgment against the sole member was reversed.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO UCC 9-406 A LENDER’S SECURITY INTEREST IN A DEBTOR’S ACCOUNTS-RECEIVABLES IS AN ASSIGNMENT SUCH THAT A THIRD-PARTY WHICH HAS NOTICE OF THE ASSIGNMENT MUST MAKE ANY PAYMENTS OWED TO THE DEBTOR DIRECTLY TO THE LENDER (CT APP). ​

​The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that UCC 9-406 allowed the lender to collect the accounts-receivables owed to the debtor by third-parties. The lender (Worthy) had a security interest in payments made by a third-party (New Style) to the debtor (Checkmate) after the New Style received notice of the assignment:

We are called upon to determine whether, for purposes of New York’s Uniform Commercial Code § 9-406, an “assignee” includes the holder of a presently exercisable security interest in an assignor’s receivables. We hold that it does. Under UCC 9-406, a security interest is an assignment and the UCC is purposefully structured to permit a debtor to grant creditors security interests in a debtor’s receivables so that the secured creditor can direct account debtors to pay it directly. * * *

Worthy filed a UCC-1 Financing Statement against Checkmate with the Secretary of State of New Jersey, perfecting its secured position regarding Checkmate’s assets. … Worthy sent New Style a notice of its security interest and collateral assignment in the New Style accounts and directed New Style that “[a]ll remittances for Accounts shall be made payable only to Worthy.” … . * * *

An account debtor who receives a secured creditor’s notice asserting its right to receive payment directly can pay the secured creditor and receive a complete discharge (UCC 9-406 [a]) or, if in doubt, can seek proof from the secured creditor that it possesses a valid assignment and withhold payment in the interim (UCC 9-406 [c]). Worthy Lending LLC v New Style Contrs., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06631, CtApp 11-22-22

Practice Point: Pursuant to UCC 9-406 a lender’s security interest in a debtor’s accounts-receivable is an assignment of the accounts-receivables to the lender such that, after notice of the assignment, a party owing payments to the debtor is obligated to make those payments directly to the lender.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEFENDANT DEBTOR ENTERED A MORTGAGE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WHICH CALLED FOR THREE PAYMENTS; DEFENDANT DEBTOR MADE FOUR ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN AMOUNTS HIGHER THAN CALLED FOR IN THE MORTGAGE; THE PAYMENTS AMOUNTED TO AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT WHICH STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE ON THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the defendant debtor acknowledged the mortgage debt by paying more than was required by the Home Affordable Modification Trial Payment Plan. Therefore the statute of limitations for foreclosure started running when defendant debtor made the last payment:

In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that the complaint was timely inasmuch as Maxi Jeanty (debtor) made four payments between August 2009 and March 2010 on account of the mortgage debt which were effective pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-107 (1) to make the statute of limitations begin running anew on the date of the last such payment. We agree. Plaintiff met its prima facie burden on its motion … by submitting evidence that, after entering a Home Affordable Modification Trial Payment Plan (the Plan), the debtor made a total of seven payments from April 2009 through March 2010, each in an amount exceeding that of the regular installment payments required under the loan documents prior to the acceleration of the debt in August 2008. The first three payments were required pursuant to the Plan, but the remaining four were not. Those four payments established circumstances amounting to ‘an absolute and unqualified acknowledgment by the debtor of more being due, from which a promise may be inferred to pay the remainder’ (… see General Obligations Law § 17-107 [1]). Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Jeanty, 2022 NY Slip Op 06539, CtApp 11-17-22

Practice Point: In this foreclosure action, payments by the debtor which exceeded what was called for in the modification payment plan amounted to an acknowledgment of the mortgage debt. Therefore the statute of limitations on foreclosure began to run on the date of the last of those payments.

​

, , ,

ONCE PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED BY STIPULATION, THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT COULD BE AMENDED TO SEEK RECOVERY ON THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff, after its foreclosure action was discontinued, could amend the foreclosure complaint to seek recovery on the note:

“‘RPAPL 1301(3) . . . prohibits a party from commencing an action at law to recover any part of the mortgage debt while the foreclosure proceeding is pending or has not reached final judgment, without leave of the court in which the foreclosure action was brought'” ( … see RPAPL 1301[3]). Conversely, “‘where a foreclosure action is no longer pending and did not result in a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, the plaintiff is not precluded from commencing a separate action without leave of the court'” … .

Here, pursuant to the so-ordered stipulation and the plaintiff’s release of the mortgage, the cause of action to foreclose the mortgage was, in effect, discontinued, without the entry of any judgment in the plaintiff’s favor … . Since the cause of action to foreclose the mortgage was no longer pending, the plaintiff was not precluded from seeking to recover on the note by RPAPL 1301(3), “‘a statute which must be strictly construed'” … .

Furthermore, “there is no reason the plaintiff could not seek such relief by seeking leave to amend its complaint, rather than by commencing a new action” … . Stewart Tit. Ins. Co. v Zaltsman, 2022 NY Slip Op 05107, Second Dept 8-31-22

Practice Point: Here the foreclosure action was discontinued and plaintiff was allowed to amend the foreclosure complaint to seek recovery on the note.

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THE ADDRESS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS NOT HIS DWELLING PLACE; DEFENDANT TOOK AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO MISLEAD THE PARTY ATTEMPTING TO SERVE HIM (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been estopped from claiming the address in the affidavit of service was not his “dwelling plaice” because defendant misled the party attempting to serve him:

Estoppel, in this context, may preclude a defendant “from challenging the location and propriety of service of process if that defendant has engaged in affirmative conduct which misleads a party into serving process at an incorrect address” … . For example, “where a defendant willfully misrepresented his address or violated a statutory notification requirement … , or where he ‘engaged in conduct calculated to prevent the plaintiff from learning his actual place of residence’ … , he may be estopped from asserting the defense of defective service” … .

Here, the record established that the defendant engaged in “affirmative conduct which misl[ed] a party into serving process at an incorrect address” … . Hudson Val. Bank, N.A. v Eagle Trading, 2022 NY Slip Op 04956, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: A party who affirmatively takes steps to mislead the party attempting to serve him will be estopped from claiming the address in the the affidavit of service is not his dwelling place.

 

, ,

THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATE THE DEBT WAS BEING IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED; THEREFORE THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter sent by the bank to the borrower in this foreclosure action did not accelerate the debt and therefore did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations:

… [A] ” ‘letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, . . . does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause'” …  “The determinative question is not what the noteholder intended or the borrower perceived, but whether the contractual election was effectively invoked” … . Here, a letter sent to the defendants … , did not effectively accelerate the mortgage debt, as this letter merely discussed acceleration as a possible future event … . HSBC Bank USA v Pantel, 2022 NY Slip Op 04954, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: A letter from the bank to the borrower which discussed the acceleration of the mortgage debt but did not indicate the debt was in fact accelerated did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations on the foreclosure action. The foreclosure action was not, therefore, time-barred.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy