You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001; SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to substitute nunc pro tunc an affidavit of merit and amount due in a foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff could not confirm the proper execution of the original affidavit (a requirement of an administrative order of the chief administrative judge) and sought to substitute the original with an identical affidavit, the proper execution of which could be confirmed. Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint sua sponte. The Fourth Department held that the dismissal was not warranted and CPLR 2001 permitted the substitution:

 

” A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal’ ” … . Here, we conclude that “[t]he fact that . . . plaintiff’s [new] attorney[s] attempted to comply, in good faith, with an Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge that did not exist at the time that the action was commenced, or at the time [the judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted], does not qualify as such an extraordinary circumstance’ ” that would support a sua sponte dismissal … . Indeed, “[n]othing in the Administrative Order[] requires the dismissal of an action merely because the plaintiff’s attorney[s] discover[] that there was some irregularity or defect in a prior submission” … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that plaintiff is not “effectively required to commence an entirely new action” … .

We further conclude that the court erred in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to substitute the affidavit of merit and amount due. “CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party’s mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced” … . In addition, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party” … . Here, we conclude that the substitution of the original affidavit of merit and amount due with a new, substantively identical affidavit of merit and amount due was a ministerial amendment permitted by CPLR 2001 and CPLR 5019 (a) inasmuch as the change affected only plaintiff’s ability to comply with the Administrative Order, and “[t]he attorney affirmation is not itself substantive evidence” … . We further conclude that “[n]o substantial right of [defendant .. .would] be affected by the court’s substitution” … . Indeed, that defendant did not reside in the subject property when plaintiff commenced the mortgage foreclosure action and the property was vacant at that time, and he never joined this action nor made any effort to contest the foreclosure. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Watanabe, 2016 NY Slip Op 01096, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/FORECLOSURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT AND AMOUNT DUE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)

,

HOLDER OF SECOND MORTGAGE COULD PROPERLY SUE ONLY ON THE UNDERLYING DEBT WITHOUT BRINGING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank, the holder of a second mortgage on defendant’s residence to secure an equity loan, could sue to recover on the underlying debt, without bringing foreclosure proceedings. Because defendant’s ownership and possession of his residence was not at risk in the lawsuit, the protections afforded a homeowner by the foreclosure procedure were not applicable:

 

Where a creditor holds both a debt instrument and a mortgage which is given to secure the debt, the creditor may elect either to sue at law to recover on the debt, or to sue in equity to foreclose on the mortgage (… see generally RPAPL 1301). Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the clear and unequivocal language of the parties’ agreement did not limit the plaintiff’s options to recover in the event of a default, and did not require that the plaintiff commence only a foreclosure action … . …

Accordingly, the plaintiff was free to commence the instant action to recover damages, and the protections afforded to homeowners under the foreclosure laws are inapplicable to this action, since the defendant’s ownership and possession of his residence are not at risk in this lawsuit. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Goans, 2016 NY Slip Op 00710, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

MORTGAGES (SECOND MORTGAGE TO SECURE HOME EQUITY LOAN, BANK CAN SUE ON DEBT WITHOUT BRINGING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS)/FORECLOSURE (SECOND MORTGAGE TO SECURE HOME EQUITY LOAN, BANK CAN SUE ON DEBT WITHOUT BRINGING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS)/HOME EQUITY LOAN (SECOND MORTGAGE TO SECURE HOME EQUITY LOAN, BANK CAN SUE ON DEBT WITHOUT BRINGING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS)/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (SECOND MORTGAGE TO SECURE HOME EQUITY LOAN, BANK CAN SUE ON DEBT WITHOUT BRINGING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS)

,

BANK DID NOT NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH IN THE CPLR 3408 MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, CERTAIN SANCTIONS PROPERLY IMPOSED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the bank did not negotiate in a mortgage foreclosure settlement conference (CPLR 3408(f)) in good faith and properly imposed certain sanctions on the bank:

 

Pursuant to CPLR 3408(f), the parties at a mandatory foreclosure settlement conference are required to negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution (see CPLR 3408[f]…). ” The purpose of the good faith requirement [in CPLR 3408] is to ensure that both plaintiff and defendant are prepared to participate in a meaningful effort at the settlement conference to reach resolution'” … . To conclude that a party failed to negotiate in good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f), a court must determine that “the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the party’s conduct did not constitute a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution” … .

Here, contrary to the Bank’s contention, the totality of the circumstances support the Supreme Court’s conclusion that it failed to negotiate in good faith. The homeowner’s submissions demonstrated that the Bank, among other things, engaged in dilatory conduct by “making piecemeal document requests, providing contradictory information, and repeatedly requesting documents which had already been provided” … . The Bank failed to offer any evidence in opposition to the homeowner’s motion and did not controvert the homeowner’s account of the mandatory settlement negotiations. Accordingly, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the Bank violated CPLR 3408(f) by failing to negotiate in good faith … . LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Dono, 2016 NY Slip Op 00340, 2nd Dept 1-20-16

 

FORECLOSURE (BANK DID NOT NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH RE: MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (BANK DID NOT NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH IN MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)

FORECLOSURE OF A REVERSE MORTGAGE CAN BE BASED UPON HOMEOWNER’S FAILURE TO MAKE HAZARD INSURANCE PAYMENTS.

The Third Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant homeowner in a reverse-mortgage foreclosure action. Foreclosure proceedings were started because defendant did not make hazard insurance payments. Plaintiff bank made those payments on her behalf. The Third Department held that the relevant regulations allowed plaintiff bank to make the hazard insurance payments, but did not require it to do so. Foreclosure, therefore, can be based upon defendant’s failure to make the payments:

 

Defendant was obliged to “pay all property charges consisting of taxes, ground rents, flood and hazard insurance premiums, and special assessments” under the terms of the loan documents (24 CFR 206.205 [a]), and those documents contemplate that foreclosure is an available remedy for her failure to perform such an obligation (see 24 CFR 206.27 [b] [6]; [c] [2] [iii])[FN1]. Supreme Court nevertheless held that plaintiff was precluded from seeking foreclosure by 24 CFR 206.205 (c), which provides that “[i]f the mortgagor fails to pay the property charges in a timely manner, and has not elected to have the mortgagee make the payments, the mortgagee may make the payment for the mortgagor and charge the mortgagor’s account” (emphasis added). Language such as “may” should ordinarily be read as permissive, “and mandatory effect is given to [it] only when required by the context of the [regulation], the facts surrounding its [promulgation], or the purposes sought to be served thereby” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 177 [b]). The context of 24 CFR 206.205 gives no reason to believe that mandatory effect should be afforded to its discretionary language and, contrary to the conclusion of Supreme Court, neither does the purpose underlying the federal regulatory scheme. The scheme in question is intended to enable the Secretary to provide insurance for reverse mortgages that will facilitate the offering of such mortgages to elderly homeowners by lenders which, in turn, will allow the homeowners to monetize their accumulated home equity (see 12 USC § 1715z-20 [a]; 24 CFR 206.1). This actual goal runs against an interpretation of the regulation that would prevent a mortgagee from pursuing whatever permissible remedy it deems appropriate to recover unpaid carrying costs and, indeed, adopting that reading could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of lenders to offer reverse mortgages. We therefore read 24 CFR 206.205 (c) as allowing, but not requiring, plaintiff to pay carrying charges owed by defendant rather than resorting to foreclosure … . Onewest Bank, FSB v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 00092, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

FORECLOSURE (FORECLOSURE OF REVERSE MORTGAGE MAY BE BASED ON HOMEOWNER’S FAILURE TO MAKE HAZARD INSURANCE PAYMENTS)/MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE OF REVERSE MORTGAGE MAY BE BASED ON HOMEOWNER’S FAILURE TO MAKE HAZARD INSURANCE PAYMENTS)/REVERSE MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE OF REVERSE MORTGAGE MAY BE BASED ON HOMEOWNER’S FAILURE TO MAKE HAZARD INSURANCE PAYMENTS)/REVERSE MORTGAGES (FORECLOSURE OF REVERSE MORTGAGE MAY BE BASED ON HOMEOWNER’S FAILURE TO MAKE HAZARD INSURANCE PAYMENTS)

Plaintiff Did Not Demonstrate Standing to Bring the Foreclosure Action

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate standing to proceed with the foreclosure because the bank did not present evidence of the affiant’s first-hand examination of the original note and the bank did not explain how it came into possession of the original note:

To establish physical possession, plaintiff produced an affidavit by an assistant secretary, who stated that plaintiff’s “custodial system of record” showed that plaintiff “received the original [n]ote on February 16, 2007” and that plaintiff maintained “possession of the [n]ote at its storage facility” in Monroe, Louisiana. Noticeably absent is any representation by the assistant secretary that she examined the original note and, contrary to the dissent, the affidavit is devoid of any detail as to how plaintiff actually acquired possession of the original note … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Hill, 2015 NY Slip Op 08479, 3rd Dept 11-19-15

 

,

Question Whether Loan At Issue Was a “Home Loan” Requiring a Settlement Conference, Hearing Ordered

The Second Department found that a hearing was required to determine whether the loan at issue was a “home loan” such that a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 was required. The court explained the analytical factors:

“CPLR 3408 does not apply to every residential foreclosure action” … . CPLR 3408 only mandates a settlement conference in a residential foreclosure action involving a “home loan” as that term is defined by RPAPL 1304, and when the “defendant is a resident of the property subject to foreclosure” (see CPLR 3408…).

RPAPL 1304(5)(a)(i)-(iv) defines a qualifying home loan as one in which, inter alia, the borrower is a natural person; the borrower incurs the debt primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and the loan is secured by a mortgage on real property in this state “used or occupied, or intended to be used or occupied wholly or partly, as the home or [the] residence of one or more persons and which is or will be occupied by the borrower as the borrower’s principal dwelling” … .

Here, the conflicting affidavits submitted by the parties reveal a sharp factual dispute, inter alia, as to whether the subject loan was made for the defendant’s personal, family, or household use, and whether the mortgaged premises was to be occupied as the defendant’s principal dwelling. Richlew Real Estate Venture v Grant, 2015 NY Slip Op 07018, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

, ,

Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan” Subject to the Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conference Required by CPLR 3408

The Second Department determined defendant was not entitled to a pre-foreclosure settlement conference under CPLR 3408. The underlying loan was secured by shares in the cooperative apartment where defendant resided. Such a loan was not a “home loan” within the meaning of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304, and therefore was not subject to the mandatory settlement conference under the CPLR:

CPLR 3408 requires, in relevant part, that a court hold a mandatory settlement conference in “any residential foreclosure action involving a home loan as such term is defined in section thirteen hundred four of the real property actions and proceeding law” (CPLR 3408[a]). RPAPL 1304 does not include, in its definition of “home loan,” a loan secured by shares of stock and a proprietary lease from a corporation formed for the purpose of cooperative ownership in real estate (RPAPL 1304[5][a][iii]; cf. Banking Law §§ 6-l[1][e][iv]; 6-m[1][d][iv]). Accordingly, because the subject loan is not a home loan within the meaning of RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff is not entitled to a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408. DaCosta-Harris v Aurora Bank, FSB, 2015 NY Slip Op 06879, 2nd Dept 9-23-15

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect, Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Warranted

The Second Department, in reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure action on “lack of standing” grounds, noted that the “lack of standing” defense was waived by the defendants (not raised in answer), sua sponte dismissal was an abuse of discretion, and “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defect. The court explained:

“The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing. ‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal’ … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Since the defendants … did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint …”. FCDB FF1 2008-1 Trust v Videjus, 2015 NY Slip Op 06777, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

, ,

“Lack of Standing” Defense Waived by Not Asserting It In the Answer—“Lack of Standing” Not a Jurisdictional Defect—Sua Sponte Dismissal for “Lack of Standing” Not Warranted

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff-bank’s unopposed motions in a foreclosure action, the Second Department noted that defendant homeowner had waived the “lack of standing” defense by not asserting it in her answer, and, in any event, “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defense for which the court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint was warranted:

The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for the plaintiff’s lack of standing. A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal … . Here, the court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. [The homeowner] had waived the defense of lack of standing by failing to assert it in her amended answer, which she withdrew in any event, the State waived the defense by serving and filing a limited notice of appearance, and the remaining defendants waived the defense by failing to appear or answer… . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Holmes, 2015 NY Slip Op 06662, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

,

Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule Established Possession of Note at the Time Foreclosure Was Commenced

The Third Department determined plaintiff bank demonstrated it had standing to foreclose by sufficient proof it had possession of the underlying note at the time the foreclosure proceeding was commenced. Proof of possession of the note was by an affidavit invoking the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court noted that evidence a document received from another entity was filed does not qualify the documents as business records. Here, however, the affidavit included sufficient additional information to demonstrate the applicability of the exception:

While “the mere filing of papers received from other entities, even if they are retained in the regular course of business, is insufficient to qualify the documents as business records” …, such records are nonetheless admissible “if the recipient can establish personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, or that the records provided by the maker were incorporated into the recipient’s own records or routinely relied upon the recipient in its business” … . To be admissible, these documents should carry the indicia of reliability ordinarily associated with business records … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Monica, 2015  Slip Op 06453, 3rd Dept 8-6-15

 

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