You are here: / Foreclosure
, , ,

THE HOLDER OF A DEED INTENDED AS SECURITY IN THE NATURE OF A MORTGAGE MUST PROCEED BY FORECLOSURE TO EXTINGUISH THE MORTGAGOR’S INTEREST; HERE THE SUBSEQUENT GOOD FAITH PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE MORTGAGEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION OF THEIR DEED AND A DECLARATION THEIR DEED WAS NULL AND VOID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a deed which facially appears to evidence an absolute conveyance was actually intended as security in the nature of a mortgage. The holder of such a deed (here American Lending) must proceed by foreclosure to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest. The subsequent purchasers of the property (the Romond defendants) were good faith purchasers. Therefore the Romond defendants were entitled to dismissal of American Lending’s complaint seeking rescission of the Romond deed and a declaration the deed was null and void:

In 2009, the defendant Dana Grigg sought to purchase certain property … . When financing for the transaction fell through, Grigg entered into an … agreement with the plaintiff, American Lending Corp. … to borrow … $385,000. The terms of the loan, which were memorialized in a note, included a provision that after 90 days, if the loan had not been repaid in full, American Lending would be authorized to file a joint deed in the property records and to “seek a Summary Judgment instead of following a regular foreclosure proceedings [sic].” In June 2009, Grigg purchased the subject property and executed … a deed from himself to himself and American Lending (… the joint deed). Grigg subsequently defaulted under the terms of the loan. * * *

Real Property Law § 320 provides, in pertinent part, that a “deed conveying real property, which, by any other written instrument, appears to be intended only as a security in the nature of a mortgage, although an absolute conveyance in terms, must be considered a mortgage” … .  … “The holder of a deed given as security must proceed in the same manner as any other mortgagee—by foreclosure and sale—to extinguish the mortgagor’s interest” … .

… [T]he Romond defendants established … that the joint deed was given as security for the loan from American Lending to Grigg. Therefore, pursuant to Real Property Law § 320, the joint deed must be considered a mortgage, and American Lending’s sole remedy for Grigg’s breach of its terms was to commence an action sounding in foreclosure. Moreover, under the circumstances at bar, the Romond defendants established that they were good faith purchasers of the subject property (see Real Property Law § 290 …). American Lending Corp. v Grigg, 2020 NY Slip Op 03211, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

,

THE MERE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; EXPLICIT NOTICE OF DE-ACCELERATION IS REQUIRED EITHER IN THE MOTION TO DISCONTINUE ITSELF OR IN A SEPARATE NOTICE; THEREFORE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over an extensive partial dissent, determined the discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action did not, standing alone, de-accelerate the debt. Therefore the instant foreclosure action was time-barred. The Second Department noted that the plaintiff did not submit the motion papers for the discontinuance and therefore did not submit any evidence that the debt was explicitly de-accelerated in those papers, or in any other notice to the defendant. Such explicit notice is required:

A de-acceleration of the full debt revives the borrower’s right to make the monthly payments that became due between the time the loan was accelerated and the time the acceleration was revoked, together with the right to make future monthly installment payments. Since the borrower may continue to assume that its lender or servicer will not accept post-acceleration monthly payments, the lender, in order to effectively rescind the acceleration, should be required to notify the borrower that the right to make monthly payments is restored and that the lender will accept the tender of such payments … . * * *

A bare discontinuance of litigation does not nullify the fact that a contractual right to accelerate has been unilaterally exercised pursuant to the terms of a note. An acceleration of loan debt by the transmittal of a letter or by the commencement of an action in a court of law has legal implications, such as the financial penalties authorized under the note, the potential negative effect upon the borrower’s credit rating, and reliance by the borrower that monthly payments will no longer be expected or accepted and thereby prevent any pay-down of the balance owed. To occur, none of these or other consequences of an acceleration require any permission, ruling, stipulation, decision, or order of a court, as they are independent of the litigation … . Trust v Barua, 2020 NY Slip Op 03095, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

,

NOTICE OF DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage debt was never accelerated and therefore the six-year statute of limitations did not begin to run in this foreclosure action:

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]). “[E]ven 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” … .

… [T]he May 3, 2007, notice of default, which advised that the loan would be accelerated if the default was not cured by June 7, 2007, was “nothing more than a letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, which [did] not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause”  … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Mongru, 2020 NY Slip Op 03137, Second Dept 6-3-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF BANK NEVER REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT; FIFTH FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no evidence plaintiff bank revoked the acceleration of the mortgage debt and the foreclosure action was therefore time-barred:

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank failed to affirmatively revoke the acceleration of defendant’s mortgage debt, as mere voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action is insufficient, in itself, to constitute an affirmative act of revocation … . Wells Fargo admitted that its primary reason for revoking acceleration of the mortgage debt was to avoid the statute of limitations bar, and it proceeded to collect on the accelerated loan amount in a fifth foreclosure action filed shortly after it made its motion to revoke acceleration … .

Moreover, Wells Fargo’s fifth foreclosure action, commenced on or around December 11, 2017, is time-barred, as Wells Fargo had accelerated the mortgage debt when it commenced its second foreclosure action on September 16, 2009 (CPLR 213[4] …). The fact that the prior foreclosure actions were dismissed does not undo Wells Fargo’s act of accelerating the mortgage debt. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Ferrato, 2020 NY Slip Op 03067, First Dept 5-28-20

 

,

FORECLOSURE SALE EXTINGUISHES THE RIGHT TO REDEEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s right to redeem had been extinguished by a foreclosure sale:

… [T]he defendant and nonparty Emmanuel Deliverance Center, Inc. (hereinafter Emmanuel), moved to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale, to vacate the sale of the property … , and to compel the plaintiff to accept the defendant’s offer to pay off the mortgage loan and allow her to exercise her right of redemption …

“A mortgagor or other owner of the equity of redemption of a property subject to a judgment of foreclosure and sale may redeem the mortgage at any time prior to the foreclosure sale” … . The right to redeem is extinguished as a matter of law upon the foreclosure sale, whether or not the deed has been delivered, and once the right to redeem is lost, it cannot be revived, even by court order … . Liberty Dabar Assoc. v Mohammed, 2020 NY Slip Op 03006, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

, ,

VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES OF PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND THE RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DID NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE CORRESPONDENCE DE-ACCELERATED THE DEBT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the foreclosure action was time-barred. The initial foreclosure action was in 2010. That action was discontinued and the mortgage was subsequently assigned three times. After a second discontinuance, the third foreclosure action was commenced in 2017. The majority concluded that the discontinuances and related correspondence did not de-accelerate the debt, so the statute of limitations kept running from the initial action in 2010. The dissenters argued the debt had been de-accelerated by correspondence with the defendant:

… [T]he voluntary discontinuance of the first two actions, without more, did not constitute an affirmative revocation of the initial acceleration of the debt … . That is particularly so because plaintiff’s predecessors in interest moved to discontinue each action due to title concerns, without addressing the prospect of revoking the acceleration and resuming installment payments … . * * *

[The plaintiffs’] letters do not indicate a clear and unambiguous return to an installment payment plan and, for all practical purposes, do not actually evidence any real intent to de-accelerate the loan. In effect, “plaintiff simply put defendant[s] on notice of its obligation to cure a . . . default and then promptly embarked on the notices required to initiate a [third] foreclosure action” … . In our view, these notices do not constitute affirmative actions to de-accelerate the mortgage … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Creative Encounters LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02844, Third Dept 5-14-20

 

,

PROOF OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 evidence of defendants’ default was not in admissible form:

To establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff must submit the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of the mortgagor’s default … . A default is established by (1) an admission made in response to a notice to admit, (2) an affidavit from a person having personal knowledge of the facts, or (3) other evidence in admissible form … .

Here, Ostermann [plaintiff’s vice president], in her affidavit, did not specifically state that she had personal knowledge of the default. Moreover, to the extent that her knowledge was based on her review of business records, she did not identify what records she relied on and she did not attach them to her affidavit. Thus, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence in admissible form to establish the defendants’ default … . Since the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendants had defaulted on the subject note, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants, to strike their answers, and for an order of reference … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McGann, 2020 NY Slip Op 02765, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE HOLDER OF A FIRST MORTGAGE WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, THE MORTGAGE HOLDER DID NOT NEED TO FILE ITS OWN FORECLOSURE ACTION TO ENFORCE ITS LIEN ON THE SURPLUS TAX-FORECLOSURE-SALE PROCEEDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, determined that HPD,  the holder of a first mortgage on property which was the subject of a tax foreclosure, was entitled to the surplus funds from the tax foreclosure sale. The issue was whether HPD’s action seeking the surplus was time-barred because it didn’t enforce the lien on the surplus within six years of the tax foreclosure sale. The Second Department held no further action to enforce the lien was necessary because HPD was a defendant in the tax foreclosure proceedings:

… HPD’s appearance in the tax lien foreclosure action put [the property owner] and anyone else interested in a potential surplus on notice of HPD’s claims. To require HPD to commence a separate foreclosure action, when an action to foreclose the tax lien was already pending, would serve no useful purpose. NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v Stell, 2020 NY Slip Op 02802, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

,

THE NOTICES INFORMED DEFENDANTS THAT THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ACCELERATED ON JANUARY 21, 2011; THE FACT THAT NOTICES REITERATING THAT SAME ACCELERATION DATE WERE SENT AS LATE AS NOVEMBER 2013 DID NOT CHANGE THE OPERATIVE DATE; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED IN MARCH 2017 WAS TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage payments were accelerated on January 21, 2011. The defendants were notified of the acceleration date in December 2010. Additional notices were sent to defendants as late as November 2013, but all the notices reiterated that January 21, 2011 was the acceleration date. The foreclosure action commenced in March 2017 was deemed time-barred:

The December 2010 notice stated that, on January 21, 2011, “the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” Between July 2012 and November 2013, five additional notices were sent to defendants, each reiterating that “[t]he acceleration date of January 21, 2011 . . . remains in effect.” * * *

… [T]he December 2010 notice states that, “[i]f the default is not cured on or before January 21, 2011, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” This language, particularly the underlined language in the notice, indicates the date on which the debt was to be accelerated. A plain reading of the notice does not provide any suggestion that, except for curing the default, the outstanding debt would not be accelerated on that date. As such, the notice clearly and unequivocally indicates that the outstanding mortgage payments would be accelerated on January 21, 2011 … . The reiteration of this acceleration date in five subsequent letters only further evinces the acceleration date of January 21, 2011 … . MTGLQ Invs., LLP v Lunder, 2020 NY Slip Op 02690, Third Dept 5-7-20

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 13O4 AND A CONDITION PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, its submission of an affidavit of an employee of the loan servicer was not sufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. The affiant did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the purported mailings, that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff, which allegedly sent the notice, or that the plaintiff’s records had been incorporated into the records of the loan servicer and were routinely relied upon by the loan servicer in its business … . Further, the plaintiff’s submission of an affidavit of its own employee was insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, since that employee had no personal knowledge of the purported mailings, and his unsubstantiated and conclusory statements failed to establish that the notice was mailed to the defendant not only by certified or registered mail, but also by first-class mail … . Although the plaintiff submitted tracking information from the United States Postal Service for certified mailings of the notice, the redacted proof of first-class mailing did not contain any information linking a first-class mailing to the RPAPL 1304 notice, and thus, failed to establish that the notice was mailed by first-class mail … . Likewise, the plaintiff’s submission of a “Proof of Filing” statement pursuant to RPAPL 1306 contained no information indicating that the mailing was done by both registered or certified mail and first-class mail as required by RPAPL 1304 … .

The plaintiff similarly failed to establish, prima facie, that it mailed a notice of default to the defendant by first-class mail as required by the terms of the mortgage as a condition precedent to acceleration of the loan … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Nellis, 2020 NY Slip Op 02621, Second Dept 5-6-20

Similar issues and result in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Nelson, 2020 NY Slip Op 02604, Second Dept 5-6-20

 

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