You are here: / Foreclosure
,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE FAILURE TO ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, AS WELL AS THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF MAILING, RENDERED THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-default provisions of the mortgage in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish … that it complied with the notice of default provisions of the mortgage, which … required the plaintiff to send the notice by first-class mail to the subject property and to provide a 30-day cure period. Copies of the notice without proof of mailing, along with the affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer averring, based upon her review of unspecified business records which were not attached to the affidavit, that such a notice of default was sent on an unspecified date, was insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden … .Bank of Am., N.A. v Shirazi, 2022 NY Slip Op 01984, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Although most foreclosure-reversals are due to the bank’s failure to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304, here the bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-default provisions in the mortgage document.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH NONPARTY JP MORGAN DID NOT APPEAR IN THE UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE, IT COULD RECOVER SURPLUS FUNDS BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT ON A CREDIT-LINE LOAN SECURED BY THE PROPERTY; JP MORGAN’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CREDIT-LINE DEBT WAS NEVER UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCELERATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined nonparty JP Morgan was entitled to the surplus funds remaining after a foreclosure sale based upon the defendants’ (Breuers’) default on a credit-line loan secured by the property. The defendants’ argument that the credit-line action was time-barred was rejected because the debt was never accelerated. Pursuant to RPAPL 1361, JP Morgan did not have to appear in the underlying foreclosure action to preserve a claim to the surplus funds:

Where, as here, “the acceleration of the maturity of a mortgage debt on default is made optional with the holder of the note and mortgage, some affirmative action must be taken evidencing the holder’s election to take advantage of the accelerating provision, and until such action has been taken the provision has no operation” … .

… [T]he Breuers failed to demonstrate … that the statute of limitations began to run on JP Morgan’s entire claim at the time of the Breuers’ initial default in 2010. A letter introduced into evidence during the hearing, in which JP Morgan informed the Breuers of its intent to accelerate the maturity of the loan and to commence foreclosure proceedings if the Breuers’ default was not cured, was not sufficient to accelerate the debt, because it did not reflect a “clear and unequivocal” election to accelerate … . …

… [T]he applicable statute which governs proceedings to recover surplus funds from a foreclosure sale, RPAPL 1361, did not require JP Morgan to appear in the action to foreclose the primary mortgage prior to the entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale, in order to preserve its claim to surplus funds … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Breuer, 2022 NY Slip Op 02037, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Although nonparty JP Morgan did not appear in the underlying foreclosure proceedings, it was entitled to the surplus funds remaining after the foreclosure sale based upon defendants’ default on a credit-line loan secured by the property.

 

,

IF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BY AEGIS WAS VALID, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BY A DIFFERENT BANK WOULD BE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF BANK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE THAT AEGIS DID NOT POSSESS THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AT THE TIME THE 2008 ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether Aegis, the company which started a foreclosure action in 2008, had standing to commence that action. Therefore there was a question of fact whether the Aegis action accelerated the debt and started the running of the six-year statute of limitations:

… [P]laintiff proffered the affidavit of Sherry Benight, a document control officer for Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter SPS), the servicer and attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff. Based upon her review of SPS’s business records, Benight averred that pursuant to a pooling and servicing agreement (hereinafter PSA), dated January 1, 2006, the original note was transferred to SPS, in its capacity as servicer and attorney-in-fact, on May 14, 2008, and SPS has remained in physical possession of the note since that date. Benight attached to her affidavit copies of the PSA, and a mortgage loan schedule listing the subject loan, note, and mortgage. This evidence was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact as to whether Aegis lacked standing to commence the prior action, and whether this action is time-barred … . U.S. Bank N..A. v Nail, 2022 NY Slip Op 02034, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: If a bank did not possess the note and mortgage at the time it commenced a foreclosure action, the action is a nullity.

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ PARTICIPATION IN A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DID NOT WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure complaint should have been dismissed as abandoned because the plaintiff did not move for a default judgment within a year (CPLR 3215(c)). The fact that the defendants participated in a settlement conference did not waive their right to move to dismiss the complaint as abandoned:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to take steps to initiate proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against the defendants within one year after their default in the action, and has set forth no reasonable excuse for said failure … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants did not waive their right to seek dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The defendants’ participation in a settlement conference did not result in a waiver of their right to seek dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) since they did not actively litigate the action before the Supreme Court or participate in the action on the merits … . Moreover, the defendants’ failure to move to vacate their default in answering the complaint or appearing in this action did not operate as a waiver of their right to seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) … . PennyMac Corp. v Weinberg, 2022 NY Slip Op 02010, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Participation in a settlement conference does not waive a defendant’s right to move to dismiss a foreclosure action as abandoned based on plaintiff bank’s failure to move for a default judgment within a year.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the affidavits submitted by the plaintiff bank to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were insufficient:

… [N]either counsel in her affirmation, nor a contract management coordinator for the plaintiff’s loan servicer in an affidavit submitted in support of the motion, averred that they had personal knowledge of the mailing, or that the mailing was sent by both certified mail and first-class mail. Moreover, neither counsel nor the loan servicer’s representative described any standard office procedure designed to ensure that the notices were mailed, and no domestic return receipts for the mailings were submitted in support of the motion … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LoPresti, 2022 NY Slip Op 01767, Second Dept 3-16-22

​Practice Point: Proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 failed in this foreclosure action.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE (1) STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE REVERSE MORTGAGE, (2) DEFAULT AND (3) NOTICE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s summary judgment motion in this reverse mortgage foreclosure proceeding should not have been granted.  The affidavit submitted to prove standing, default and notice was not accompanied by the relevant business records, rendering the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:

CIT Bank [plaintiff] submitted an affidavit of its assistant secretary, Elizabeth Birk, who, upon review of the business records maintained by CIT Bank, averred that CIT Bank was the “holder of the instrument of indebtedness at the time this action was commenced,” the borrower was “in default,” the “mortgage debt remains unpaid,” and a default notice “was thereafter duly sent.” However, since Birk failed to attach or otherwise incorporate any of CIT Bank’s business records to her affidavit, her assertions regarding the contents of such business records constituted inadmissible hearsay … . CIT Bank, N.A. v Fernandez, 2022 NY Slip Op 01764, Second Dept 3-16-22

Similar issue (no business records attached to the bank’s affidavit demonstrating defendant’s default) and result in JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v Newton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01777, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: An affidavit submitted in support of summary judgment which purports to demonstrate what business records say, but which is not accompanied by those business records, in inadmissible hearsay.

 

, ,

THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not include in its complaint in this foreclosure action the allegation it had complied with RPAPL 1306, which is a condition precedent to suit:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that, “with regard to a home loan, at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “RPAPL 1306 provides, in . . . part, that within three business days of the mailing of the foreclosure notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304(1), every lender or assignee ‘shall file’ certain information with the superintendent of financial services, including ‘at a minimum, the name, address, last known telephone number of the borrower, and the amount claimed as due and owing on the mortgage, and such other information as will enable the superintendent to ascertain the type of loan at issue'” … . RPAPL 1306(1) further provides that any complaint served in a foreclosure proceeding “shall contain, as a condition precedent to such proceeding, an affirmative allegation that at the time the proceeding is commenced, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of this section.”

Here … the complaint did not contain an allegation that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1306. Thus, a condition precedent to suit was not satisfied, and the plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment on the complaint … . USA Residential Props., LLC v Jongebloed, 2022 NY Slip Op 01835, Second Dept 3-16-22

Practice Point: If the bank does not allege in its foreclosure complaint compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1306, it has not satisfied a condition precedent to suit.

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LOAN SERVICER PURPORTING TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT AVER THAT THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BANK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ default was not demonstrate by the complaint, which was not verified, or by the affidavit from the loan servicer, which did not aver that the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff bank in this foreclosure proceeding:

… Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment and order of reference. “Where, as here, a foreclosure complaint is not verified, CPLR 3215(f) states, among other things, that upon any application for a judgment by default, proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default, and the amount due are to be set forth in an affidavit ‘made by the party'” …  Here, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit executed by a contract management coordinator for the plaintiff’s purported loan servicer. However, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiff … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Stiene, 2022 NY Slip Op 01833, Second Dept 3-16-22

​Practice Point: Here, in this foreclosure action, the affidavit from the loan servicer which purported to demonstrate defendants’ default did not demonstrate the affiant had the authority to act on behalf of the bank.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS NEVER ASSIGNED THE NOTE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE MORTGAGE; AN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A FULLY BRIEFED MOTION ARGUMENT IS NOT A DEFAULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant does not own the note underlying the mortgage and therefore has no right to foreclose. The Fourth Department noted that an attorney’s failure to appear at a full briefed motion argument does not constitute a default:

… [D]efendant lacks noteholder standing because the promissory note upon which defendant relies is neither endorsed in blank nor specially endorsed to defendant … . … [E]ven had the note been endorsed in blank or specially endorsed to defendant, defendant’s admitted failure to physically possess the original note would independently preclude it from foreclosing as a noteholder … . …

Nor does defendant have assignee standing. The affidavits submitted on defendant’s behalf do not aver that the subject note was ever assigned to defendant … . …

… [A]n action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15 is a proper procedural vehicle for determining defendant’s standing to foreclose (see RPAPL 1501 [1], [5] … ). Hummel v Cilici, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01690, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: An attorney’s failure to appear at a fully briefed motion argument is not a default.

Practice Point: A party who never physically possessed the note underlying the mortgage does not have standing to foreclose.

 

, ,

THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “HOLDER (OF THE NOTE)” REQUIREMENTS OF THE UCC WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:

… [T]here was no evidence that the plaintiff is the assignee of note, and triable issues of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code (see UCC 3-104[2][d] …). A “holder” is “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession” (UCC 1-201[b][21][A] …). Where an instrument is endorsed in blank, it may be negotiated by delivery (see UCC 3-202[1]; 3-204[2] …). In the present case, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the note was properly endorsed in blank by an allonge “so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof” when it came into the possession of the plaintiff (UCC 3-202[2] …). …

The plaintiff’s reliance on the assignments of the mortgage is misplaced “because the mortgage is not the dispositive document of title as to the mortgage loan” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Herod, 2022 NY Slip Op 01444, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: To establish standing, a bank has to prove it was the “holder” of the promissory note within the meaning of the UCC at the time the foreclosure action was commenced. Here there were questions of fact whether the note in the bank’s possession was endorsed in blank by an attached “allonge” as required by the UCC.

 

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