You are here: / Foreclosure
,

Motion to Vacate Default Judgment in Foreclosure Action Properly Granted—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated a default judgment in a foreclosure action:

” A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court'” … . “Under CPLR 5015(a), a court is empowered to vacate a default judgment for several reasons, including excusable neglect; newly-discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party; lack of jurisdiction; or upon the reversal, modification or vacatur of a prior order” … .

“In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . Indeed, the drafters of CPLR 5015(a) “intended that courts retain and exercise their inherent discretionary power in situations that warranted vacatur but [*2]which the drafters could not easily foresee” … .

“The decision as to the setting aside of a default in answering is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, the exercise of which will generally not be disturbed if there is support in the record therefor” … .

Under the unique circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered on the default of the Cohen defendants “in the interests of substantial justice” … . The documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion raises issues including, among others, whether the plaintiff had “knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable, prudent lender to make inquiries of the circumstances of the transaction at issue” … . Hudson City Sav Bank v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 06177, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

, ,

“Sua Sponte” Dismissal of Complaint Based on Lack of Standing Reversed

The Second Department, in a foreclosure action, determined Supreme Court abused its discretion in dismissing, sua sponte, the complaint on the ground the plaintiff lacked standing.  The court explained that sua sponte dismissal is warranted only in extraordinary circumstances, the defendants had not raised the “lack of standing” defense, and lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect:

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 sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint and did not make pre-answer motions 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 a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . Bank of NY v Cepeda, 2014 NY Slip Op 05614, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

,

Bank Did Not Negotiate a Mortgage Modification in Good Faith as Required by CPLR 3408—Applicable “Good Faith” Standard Determined and Explained

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that Supreme Court had properly found that plaintiff bank did not negotiate in good faith a mortgage modification pursuant to the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) (CPLR 3408).  In the course of the opinion, the court described the applicable “good faith” standard:

…[W]e hold that the issue of whether a party failed to negotiate in “good faith” within the meaning of CPLR 3408(f) should be determined by considering whether the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the party’s conduct did not constitute a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution. We reject the plaintiff’s contention that, in order to establish a party’s lack of good faith pursuant to CPLR 3408(f), there must be a showing of gross disregard of, or conscious or knowing indifference to, another’s rights. Such a determination would permit a party to obfuscate, delay, and prevent CPLR 3408 settlement negotiations by acting negligently, but just short of deliberately, e.g., by carelessly providing misinformation and contradictory responses to inquiries, and by losing documentation. Our determination is consistent with the purpose of the statute, which provides that parties must negotiate in “good faith” in an effort to resolve the action, and that such resolution could include, “if possible,” a loan modification (CPLR 3408[f]…).

Where a plaintiff fails to expeditiously review submitted financial information, sends inconsistent and contradictory communications, and denies requests for a loan modification without adequate grounds, or, conversely, where a defendant fails to provide requested financial information or provides incomplete or misleading financial information, such conduct could constitute the failure to negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

In this case, the totality of the circumstances supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff failed to act in good faith, as the plaintiff thwarted any reasonable opportunities to settle the action, thus contravening the purpose and intent of CPLR 3408. US Bank NA v Sarmiento, 2014 NY Slip Op 05533, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

,

Property Should Not Have Been Restored to Petitioner—Time for Redemption Had Passed—Default Judgment in Tax Foreclosure Action Extinguished Petitioner’s Rights in the Property

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have restored title to property to the petitioner after the a default judgment had been entered in a tax foreclosure action.  The time for redemption had passed and had not been extended:

The Treasurer’s posting of the tax enforcement notification at petitioner’s residence on April 25, 2012 extended the right of redemption until May 25, 2012 (see RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [iii]). Only a local law could extend the cut-off date for redemption (see RPTL 1111 [2]) and, thus, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the published notice of the tax auction could not extend that date of redemption. Where a valid tax lien exists, and the taxing authority followed all proper procedures in foreclosing the lien, the taxpayer’s property interests are “lawfully extinguished as of the expiration of the[ ] right to redemption and the entry of the judgment of foreclosure” … . Thus, all of petitioner’s right, title and interest in the parcels, in her individual and representative capacities, was extinguished when the default judgment was entered in the tax foreclosure action on June 18, 2012 (see RPTL 1123 [8]).  Matter of Johnstone v Treasurer of Wayne County, 2014 NY Slip Op 04590, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

,

Statutory Notice Requirements for Tax Foreclosure Me

The Third Department determined the tax foreclosure proceedings were valid.  The motion to reopen the default judgment was untimely and the statutory notice requirements were met:

A motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure ‘may not be brought later than one month after entry of the judgment'” … . Significantly, “‘the statute of limitations set forth in RPTL 1131 applies even where, as here, the property owner asserts that he or she was not notified of the foreclosure proceeding'”… .

…[W]e reject respondent’s contention that the statute of limitations period for its motion to vacate never commenced running because petitioner failed to comply with the notice requirements of RPTL 1125. Pursuant to RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i), notice of a foreclosure proceeding shall be sent to a party entitled to notice by certified mail and first class mail and “notice shall be deemed received unless both the certified mailing and the ordinary first class mailing are returned by the United States postal service within [45] days after being mailed” … . Further, where one of the notices is not returned within the requisite period, a petitioner is “‘not obligated to take additional steps to notify [the] respondent of the foreclosure proceeding'” … . Here, the first class mailing sent to respondent in October 2011 was never returned to petitioner. Additionally, although the November 2011 first class and certified mailings were both returned, that did not occur within 45 days; they were returned more than 100 days after being mailed. As a result, the mailings were deemed received and petitioner’s obligation to provide notice under the statute was satisfied … . Matter of County of Clinton, 2014 NY Slip Op 02486, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Plaintiff Did Not Demonstrate Standing—No Proof Underlying Debt Was Transferred to the Plaintiff Along with the Mortgage

The Second Department determined the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding did not demonstrate standing because there was no proof the underlying debt was transferred to the plaintiff along with the mortgage:

Where, as here, standing is put into issue by the defendant, the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief… .  In a mortgage foreclosure action, “[a] plaintiff has standing where it is the holder or assignee of both the subject mortgage and of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” … . ” Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation'” … . “Where a mortgage is represented by a bond or other instrument, an assignment of the mortgage without assignment of the underlying note or bond is a nullity” . Here, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion did not demonstrate that the note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of the action, and the plaintiff similarly failed to submit a written assignment of the note. Bank of NY Mellon v Gales, 2014 NY Slip Op 02402, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

Plaintiff Did Not Establish It Was the Lawful Holder of the Note on the Date the Action Was Commenced

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment because it did not establish it had standing as the lawful holder or assignee of the underlying note.  The court explained the applicable law, noting that the assignment of a mortgage without an assignment of the note is a nullity, but the where a note is transferred, the mortgage securing the debt passes as an incident to the note:

Where, as here, the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing to be entitled to relief … . In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder of the subject mortgage and of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced … . Where a note is transferred, a mortgage securing the debt passes as an incident to the note … . By contrast, an assignment of a mortgage without assignment of the underlying note or bond is a nullity … . “Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because it did not establish that it had standing as the lawful holder or assignee of the subject note on the date it commenced this action… .  MLCFC 2007-9 Mixed Astoria LLC v 36-02 35th Ave Dev LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02416, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

, , ,

Application to Vacate Default Judgment in Tax Foreclosure Proceeding Governed by Two-Year Statute of Limitations (Under the Facts, the One-Month Statute Did Not Apply)/Deed Purporting to Transfer Property from Religious Organization Invalid for Failure to Comply with the Religious Corporation Law/Notice of Tax Foreclosure Sufficient Even Though Actual Owner Not Notified

The Third Department determined petitioner’s application to set aside a tax foreclosure judgment was timely, but determined the application was properly denied because the notice of the foreclosure proceeding was adequate, even though petitioner, the actual owner of the property, was not notified. Petitioner, a religious organization, had transferred the property by deed to Forbes, a minister, in 1985. Forbes paid property taxes for several years, but when the payments ceased the county moved to foreclose, naming Forbes as the owner. It turned out that the deed to Forbes was invalid because the transfer did not comply with the Religious Corporation Law. The actual owner, petitioner, was not notified of the foreclosure proceedings. In affirming the judgment of foreclosure, the court discussed the appropriate statute of limitations under the facts, the property-transfer requirements of the Religious Corporation Law, and the tax-foreclosure notice requirements:

Initially, Supreme Court erred in determining that petitioner’s application was untimely. Unlike a motion to vacate a default judgment in a tax foreclosure proceeding, which “may not be brought later than one month after entry of the judgment” (RPTL 1131…), a person or entity challenging the validity of a deed transferred in connection with a tax foreclosure proceeding faces a two-year statute of limitations (see RPTL 1137…). As petitioner was not a party to the foreclosure proceeding and now seeks to set aside the judgment on the basis that respondent failed to provide notice to the rightful owner, the application was timely (see RPTL 1137).The 1985 deed to Forbes was invalid. A religious corporation shall not sell “any of its real property without applying for and obtaining leave of the court” pursuant to N-PCL 511 (Religious Corporations Law § 12 [1]…). Under N-PCL 511 (b), the Attorney General must be notified before any sale may be finalized. Petitioner did not seek court approval in 1985 or thereafter (see Religious Corporations Law § 12 [1], [9]), nor was the Attorney General notified of the transfer of the property. Where court approval is not obtained for the transfer of real property from a religious corporation, the conveyance is invalid … . Accordingly, the 1985 deed was invalid and Forbes should not have had any legal right to the property. * * *When determining the reasonableness of the taxing authority’s attempts to provide notice to interested parties, the court may take into account the conduct of such parties … Here, petitioner indicated that it intended to convey the property to Forbes – its then-minister – in 1985 and was only unsuccessful due to their lack of legal knowledge. Additionally, petitioner did not take any action against Forbes to regain title, despite the deed having been filed for nearly 27 years at the time the foreclosure proceeding was commenced. Under the circumstances, including respondent’s provision of proper statutory notice to the owner of record, respondent complied with due process and satisfied its obligation of searching for interested parties, and petitioner has not demonstrated that any additional steps or more exhaustive search was required here… . Matter of City of Hudson…, 516690, 3rd Dept 2-27-14

 

, ,

Motion to Vacate Pursuant to CPLR 5015 Should Have Been Granted On “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” and “Fraud Upon the Court” Grounds

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, the Fourth Department determined Wells Fargo had either perpetrated a fraud upon the court or failed to reveal all the facts to the court which granted a nunc pro tunc order adding a second parcel to a foreclosure action. The Fourth Department noted that Wells Fargo knew the foreclosure action did not relate to the second parcel and therefore knew the nunc pro tunc order purporting merely to correct a mistake should not have been granted:

First, we agree … that the court … should have granted the motion to vacate the nunc pro tunc order because the court … was without subject matter jurisdiction to issue the nunc pro tunc order (see CPLR 5015 [a] [4]). Wells Fargo moved for the nunc pro tunc order pursuant to CPLR 2001, which provides that a “court may permit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity . . . to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just, or, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be disregarded.” The court erred in granting the nunc pro tunc motion because Wells Fargo was not seeking to correct a mere ministerial or clerical mistake… . * * *

…[W]e agree … that the court … also should have granted the motion to vacate the nunc pro tunc order based on “fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party” (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]…).. In its nunc pro tunc motion, Wells Fargo asserted that the “common address” of 124-128 East Main Street contained both Parcel No. 1 and Parcel No. 2. Wells Fargo failed to advise the court …., however, that the metes and bounds descriptions of the two parcels are different. Wells Fargo does not dispute that, “when there is a discrepancy between the street address and the legal description of a piece of real property, the legal description controls” … . Wells Fargo also failed to advise the court of the second mortgage that encumbered Parcel No. 2, which, as noted earlier, was executed on the same date as the first mortgage. Further, Wells Fargo failed to advise the court that there was a two-family dwelling on Parcel No. 1 and a separate four-family dwelling on Parcel No. 2. Had Wells Fargo made the court aware of those facts, the court may have realized that there was no clerical error in omitting Parcel No. 2 from schedule A. Wells Fargo Bank NA … v Podeswik…, 81, 4th Dept 2-14-14

 

Foreclosure On Both Junior and Senior Mortgages May Result in Unjust Enrichment If the Two Obligations Amount to More than the Fair Market Value

The Third Department explained the “unjust enrichment” issues raised when a party holds two mortgages on the same property, forecloses on the junior mortgage, purchases the property at the foreclosure sale, and then sues on the senior mortgage:

Where, as here, a holder of two mortgages forecloses on the junior mortgage and purchases the property, the question of whether the senior obligation is recoverable is a matter of equity dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the case (see Restatement [Third] of Property § 8.5, Comment c [2]…).  When the sale price and the outstanding amount owed on the senior obligation together equal the fair market value of the property, the land is considered to satisfy the debt.  In that case, equity will prevent the mortgagee from suing on the senior obligation and thus receiving a windfall (see Restatement [Third] of Property § 8.5, Comment c [2]…).

If, however, the fair market value of the property is less than the sum of the two obligations, “the mortgagor would be unjustly enriched if the mortgagee is prevented from recovering on the senior obligation” (Restatement [Third] of Property § 8.5, Comment c [2]).  In such a situation “the mortgagee may recover on the senior obligation only the amount by which the sum of the junior and senior obligations exceed the fair market value of the land” (Restatement [Third] of Property § 8.5, Comment c [2]). Here, neither party submitted proof as to the fair market value of the property, and Supreme Court thus had no basis to determine the amount recoverable on the senior note.  We remit for that purpose.  TD Bank NA… v Dunbar Tower LLC, 516770, 3rd Dept 12-12-13

 

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