You are here: / Foreclosure
,

A TITLE HOLDER WHO DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE BUT DID SIGN THE MORTGAGE IS ENTITLED TO THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant (Courtney) who did not sign the note but did sign the mortgage was a “borrower” entitled to notice of the foreclosure pursuant to RPAPL 1304:

… [I]t is undisputed that the plaintiff failed to serve Courtney [defendant] with notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304, and, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, he was entitled to such notice as a “borrower” within the meaning of that statute. Although Courtney did not sign the note, both of the defendants were title owners of the subject property and each executed the mortgage as a “borrower.” “Where, as here, a homeowner defendant is referred to as a ‘borrower’ in the mortgage instrument and, in that capacity, agrees to pay amounts due under the note, that defendant is a ‘borrower’ for the purposes of RPAPL 1304, notwithstanding . . . any ambiguity created by a provision in the mortgage instrument to the effect that parties who did not sign the underlying note are not personally obligated to pay the sums secured” … . Since Courtney “signed the mortgage as a ‘borrower’ and, in that capacity, agreed to pay the amounts due under the note, [he] was entitled to . . . notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304” … . Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v Carney, 2023 NY Slip Op 04231, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: A title owner who does not sign the note but signs the mortgage is a “borrower” entitled to notice of the foreclosure.

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE IF THE BANK HAD PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT, THE BANK ESTABLISHED STANDING (NOTE AFFIXED TO THE COMPLAINT), THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a defendant was properly served, the bank demonstrated standing to foreclose by affixing the note to the complaint, and the bank failed to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1303 and 1304:

Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service gives rise to a presumption of proper service … . However, “a sworn denial of service containing specific facts generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service and necessitates a hearing” … . “If an issue regarding service turns upon a question of credibility, a hearing should be held to render a determination on this issue” * * *

The plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action by submitting in support of its motion a copy of the note, endorsed in blank, that was annexed to the certificate of merit filed with the summons and complaint at the time the action was commenced … . Where, as here, the note is affixed to the complaint, “‘it is unnecessary to give factual details of the delivery in order to establish that possession was obtained prior to a particular date'” * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1303  … . RPAPL 1303 requires that the party foreclosing a mortgage on residential property deliver, along with the summons and complaint, a notice titled “Notice to Tenants of Buildings in Foreclosure” to any tenant of the property by certified mail, if the identity of the tenant is known to the foreclosing party … . * * *

… [T]he affiant did not state that he had personal knowledge of the purported mailings, and the documents that he relied upon to affirm that the mailings took place failed to establish that the RPAPL 1304 notices were actually mailed … by both certified and first-class mail. Since the plaintiff “failed to provide proof of the actual mailing, or 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,” the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . U.S Bank N.A. v 22-33 Brookhaven, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 04228, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: Here a defendant raised a question of fact whether he was properly served, requiring a hearing.

Practice Point: In this foreclosure action the bank established standing by affixing the note to the complaint.

Practice Point: The bank’s failure to strictly comply with RPAPL 1303 or 1304 precludes summary judgment.

 

,

MAILING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE IS A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRING DENIAL OF THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The bank mailed the notice of foreclosure to both borrowers in the same envelope, a violation of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he defendants are both borrowers for purposes of RPAPL 1304 and, thus, were each entitled to RPAPL 1304 notice … . Although both defendants were entitled to RPAPL 1304 notice, the plaintiff failed to establish that it sent a 90-day notice individually addressed to each defendant in separate envelopes, as required by the statute … . Rather, as the plaintiff concedes, the notices were mailed in a single envelope jointly to both defendants. Since the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hennessy, 2023 NY Slip Op 03907, Second Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: If the bank in a foreclosure action does not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304, it is not entitled to summary judgment. Here the bank violated RPALP 1304 by sending the notice of foreclosure to both borrowers in the same envelope.

 

 

,

CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) DOES NOT APPLY TO JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALES; HERE THE BANK DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF A SENIOR MORTGAGE; SALE SET ASIDE AND DOWN PAYMENT RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure judicial sale should have been set aside because plaintiff bank failed to disclose the existence of a senior mortgage:

“The rule that a buyer must protect himself [or herself] against undisclosed defects does not apply in all strictness to a purchaser at a judicial sale” … . “‘[A] sale of land in the haste and confusion of an auction room is not governed by the strict rules applicable to formal contracts made with deliberation after ample opportunity to investigate and inquire'” … . “‘As a general rule, a purchaser at a foreclosure sale is entitled to a good, marketable title'” … . “‘[A] purchaser at a judicial sale should not be compelled by the courts to accept a doubtful title,'” and “‘if it was bad or doubtful, he [or she] should, on his [or her] application, be relieved from completing the purchase'” … . Accordingly, since the plaintiff failed to disclose the existence of the senior mortgage at the time of sale, or otherwise, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the nonparties’ motion which were to set aside the foreclosure sale and to direct the referee to return [the buyer’s] down payment. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Schepisi, 2023 NY Slip Op 03943, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: Caveat emptor (buyer beware) does not apply to judicial foreclosure sales. Here the bank’s failure to disclose the existence of a senior mortgage required the sale be set aside and the down payment returned.

 

,

PURSUANT TO THE RECENTLY ENACTED FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was dismissed as abandoned and therefore the bank could not take advantage of the six-month extension of the statute of limitations:

The recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (…hereinafter FAPA) replaced the savings provision of CPLR 205(a) with CPLR 205-a in actions upon instruments described in CPLR 213(4) … . Under CPLR 205-a(a), “[i]f an action upon an instrument described under [CPLR 213(4)] is timely commenced and is terminated in any manner other than . . . a dismissal of the complaint for any form of neglect, including, but not limited to those specified in . . . [CPLR 3215] . . . , the original plaintiff, or, if the original plaintiff dies and the cause of action survives, his or her executor or administrator, may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences within six months following the termination, provided that the new action would have been timely commenced within the applicable limitations period prescribed by law at the time of the commencement of the prior action and that service upon the original defendant is completed within such six-month period.” Here, the complaint in the 2009 action was dismissed insofar as asserted against Santos as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) … . Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the savings provision of CPLR 205(a) or 205-a. U.S. Bank N.A. v Santos, 2023 NY Slip Op 03942, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: Where a foreclosure action has been dismissed as abandoned, the bank cannot take advantage of the six-month extension of the statute of limitations. The provisions of the newly enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) are explained.

 

,

PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING (1) THE VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE STOPPED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND (2) THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was estopped pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) from claiming the voluntary discontinuance of the action stopped the running of the statute of limitations. The bank was also estopped by the FAPA from claiming the mortgage debt was not validly accelerated because the bank did not have standing when the foreclosure action was commenced:

… [T]he plaintiff … contends that it raised a triable issue of fact because the voluntary discontinuance of the 2008 action revoked its acceleration of the mortgage debt in that action and, thus, the instant action is timely. The plaintiff also contends that the instant action is timely because it did not have standing to commence the 2008 action, and, therefore, the mortgage debt was not validly accelerated by the commencement of that action. … [U]nder the recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (… hereinafter FAPA), the voluntary discontinuance of the 2008 action did not “‘in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute'” … . Also, under FAPA, the plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the debt was not validly accelerated by the commencement of the 2008 action based on its lack of standing, and that, therefore, the instant action is timely. CPLR 213(4), as amended by FAPA, added paragraph (a), which provides that “[i]n any action on an instrument described under this subdivision, if the statute of limitations is raised as a defense, and if that defense is based on a claim that the instrument at issue was accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, a plaintiff shall be estopped from asserting that the instrument was not validly accelerated, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.” Here, since the 2008 action was voluntarily discontinued, and therefore was not “dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated,” the plaintiff is estopped under FAPA from asserting that the debt was not validly accelerated by the commencement of the 2008 action based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Wong, 2023 NY Slip Op 03908, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act precluded the bank from claiming the voluntary discontinuance stopped the running of the statute of limitations and the bank’s lack of standing when the foreclosure action was brought invalidated the acceleration of the debt.

 

,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY COMMENCED THE ACTION PURSUANT TO THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY CPLR 205-A (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action was timely commenced pursuant to the six-month extension of the statute of limitations provided by CPLR 205-a:

As part of the recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act … , a new section, CPLR 205-a, which governs the termination of certain actions, including an action upon a bond or note, the payment of which is secured by a mortgage on real property related to real property, was enacted. As relevant here, under both CPLR 205(a) and CPLR 205-a, where an action is timely commenced and is terminated for any reason other than those specified in the statutes, the plaintiff may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence within six months following the termination, provided that the new action would have been timely commenced within the applicable limitations period prescribed by law at the time of the commencement of the prior action and that service upon the original defendant is completed within such six-month period … . * * *

Here, the requirements of CPLR 205-a have been satisfied. It is uncontested that the instant action, commenced within six months of termination of the 2017 action … , would have been timely commenced in 2017, and that the instant action is based on the same occurrence as the 2017 action, namely, the default on the payment obligations under the March note (see CPLR 205-a). Further, it is undisputed that the prior action was not terminated for any reason enumerated in CPLR 205-a. Sperry Assoc. Fed. Credit Union v John, 2023 NY Slip Op 03880, Second Dept 7-19-23

Practice Point: The foreclosure action was timely commenced pursuant to CPLR 205-a, the newly enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act.

 

, ,

THE “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE” FELL SHORT OF AN ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge a mortgage should not have been granted. The ground for the motion was the claim the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action had run. But the Second Department determined the “Notice of Intent to Foreclose” did not accelerate the mortgage. Therefore the statute of limitations had not begun to run:

“‘The law is well settled that, even if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt'” … . Acceleration occurs, inter alia, by the commencement of a foreclosure action wherein the holder of the note elects in the complaint to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage, or through an unequivocal acceleration notice transmitted to the borrower … . A notice of acceleration of a debt must be clear and unequivocal, and to constitute such clear and unequivocal acceleration of a debt, the notice must demand an immediate payment of the entire outstanding loan and not refer to acceleration only as a future event … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment on the complaint as a matter of law. The language in a 2008 “Notice of Intent to Foreclose,” that the mortgage debt would be accelerated if the borrower did not pay the arrears as set forth in the notice by September 19, 2008, was merely an expression of future intent that fell short of an actual acceleration … . Sansone v North Shore Invs. Realty Group, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03876, Second Dept 7-19-23

Practice Point: Where the mortgage debt is paid in installments, the debt must be accelerated to start the statute of limitations for a foreclosure action. Here the “Notice of Intent to Foreclose” was a statement of future intention which did not accelerate the debt.

 

, , ,

THE WRONG MAILING DATE IN AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE CANNOT BE CORRECTED IN AN AMENDED AFFIDAVIT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting for a hearing, determined a mistake in an affidavit of service of the summons and complaint (wrong mailing date) could not be corrected by an amended affidavit. Therefore a hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was necessary:

… [S]imilar to an erroneous address contained in an affidavit of service … , an erroneous mailing date “affects a defendant’s substantial right to notice of the proceeding against him or her, and may not be corrected by an amendment” … . Here, the second amended affidavit of service attempted to correct the admitted erroneous mailing date contained in the original affidavit of service and the first amended affidavit of service, and therefore should not have been considered … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rini, 2023 NY Slip Op 03856, Second Dept 7-19-23

Practice Point: A wrong address or a wrong mailing date in an affidavit of service cannot be corrected by an amended affidavit.

 

, , ,

A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IF THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT THE TITLE (HERE SUSPICION A DEED WAS FORGED); CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) IS NOT STRICTLY APPLIED TO A JUDICIAL SALE AT AUCTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and setting aside the judicial foreclosure sale, determined the possibility a deed was forged cast suspicion on the fairness of the sale. The court noted that caveat emptor (buyer beware) is not strictly applied to a judicial sale:

“‘[A] purchaser at a judicial sale should not be compelled by the courts to accept a doubtful title,’ and, ‘if it was bad or doubtful, he [or she] should, on his [or her] application, be relieved from completing the purchase'” … .

Moreover, “[t]he rule that a buyer must protect himself [or herself] against undisclosed defects does not apply in all strictness to a purchaser at a judicial sale” … . “[A] sale of land in the haste and confusion of an auction room is not governed by the strict rules applicable to formal contracts made with deliberation after ample opportunity to investigate and inquire” … .Golden Bridge, LLC v Rutland Dev. Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03854, Second Dept 7-19-23

Practice Point: Here the purchase of property at a foreclosure judicial sale was set aside because of suspicion a deed was forged. The doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) is not strictly applied to a judicial sale.

 

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