You are here: / Debtor-Creditor
, ,

REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A NOTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, seeking payment of a note, did not submit proof of the payment history of the note in admissible form (requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule not met). Therefore plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

​

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by its account officer under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), and thus, failed to establish a default in payment under the note. “A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures” … . Here, the plaintiff’s account officer did not allege that she was personally familiar with HSBC’s record keeping practices and procedures, and thus failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of records concerning the payment history under the note … . Inasmuch as the plaintiff’s motion was based on evidence that was not in admissible form, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v Trombley, 2017 NY Slip Op 03927, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE, REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A NOTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE, REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A NOTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE, REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING PAYMENT OF A NOTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A LOAN PAYABLE UPON DEMAND ACCRUES WHEN THE LOAN IS MADE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s causes of action based upon loans repayable on demand accrued when the loan was made, rendering them time-barred, despite the provision that payment became due three months after a demand for payment:

​

Here, the parties’ agreement … provided that the sums loaned to the defendants were repayable on demand. Accordingly, the plaintiff possessed a legal right to demand payment at the time that each loan was advanced to the defendants, and the statute of limitations began to run at each of those respective times … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the three-month period for repayment following a demand did not constitute a condition that had to be fulfilled before the right to final payment arose… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss as time-barred so much of the first cause of action as was predicated upon loans that allegedly were made more than six years prior to the commencement of the action. Elia v Perla, 2017 NY Slip Op 03930, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A LOAN PAYABLE UPON DEMAND ACCRUES WHEN THE LOAN IS MADE)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (LOAN PAYABLE UPON DEMAND, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A LOAN PAYABLE UPON DEMAND ACCRUES WHEN THE LOAN IS MADE)

,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES.

The Third Department determined plaintiff was entitled a judgment based upon a note with was not negotiable but which was enforceable as a contract. Although the note did not specify when the money was to be paid back, payback in a reasonable time could be implied:

​

Defendant asserts that the note was unenforceable as a matter of law. Although the note did not constitute a negotiable instrument, it may still be enforceable under traditional principles of contract law … . As Supreme Court found, the note “memorialize[d] a debt between the parties and by signing same . . . defendant has acknowledged that debt and his obligation to pay same.” And, while the note stated that the money was to be repaid at a time “[t]o be agreed upon” by the parties, “[w]hen a contract does not specify time of performance, the law implies a reasonable time” … ; here, plaintiff testified that there was an expectation that he would be repaid within two years. Shlang v Inbar, 2017 NY Slip Op 03107, 3rd Dept 4-20-17

CONTRACT LAW (ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR  (ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES)/NOTES (ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES)

, ,

NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED.

The Second Department determined the Bank of America’s (BOA’s) motion to dismiss a CPLR Article 52 proceeding contesting BOA’s application of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA) was properly denied. The EIPA exempts $1740 in a bank account from restraint by judgment creditors. BOA aggregated the amount in all of the plaintiffs’ accounts, sent the plaintiffs $1740 and froze the rest. The plaintiffs argued the accounts should not be aggregated, rather the $1740 exemption should be applied to each account separately. The court deemed the statutory language ambiguous (the word “account,” singular, was used). The Second Department noted that Supreme Court’s conversion of the action to the correct format, a CPLR Article 52 special proceeding, was proper:

​

… [W]e find that CPLR 5222(i) is ambiguous as to whether it applies to an “amount” on deposit at a bank or to each “account” maintained at a bank. Turning to the legislative history of the EIPA, the bill jacket indicates that the stated legislative purpose was to create a procedure for the execution of money judgments on bank accounts containing exempt funds to ensure that debtors can keep access to exempt funds … . The legislative history, as reflected in the bill jacket, particularly in a letter in support of the bill written by the bill’s Assembly sponsor, Helene Weinstein, indicates that the statute applies to each account.

Accordingly, BOA failed to establish its entitlement to dismissal of the cause of action alleging violations of the EIPA, and that branch of its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) was properly denied. Jackson v Bank of Am., N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 02780, 2nd Dept 4-12-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXEMPT INCOME PROTECTION ACT (EIPA), NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF A FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED)/BANKING LAW (EXEMPT INCOME PROTECTION ACT (EIPA), NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF A FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED)DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW (EXEMPT INCOME PROTECTION ACT (EIPA), NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF A FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED)/EXEMPT INCOME PROTECTION ACT (EIPA) (NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF A FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED)

,

PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED.

The First Department held determination of the meaning of the payment guarantees at issue required reference to other documents. Therefore the guarantees were not entitled to expedited treatment pursuant to CPLR 3213 as instruments for the payment of money only:

“The prototypical example of an instrument within the ambit of [CPLR 3213] is of course a negotiable instrument for the payment of money—an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain, signed by the maker and due on demand or at a definite time” … . CPLR 3213 is generally used to enforce “some variety of commercial paper in which the party to be charged has formally and explicitly acknowledged an indebtedness,” so that “a prima facie case would be made out by the instrument and a failure to make the payments called for by its terms” … . A document does not qualify for CPLR 3213 treatment if the court must consult other materials besides the bare document and proof of nonpayment, or if it must make a more than de minimis deviation from the face of the document … . PDL Biopharma, Inc. v Wohlstadter, 2017 NY Slip Op 01151, 1st Dept 2-14-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)/GUARANTEES (CPLR 3213, PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)/INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY (PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)/CPLR 3213 (PAYMENT GUARANTEES NOT ENTITLED TO EXPEDITED TREATMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY, REFERENCE TO OTHER DOCUMENTS WAS NEEDED)

,

BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE.

The Second Department determined defendant bank (Chase) was entitled an equitable lien against plaintiff’s property under the doctrine of equitable subrogation. Chase had issued a mortgage to a third party which was used to pay off plaintiff’s mortgage. The transaction with the third party was fraudulent under Real Property Law 265-a known as the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act. Supreme Court held that Chase should have heeded warnings signs about the validity of the transaction, but did not actively facilitate the third party’s fraud (Chase did not have “unclean hands”). To avoid plaintiff’s unjust enrichment, Chase was entitled to an equitable lien against the property equal to the mortgage that was paid off plus taxes and insurance:

Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, where the “property of one person is used in discharging an obligation owed by another or a lien upon the property of another, under such circumstances that the other would be unjustly enriched by the retention of the benefit thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the obligee or lien-holder” … . The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court erred in awarding Chase equitable subrogation because, in light of the determination that it was not a bona fide encumbrancer for value, Chase should have been denied equitable subrogation under the doctrine of unclean hands … . We disagree. The doctrine of unclean hands applies when the offending party “is guilty of immoral, unconscionable conduct” directly related to the subject matter in litigation and which conduct injured the party seeking to invoke the doctrine … . Here, although Chase was charged with knowledge of information which would have caused a prudent lender to inquire as to the circumstances of the transaction, the Supreme Court did not find that it had actual notice of the fraud or that it did anything to actively facilitate the fraud. There was no evidence that Chase “was a willing participant in a mortgage [rescue] scheme” … . Lucia v Goldman, 2016 NY Slip Op 08353, 2nd Dept 12-14-16

 

MORTGAGES (BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE)/REAL PROPERTY LAW (HOME EQUITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT, BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE)/HOME EQUITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT (BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE)/EQUITABLE LIEN (BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE)/LIEN LAW (EQUITABLE LIEN, (BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE)/EQUTABLE SUBROGATION, BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE)/UNCLEAN HANDS (BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE TO A THIRD PARTY THAT WAS USED BY THE THIRD PARTY TO PAY OFF PLAINTIFF’S MORTGAGE IN VIOLATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW WAS ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE LIEN AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE)

STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff had standing to bring an action contesting a satisfaction of mortgage. The court determined the standing requirements for a foreclosure action applied and explained the burdens of proof for summary judgment:

“The plaintiff may demonstrate that it is the holder or assignee of the underlying note by showing either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note” … . “As a general matter, once a promissory note is tendered to and accepted by an assignee, the mortgage passes as an incident to the note. However, the transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it . . . because a mortgage is merely security for a debt or other obligation and cannot exist independently of the debt or obligation” … .

On a defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint based upon the plaintiff’s alleged lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s lack of standing as a matter of law … . “To defeat a defendant’s motion, the plaintiff has no burden of establishing its standing as a matter of law; rather, the motion will be defeated if the plaintiff’s submissions raise a question of fact as to its standing” … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Noble, 2016 NY Slip Op 07315, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

MORTGAGES (STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION)/SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE (STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION)/STANDING (MORTGAGES, (STANDING REQUIREMENTS TO BRING AN ACTION CONTESTING A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE THE SAME AS FOR BRINGING A FORECLOSURE ACTION)

PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined plaintiff Jusitian Capital’s purchase of notes from DPAG was champertous (purchased for the primary purpose of bringing a lawsuit), and further determined Justinian was not entitled to the “safe harbor” provision of the champerty statute (which exempts securities purchased for “an aggregate purchase price of at least five hundred thousand dollars”):

… DPAG and Justinian entered into a sale and purchase agreement (the Agreement). Pursuant to the Agreement, DPAG would assign the Notes to Justinian and Justinian would agree to pay DPAG a base purchase price of $1,000,000 … . The Notes were assigned to Justinian shortly after execution of the Agreement. The assignment, however, was not contingent on Justinian’s payment of the $1,000,000. Nor did Justinian’s failure to pay the $1,000,000 constitute an Event of Default under section 9 of the Agreement. * * *

…[T]he impetus for the assignment of the Notes to Justinian was DPAG’s desire to sue [defendant] for causing the Notes’ decline in value and not be named as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Justinian’s business plan, in turn, was acquiring investments that suffered major losses in order to sue on them, and it did so here within days after it was assigned the Notes. … [T]here was no evidence, even following completion of champerty-related discovery, that Justinian’s acquisition of the Notes was for any purpose other than the lawsuit it commenced almost immediately after acquiring the Notes … . * * *

The record establishes, and we conclude as a matter of law, that the $1,000,000 base purchase price listed in the Agreement was not a binding and bona fide obligation to pay the purchase price other than from the proceeds of the lawsuit. The Agreement was structured so that Justinian did not have to pay the purchase price unless the lawsuit was successful, in litigation or in settlement. Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, 2016 NY Slip Op 07047, CtApp 10-27-16

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE))/CHAMPERTY (PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE))

,

CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE STATED, ELEMENTS DESCRIBED.

The First Department determined the complaint stated causes of action for both constructive and actual fraudulent conveyance. The facts are too complex to summarize here, but the nature of the transactions is revealed in the following excerpts:

The complaint states a cause of action for constructive fraudulent conveyance against Globe Institute, the Rabinovich defendants and 878 LLC by alleging that the conveyance of Globe Institute’s assets to 878 LLC was made without the exchange of “fair consideration,” since the transaction could be viewed as resulting in part of the value of Globe Institute’s assets being paid to its shareholders indirectly, suggesting bad faith (see Debtor and Creditor Law § 272[a]). Further, while the asset purchase agreement provided for 878 LLC to assume certain liabilities of Globe Institute and to make future conditional payments to Globe Institute’s shareholders, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff presented supplementary evidence that the consideration was not a “fair equivalent” for the valuable assets transferred (see id.). The complaint also adequately alleges that the transaction rendered Globe Institute insolvent (Debtor and Creditor Law § 273) and was accomplished while Globe Institute was engaged in business (Debtor and Creditor Law § 274), and that Globe Institute and the Rabinovich defendants were aware that the transaction would prevent Globe Institute from fulfilling its obligations under its guarantee of rental payments due under Globe Alumni’s lease … .

The cause of action for actual fraudulent conveyance under Debtor and Creditor Law § 276 is also adequately pleaded against Globe Institute, the Rabinovich defendants, and 878 LLC. Although the transaction was conducted at arm’s length, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged ” badges of fraud,'” i.e., “circumstances so commonly associated with fraudulent transfers that their presence gives rise to an inference of intent,'” including (1) the parties’ structuring of the transaction so that the sole consideration promised to Globe Institute, aside from 878 LLC’s assumption of certain of Globe Institute’s liabilities, was a $1.35 million payment directly to its shareholders, the Rabinovich defendants, rather than to Globe Institute itself, (2) the exclusion of Globe Institute’s guarantee of the lease agreement from the list of assumed liabilities, although the parties knew that Globe Institute would be left as a corporate shell as result of the transaction and would therefore be unable to honor any future liabilities, (3) inadequate consideration, and (4) the transaction’s having been outside the usual course of business and hastily closed over the course of only a few days, while other potential buyers required a much longer due diligence period … . 172 Van Duzer Realty Corp. v 878 Educ., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05957, 1st Dept 9-8-16

DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW (CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE STATED, ELEMENTS DESCRIBED)/FRAUD  (CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE STATED, ELEMENTS DESCRIBED)/FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE (CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE STATED, ELEMENTS DESCRIBED)

, ,

MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR; CHARGING ORDER, RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO THE CREDITOR, IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY.

The Second Department determined a debtor’s membership in a limited liability company can be reached by a judgment creditor. The court further determined that a remedy other than the assignment of the membership interest to the creditor was properly fashioned by Supreme Court:

In considering the remedies available to a judgment creditor such as the petitioner under CPLR article 52, the Supreme Court was not limited to considering the petitioner’s request for an order assigning to him [the debtor’s membership interest in the LLC. CPLR 5240, which was relied upon by the Supreme Court, provides, in pertinent part, that a court “may at any time, on its own initiative or the motion of any interested person, and upon such notice as it may require, make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure” … . This section grants the Supreme Court broad discretionary power to alter the use of procedures set forth in CPLR article 52 … . Limited Liability Company Law § 607 expressly provides that, on an application by a judgment creditor of a member of an LLC, “the court may charge” the debtor’s membership interest “with payment of the unsatisfied amount of the judgment with interest,” and “[t]o the extent so charged, the judgment creditor has only the rights of an assignee of the membership interest.” Thus, CPLR 5240 and Limited Liability Company Law § 607 give the court discretion, in an appropriate case, to issue a charging order instead of, inter alia, an order assigning or turning over the judgment debtor’s membership interest in an LLC to the judgment creditor … . Matter of Sirotkin v Jordan, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05576, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR; CHARGING ORDER, RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO THE CREDITOR, IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR; CHARGING ORDER, RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO THE CREDITOR, IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY)/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR; CHARGING ORDER, RATHER THAN ASSIGNMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST TO THE CREDITOR, IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY)

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