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)

, , ,

MORTGAGE HAD PRIORITY OVER COUNTY’S CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAID BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined a mortgage held by Wells Fargo had priority to a claim by the county seeking reimbursement of Medicaid benefits received by the decedent:

 

Petitioner [Saratoga County Department of Social Services] asserts priority pursuant to Social Services Law § 104 (1), which provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n all claims of the public welfare official made under [such] section[,] the public welfare official shall be deemed a preferred creditor” (emphasis added). “Preferred creditor” has been construed to give a social services department priority over a “general creditor, that is, a creditor that, upon giving credit, takes no rights against specific property of a debtor” … . Here, Wells Fargo holds a mortgage lien against the Rotterdam property that was recorded prior to the May 2014 decree of Surrogate's Court validating petitioner's claim. Although Medicaid assistance was provided to decedent before the mortgage was given, petitioner did not have a prior lien against the property (see Social Services Law § 369 [2] [a]). As such, we conclude that Wells Fargo's prior specific lien gives it priority over petitioner's claim with respect to the … property … . Matter of Shambo, 2016 NY Slip Op 02699, 3rd Dept 4-7-16


, ,

ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY.

The Second Department determined the statute of limitations re: a default on a note secured by a mortgage was renewed when defendant (Raudkivi) acknowledged the debt in his bankruptcy plan. The statute therefore began to run when defendant was granted a discharge in bankruptcy, which occurred less than six years before suit was brought:

Raudkivi’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, in which he acknowledged the mortgage debt and promised to repay it, renewed the limitations period (see General Obligations Law § 17-105[1]…). The automatic bankruptcy stay, which was in effect when Raudkivi executed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, tolled the renewed limitations period (see CPLR 204[a]…), so the renewed limitations period did not begin to run until Raudkivi was granted his discharge in bankruptcy in October of 2006 (see 11 USC § 362[c][2][C]). Since this action was commenced less than six years later, in July of 2012, this action is not time-barred. PSP-NC, LLC v Raudkivi, 2016 NY Slip Op 02632, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)/BANKRUPTCY (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)

, ,

CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS.

The Second Department determined petitioners were properly granted summary judgment piercing the corporate (Diontech) veil to enforce judgments:

Equity will intervene to pierce the corporate veil and permit the imposition of individual liability on owners for the obligations of their corporations in order to avoid fraud or injustice … . A party seeking to pierce the corporate veil must establish that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue, and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil which resulted in the injury to that party … . The decision whether to pierce the corporate veil in a given instance will depend on the circumstances of the case … .

Here, the petitioners demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on so much of the petition as sought to pierce Diontech’s corporate veil by submitting evidence showing, inter alia, that the appellants dominated Diontech, that Diontech did not adhere to any corporate formalities such as holding regular meetings and maintaining corporate records and minutes, that the appellants used corporate funds for personal purposes, and that the appellants stripped Diontech of assets as they wound down the business, leaving it without sufficient funds to pay its creditors, including the petitioners… . Matter of Agai v Diontech Consulting, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02646, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

CORPORATION LAW (CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PRINCIPALS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PRINCIPALS)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PRINCIPALS)/PIERCING CORPORATE VEIL (CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PRINCIPALS)

,

CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the motion for an order of attachment was properly granted. The court explained the analytical criteria:

Attachment is a provisional remedy designed to secure a debt by preliminary levy upon the property of the debtor to conserve it for eventual execution, and the courts have strictly construed the attachment statute in favor of those against whom it may be employed … . In order to be granted an order of attachment under CPLR 6201(3), a “plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant has concealed or is about to conceal property in one or more of several enumerated ways, and has acted or will act with the intent to defraud creditors or to frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in favor of the plaintiff” … .  In addition to proving fraudulent intent, the plaintiff must show a probability of success on the merits … . Hume v 1 Prospect Park ALF, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02055, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)/ATTACHMENT (CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED)