You are here: / Foreclosure

Proof of Value of Property For Purposes of Entering a Deficiency Judgment Not Sufficient

The Second Department determined that the mortgage lender failed to submit adequate proof of the value of the property for purposes of entering a deficiency judgment:

RPAPL 1371(2) permits a mortgage lender to enter a deficiency judgment for the amount owed “less the market value as determined by the court or the sale price of the property whichever shall be the higher.” “The mortgagee has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of the fair market value of the property as of the foreclosure sale date” … . An affidavit by a “licensed real estate appraiser setting forth his [or her] opinion as to the fair market value of the premises on the date of the foreclosure sale, and stating in conclusory fashion that his [or her] opinion was based upon his [or her] personal inspection of the subject premises, examination of the neighborhood, a review of sales and rentals of comparable properties, and general economic trends and expenses data,” without describing the subject premises or appending evidence of comparable sales and market date, is not sufficient … . In the instant case, the plaintiff relied upon such a conclusory affidavit, two exterior photographs of the front and side of the subject premises, and information purportedly indicating the average sale price of properties in the relevant zip code area, without explaining how those average prices related to the appraiser’s conclusion that the fair market value of the subject property on the date of the foreclosure sale was $550,000. The plaintiff’s submission was, thus, insufficient to meet its burden of establishing that it was entitled to a deficiency judgment. Eastern Sav Bank FSB v Brown, 2013 NY Slip Op 08228, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

, ,

Purported Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect/Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Reversed

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department noted that a court’s power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte should rarely be used and further noted that a purported lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect warranting sua sponte dismissal:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint. ” 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, there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Moreover, the defendants, having failed to answer the complaint or make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, 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 by the court”… .  Onewest Bank FSB v Fernandez, 2013 NY Slip Op 08233, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

 

,

Tax Lien Foreclosure Upheld Despite Alleged Lack of Notice

The Third Department determined a motion to vacate a tax lien foreclosure was properly denied in the face of claimed lack of notice, finding the motion untimely and finding the statutory notice requirements had been met and the owner had been afforded due process:

Respondent’s motion to vacate was untimely as it was brought more than one month after entry of the judgment of foreclosure (see RPTL 1131…).  Notably, “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”… . …

“[N]otice 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,” and the foreclosing agent is required to seek an alternative mailing address for the property owner only when both such notices are returned (RPTL 1125 [1] [b] [i] …).  Accordingly, inasmuch as the notice sent by first class mail to respondent at the 8th Avenue address was not returned, such notice was deemed received …, and “petitioner was not obligated to take additional steps to notify respondent of the foreclosure proceeding”… .

…”[D]ue process does not require actual notice by the property owner, only reasonable efforts to provide notice under the circumstances” …, and petitioner discharged its obligations in this regard by fulfilling the requirements of RPTL 1125 … .  Finally, we note that”[o]wnership carries responsibilities” …, which includes an obligation to apprise the tax enforcing officer of a change in address (see RPTL 1125 [1] [d]…).  There is nothing in the record to suggest that respondent fulfilled that obligation here.  Simply put, “respondent was responsible for protecting his ownership interests and chargeable with notice that failure to pay his taxes could result in foreclosure” … . Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens by County of Sullivan…, 516658, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

 

, ,

Strict Foreclosure and Reforeclosure Actions Not Available Against Easement Holder

The Second Department determined that neither a strict foreclosure action (RPAPL 1352) nor a reforeclosure action (RPAPL 1503) can be brought to extinguish an easement where the easement holder was not named in the foreclosure action:

A purchaser of foreclosed property may, under certain circumstances, commence a strict foreclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1352 … . RPAPL 1352 “authorizes the court to issue a judgment that fixes a time period within which any person having a right of redemption or right to foreclose a subordinate lien must act to redeem or begin a foreclosure action” (id.; see RPAPL 1352). If the person with a right of redemption or subordinate lien fails to redeem the property or commence a foreclosure action within the fixed time period, “all title or interest” this person has in or against “such property shall thereby be extinguished and terminated” (RPAPL 1352…).

A purchaser of a foreclosed property may, under certain circumstances, also commence a reforeclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1503 … . “When real property has been sold pursuant to a judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage,” a purchaser of a foreclosed property may maintain a reforeclosure action “to determine the right of any person to set aside such judgment, sale or conveyance or to enforce an equity of redemption or to recover possession of the property, or the right of any junior mortgagee to foreclose a mortgage” (RPAPL 1503). * * *

An easement holder, unlike a mortgagee … or a tenant …, does not fall within the class of persons against whom a strict foreclosure or reforeclosure action may be brought (see RPAPL 1352, 1503). An easement is not a lien or a mortgage… . Moreover, an easement holder that is not named in the foreclosure action does not have a right of redemption. An easement holder, unlike a tenant, does not have a possessory interest in the burdened land (…Property § 450; 1 Rasch, New York Law and Practice of Real Property § 18.8 [2d ed]). Thus, such actions cannot be maintained against an easement holder. Bass v D Ragno Realty Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 07924, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

, ,

CPLR 3408, Which Requires a Settlement Conference in a Foreclosure Action Involving a Primary Residence, Does Not Apply Where the Mortgage Collateralizes a Personal Guaranty of a Commercial Loan to a Corporation

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined a statute designed to assist homeowners faced with foreclosure on their primary residence (calling for a settlement conference) did not apply where the mortgage collateralizes a personal guaranty of a commercial loan to a corporation:

CPLR 3408 (requiring a settlement conference) is certainly applicable to many residential foreclosure actions. However, CPLR 3408 does not apply to every residential foreclosure action. Indeed, CPLR 3408 is limited to residential foreclosure actions involving home loans as the term “home loan” is defined by RPAPL 1304. As so defined, home loans are those which are made to a natural person and in which the debt incurred is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes (see RPAPL 1304[5][a][ii], [iii]).

The borrower, as defined under the instant term loan agreement and the note, and the entity that is recognized in the guaranty, was [a corporation]. … The borrower …was not a natural person (see RPAPL 1304[5][a][ii]).

Further, the debt incurred was the $230,000 loan given to [the corporation]. The Supreme Court correctly determined that since the purpose of the loan was to purchase machinery and equipment, and to fund other various start-up, closing, and construction costs associated with fashioning a … store, it was clearly not primarily incurred for personal, family, or household purposes (see RPAPL 1304[5][a][ii]…).  Independence Bank v Valentine, 2013 NY Slip Op 07937, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

,

Questions of Fact Existed About Whether Mortgage Lender Was Aware of Underlying “Foreclosure Rescue Scam”

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, the First Department determined questions of fact existed about whether a mortgage loan (to Henry) was issued (by “Accredited”) with knowledge of fraud underlying the transaction.  Accredited alleged it was an “encumbrancer for value.”  After noting Accredited failed to submit evidence of its alleged “encumbrancer for value” status in admissible form (no official or certified title search was submitted), the First Department addressed evidence of Accredited’s knowledge of the underlying fraud:

Even assuming that defendants had established bona fide encumbrancer status, they would not be entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff has set forth evidence that defendants had notice of the underlying fraud.  * * *

…Accredited approved a $500,000 loan to Henry—a “buyer” who had no intention of purchasing a home and appears to have been coerced into attending the closing—without any proof that he had an ability to repay it. Indeed, the record is devoid of evidence to suggest that Accredited examined Henry’s paystubs, tax returns, or credit history before approving his loan application. These suspicious aspects of the transaction present issues of fact pertaining to Accredited’s knowledge of the foreclosure rescue scam.

The faulty appraisal also raises an inference that Accredited had notice of the underlying fraud. Although Accredited reduced the loan amount after becoming aware of the overstated appraisal, the fact that the initial appraisal was overstated would lead a reasonably prudent lender to investigate further to determine whether the prospective borrower was involved in a transaction free of fraud.  * * * Miller-Francis v Smith-Jackson, 2013 NY Slip Op 07821, 1st Dept 11-21-13

 

,

Affirmative Defense Waived by Absence from Initial Answer May Be Included in Amended Answer.

he Second Department determined a “lack of standing” defense to a mortgage foreclosure action, although initially waived by its absence from the pleadings, could be added in an amended answer:

Leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given” (CPLR 3025[b]), provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit … . The decision of whether to allow an amendment is committed “almost entirely to the [motion] court’s discretion” … . “Mere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine” … .

Although …the homeowner defendants…waived the defense of lack of standing by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense in their initial answer (see CPLR 3211[e]), this defense can nevertheless be interposed by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) so long as the amendment does not cause the other party prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay… .  HSBC Bank v Picarello, 2013 NY Slip Op 07011, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

Neither Plaintiff Nor Intervenor Bank Had Standing to Determine Validity of Mortgage

The Second Department determined neither the original plaintiff, nor the bank which attempted to intervene in the action, had standing in an action to determine the validity of a mortgage.  Plaintiff was not the mortgagee and the bank submitted no proof that the note was physically delivered to it, a necessary element of a valid assignment:

The plaintiff failed to establish that either it, or the party it wished to substitute as the plaintiff, had standing to maintain the action. Standing requires an inquiry into whether a litigant has “an interest . . . in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request” … . “In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced” … . The instant action, although not an action to foreclose the subject mortgage, was brought on behalf of the purported mortgagee, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the validity of the subject mortgage. The documentary evidence submitted by the appellant in support of her motion to dismiss the complaint established conclusively that the plaintiff was not the mortgagee, a fact which the plaintiff conceded. …

The plaintiff sought to defeat the appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint by cross-moving, in effect, to amend the complaint to substitute U.S. Bank as the plaintiff. “[A]n amendment which would shift a claim from a party without standing to another party who could have asserted that claim in the first instance is proper since such an amendment, by its nature, does not result in surprise or prejudice to the defendants who had prior knowledge of the claim and an opportunity to prepare a proper defense” (…CPLR 1002[a], 3025[b]). Here, however, the plaintiff failed to show that U.S. Bank had standing and could have asserted the claim in the first instance. The plaintiff submitted only a document executed by MERS, as nominee for the lender Opteum, purporting to assign the mortgage and note to U.S. Bank. To establish the validity of such an assignment, evidence must be submitted establishing that the note was either physically delivered to MERS or assigned to MERS by the lender prior to the commencement of the action … . The plaintiff failed to submit any such evidence. Midland Mtge Co v Imtiax, 2013 NY Slip Op 06550, 2nd Dept 10-9-13

 

,

Wife’s Encumbrance of Marital Property in Violation of Court Order and Knowledge of the Court Order by Mortgage-Holder’s Agent Precluded Payout to Mortgage-Holder from Surplus Foreclosure Sale Proceeds

The Second Department determined the holder of a mortgage (Marie Holdings), which was undertaken by the wife in violation of the matrimonial court’s order not to encumber the marital residence, was not entitled to any of the surplus proceeds after a foreclosure sale of the property.  The facts that the wife violated the matrimonial court’s order and the attorney who was the agent for the mortgage holder knew of the court-order were determinative:

“The surplus funds of a foreclosure sale stand in the place of the land for all purposes of distribution among persons having vested interests or liens upon the land” … . Accordingly, “[s]urplus money takes the place of the equity of redemption and only one who had a vested estate or interest in the land sold under foreclosure which was cut off by the foreclosure sale is entitled to share in the surplus money with priority in each creditor determined by the filing date of his lien or judgment” … . * * *

Contrary to Marie Holdings’ contention, the matrimonial court had authority to determine that the husband was entitled to the surplus funds as part of the equitable distribution of the marital property … . Thus, notwithstanding the secured interest Marie Holdings acquired in the marital home by virtue of the mortgage the wife gave to it, because the wife undertook the mortgage in violation of the restraining order … , and because Marie Holdings’ agent knew or should have known of the restraining order, its interest in the surplus funds was properly limited to the wife’s interest therein … . The matrimonial court, in its discretion, divested the wife of that interest based upon her conduct. Emigrant Mtge Co Inc v Biggio, 2013 NY slip Op 06344, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

,

New Affidavits Properly Allowed in Foreclosure Proceedings; Accuracy of the Execution or Notarizations of the Original Affidavits Could Not Be Confirmed

In affirming Supreme Court’s granting of plaintiff’s motion to substitute new affidavits of merit in a foreclosure proceeding because the accuracy of the execution and/or notarizations of the original affidavits could not be confirmed, the Second Department explained:

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 … . ” Pursuant 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'” … . The provisions in CPLR 2001 and 5019(a) may only be employed to correct errors where the corrections do not affect a substantial right of the parties … .

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion. No substantial right of Eaddy [the defendant] will be affected by the court’s substitution of the new affidavits of merit and of the amount due … . The new proposed affidavits of merit and of the amount due list the same amounts due and owing as those stated in the original affidavits submitted with the application for the order of reference and the application for the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Further, Eaddy has remained in possession of the subject property throughout the pendency of the instant action. US Bank NA v Eaddy, 2013 NY Slip Op 05896, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

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