You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

THERE WAS A SURPLUS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY; DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT WITH CITIBANK; CITIBANK, NOT DEFENDANT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE SURPLUS FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant, owner of the equity of redemption after a foreclosure sale of defendant’s property, was not entitled to the surplus funds after the sale. Defendant had entered a home equity line of credit with Citibank. Citibank was entitled to the surplus funds:

“‘[S]urplus money proceedings . . . are not collateral to the foreclosure, but are in the action itself[,] [a]nd the rights of lienors subsequent to the mortgage under foreclosure are before the court and must be protected as much as those of the owner of the property'” … . “‘Surplus money from a foreclosure sale is not a general asset of the owner of the equity of redemption, but stands in the place of the property for the purpose of distribution among those having vested interests in or liens on the property. The rights of the parties are fixed at the time of the foreclosure sale, and the rights of a second lienholder are transferred to any surplus'” … . “Under New York law, the lien of a junior mortgagee who is made a party to a foreclosure action brought by a senior mortgagee, although cut-off and extinguished as to the land, continues as a lien upon the surplus funds arising from the foreclosure” … . “‘[U]pon the foreclosure of the first mortgage, the lien of the second mortgage follow[s] the surplus into the hands of the [municipality’s] financial officer, and the remedy of the second mortgagee is to enforce his or her claim in the court by whose direction the foreclosure had taken place'” … . Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v O’Connell, 2023 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: In addition to the mortgage which was foreclosed, defendant property-owner had entered a home equity line of credit with Citibank. There were surplus funds after the foreclosure sale. Citibank, not defendant, was entitled to the surplus funds.

 

, ,

THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT IN RPAPL 1371 FOR BRINGING A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASER OF PROPERTY AT A FORECLOSURE SALE FUNCTIONS AS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE MOTION HERE WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgagor’s order to show cause seeking a deficiency judgment against defendant, the purchaser of the property at the foreclosure sale, should have been dismissed as untimely pursuant to RPAPL 1371:

RPAPL 1371(2) states that “[s]imultaneously with the making of a motion for an order confirming the sale, provided such motion is made within ninety days after the date of the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the proper deed of conveyance to the purchaser, the party to whom such residue shall be owing may make a motion in the action for leave to enter a deficiency judgment upon notice to the party against whom such judgment is sought or the attorney who shall have appeared for such party in such action.” “The courts have uniformly treated the 90-day period contained in RPAPL 1371(2) as a provision in the nature of a statute of limitations, so that the plaintiff’s failure to serve notice within the 90-day period is a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment, and the proceeds of the sale will be deemed to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt” … . JDRMDBP-SM, LLC v Hossain, 2023 NY Slip Op 06033, Second Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: The 90-day time-limit in RPAPL 1371 for bringing a motion for a deficiency judgment against the purchaser of property at a foreclosure sale functions as a statute of limitations. A late motion must be dismissed.

 

,

THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTED TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION REFERRED TO BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action. The affidavit which purported to establish standing referred to business records which were not attached:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which Delpesche [an employee of the loan servicing company] relied upon in his affidavit. “Although the foundation for . . . admission of a business record [usually is] provided by the testimony of the custodian, [the author or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business,] ‘it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted'” … . “‘Without submission of the business records, a witness’s testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay'” … . Since the plaintiff failed to attach the business records upon which Delpesche relied in his affidavit, his assertions based upon those records constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Carrington, 2023 NY Slip Op 05632, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: Where an affidavit refers to and relies on business records which are not attached, the affidavit is inadmissible hearsay.

 

 

 

,

SENDING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 by sending the notice of foreclosure to both borrowers in the same envelope:

As the Second Department noted, the language of RPAPL 1304 (1) is careful to distinguish a borrower, singular, from borrowers, plural (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 199 AD3d at 134). However, RPAPL 1304 (2), which requires that notices be sent in separate envelopes, only discusses “borrower,” singular (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 199 AD3d at 134; RPAPL 1304 [2]). In that case, the Court also drew attention to the fact that, although it is possible that whichever borrower reads the notice would alert the other borrower of the mailing, this is not always what occurs (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Yapkowitz, 199 AD3d at 135). Accordingly, we now also adopt the holding of the Second Department in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Thus, given that the requisite 90-day notices were jointly addressed to both borrowers, plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Zatari, 2023 NY Slip Op 05436, Third Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Sending the notice of foreclosure to two borrowers in the same envelope is a violation RPAPL 1304.

 

,

PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DO NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT AND THEREFORE DO NOT START THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prior foreclosure actions had been dismissed for lack of standing and therefore did not accelerate the debt and did not start the running of the statute of limitations. Here the plaintiffs sought discharge and cancellation of the mortgage on the ground the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action had expired:

Because the 2009 and the 2012 actions were dismissed due to lack of standing by defendant, the debt was not validly accelerated when those actions were commenced. As such, the statute of limitations to foreclose on the mortgage did not start to run. Stated differently, the statute of limitations has not expired. Caprotti v Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 05428m Third Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Foreclosure actions dismissed for lack of standing do not accelerate the debt and do not start the running of the statute of limitations.

 

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the plaintiff bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and therefore was not entitled to summary judgment:

The plaintiff … failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its compliance with RPAPL 1304, in that it failed to establish proof of the requisite mailing. The affidavit of Sarah Stonehocker, a vice president of loan documentation for Wells Fargo, the plaintiff’s loan servicer, was insufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the borrowers in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. Stonehocker averred that she had personal knowledge of Wells Fargo’s record-keeping practices and procedures, but she did not attest to having personal knowledge of the record-keeping practices and standard office mailing procedures of Walz Facility (hereinafter Walz), the entity, that according to tracking information printouts, mailed the RPAPL 1304 notices … . Nor did she attest that Walz’s records were incorporated into Wells Fargo’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . Thus, Stonehocker’s affidavit failed to establish “proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure” … .

Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 since it failed to demonstrate that it sent an individually addressed RPAPL 1304 notice to each borrower, as required by the statute … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Reddy, 2023 NY Slip Op 05417, Second Dept 10-25-23

Practice Point: Once again the bank’s failure to prove compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304 resulted in reversal of summary judgment in this foreclosure action.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE TEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT WRONGFUL, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE INTEREST ACCRUED DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action was not entitled to interest for the ten years between the judgment of foreclosure and the sale of the property:

… [T]he plaintiff explained that his delay in proceeding with the sale of the subject property was based upon his opinion that it was not worthwhile to pursue a foreclosure sale due to market conditions and his belief that there was “no significant equity in the property” beyond the amount of the first mortgage on the property, which had priority over that held by the plaintiff. While the plaintiff’s failure to conduct the sale based on a potential financial benefit to him was not wrongful conduct, per se, his inaction was the sole cause of the accrual of more than 10 years of postjudgment interest, which is roughly equivalent to the principal amount awarded in the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in the first instance (see CPLR 5004). Under these circumstances, it would be inequitable to charge Romano [defendant] with such accrued interest … . Krupnick v Romano, 2023 NY Slip Op 05398, Second Dept 10-25-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff did not sell the property until ten years after the judgment of foreclosure due to market conditions. Although the delay was not wrongful, the defendant should not be required to the pay the interest on the judgment accrued during the ten-year delay.

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT START PROCEEDINGS TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR AND DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY; THE MOTION TO DISIMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not seek a default judgment within one year and did not offer a reasonable excuse for the delay. Therefore there was no need for the court to consider whether plaintiff had a meritorious cause of action. The complaint should have been dismissed:

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts ‘shall’ dismiss claims (CPLR 3215[c]) for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . …

… [T]his matter was released from the settlement conference part in December 2011, and that the plaintiff failed to take steps to initiate proceedings for the entry of a default judgment by moving for leave to enter a default judgment and for an order of reference until March 2013, “which was too late for the plaintiff to ‘manifest an intent not to abandon the case'” … . … [Plaintiff] offered only vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated assertions which were insufficient to excuse the plaintiff’s delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment … .

Since [plaintiff] failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff’s delay, this Court need not consider whether the plaintiff had a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Kimmerling, 2023 NY Slip Op 05246, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). if the plaintiff does not start proceedings to enter a default judgment within a year and does not offer an adequate excuse for the delay, the complaint must be dismissed. There is no need for the court to consider whether plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEBTOR TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE NON-DEBTOR CODEFENDANT YEARS BEFORE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY, THE BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE FORECLOSURE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION AGAINST THE DEBTOR; THE TOLL DID NOT APPLY TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE NON-DEBTOR WHICH NEVER FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure statute of limitations was tolled by the bankruptcy stay for the action against the defendant who filed for bankruptcy, but not for the defendant to which the property was transferred (who did not file for bankruptcy):

This appeal requires us to examine whether the stay provided by section 362 of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code (11 USC § 362[a]) operates as a “statutory prohibition” under CPLR 204(a) to toll the statute of limitations to commence a mortgage foreclosure action against a defendant debtor who no longer owns the property that is the subject of the mortgage foreclosure action. We hold that the bankruptcy stay pursuant to subsection 362(a)(1) (see 11 USC § 362[a][1]) tolls the statute of limitations for commencing a mortgage foreclosure action against the defendant debtor, regardless of whether that defendant owns the property at the time of the bankruptcy filing.

This appeal also requires us to determine whether the bankruptcy stay pursuant to subsection 362(a) applies to a nondebtor codefendant to which the defendant debtor transferred the property years before filing for bankruptcy. On the record before this Court, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of raising a question of fact as to whether the bankruptcy stay applied to the nondebtor codefendant. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeMatteis, 2023 NY Slip Op 05242, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Filing for bankruptcy tolls the foreclosure statute of limitations, even if the property had been transferred before the filing.

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE HOME WAS ILLUMINATED WHEN THE PROCESS SERVER ATTEMPTED SERVICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS EVADING SERVICE; THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT ATTEMPT SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; THE “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “nail and mail” service of process was invalid because the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate “due diligence” in attempting other methods of personal service:

“Service of process must be made in strict compliance with [the] statutory ‘methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person’ pursuant to CPLR 308” … . Here, the plaintiff purportedly served the defendant by the “affix and mail” method pursuant to CPLR 308(4). Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) cannot be made with “due diligence” … . “The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received” … .

Here, … the process server made prior attempts at personal delivery of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s residence at different times of the day between Thursday, December 21, 2017, and Friday, December 29, 2017. Although one of those times was on December 23, 2017, a Saturday, the attempts at service occurred at the height of the holiday season, when the defendant may have had reasons not to be home … . The process server noted that holiday lights were on in the windows of the residence on December 23, 2017, and that both floors of the residence were illuminated on December 26, 2017. Nevertheless, considering the holiday season, the process server’s observations were not a sufficient basis to believe that the defendant was evading service. Moreover, the process server stated that he was “unable” to speak to a neighbor regarding the defendant’s whereabouts.

In addition, in the year prior to the commencement of this action, the defendant was granted a loan modification, and as part of his application for a loan modification, the defendant was required to and did, in fact, disclose his employer and address of employment to the plaintiff. No attempts were made to serve the defendant at his place of employment. Bank of Am., N.A. v Fischer, 2023 NY Slip Op 05112, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Here the process server’s affidavit did not demonstrate “due diligence” in attempting service at defendant’s home and there was no attempt to serve defendant at his place of employment. The “nail and mail” service was deemed invalid.

 

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