Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) – Page 3

THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inclusion of additional information the the envelope with the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice of foreclosure did not invalidate the notice (in light of a recent Court of Appeals decision):

The Court of Appeals held that RPAPL 1304 does not prohibit the inclusion of additional information in the envelope that may help borrowers avoid foreclosure and is not false or misleading … .

Here, information about HAMP [Home Affordable Modification Program] was sent with the 90-day notice. This information was relevant to avoiding foreclosure and was not false or misleading. Therefore, pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ decision in Kessler ]39 NY3d 317] and the subsequent case law, the inclusion of this information with the 90-day notice did not violate the “separate envelope” requirement of RPAPL 1304(2). The plaintiff otherwise established that it sent the RPAPL 1304 notice as required by the statute. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Smart, 2025 NY Slip Op 00476, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: The inclusion of additional information in the envelope containing the RPAPL 1304 90-day notice of foreclosure does not violate the “separate envelope” rule if the information is not misleading and may help the borrower avoid foreclosure.

January 29, 2025

Civil Procedure, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WILLFUL NEGLECT BY PLAINTIFF BANK OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST RESULTED IN THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was not entitled to summary judgment in this reforeclosure action:

Where the interest of a necessary party has not been foreclosed upon in a judgment of foreclosure and sale, the purchaser of the foreclosed property has two potential remedies: a strict foreclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1352, or a reforeclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1503. RPAPL 1503 provides … that, when real property has been sold at a foreclosure sale ‘and it appears from the public records or from the allegations of the complaint that such judgment, sale or conveyance was or may have been, for any reason, void or voidable as against any person, including an owner of the real property mortgaged, the purchaser . . . may maintain an action as provided in this article 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'” … . “[T]o prevail in a reforeclosure action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect in the original foreclosure action ‘was not due to fraud or wilful neglect of the [foreclosure] plaintiff and that the defendant or the person under whom he [or she] claims was not actually prejudiced thereby'” … .

Here, US Bank’s [plaintiff’s] predecessor in interest allowed the notice of pendency in the foreclosure action to lapse. During that lapse, Wilkshire obtained and recorded title to the property by a referee’s deed pursuant to the foreclosure of a lien for unpaid homeowners association dues. Subsequently, US Bank filed a new notice of pendency, which was not served upon Wilkshire. Thereafter, US Bank obtained an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale in the foreclosure action. On its motion for summary judgment in the instant action, US Bank failed to submit any evidence to establish, prima facie, that the defect in the foreclosure action was not due to willful neglect by itself or by its predecessors in interest. Thus, US Bank failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . U.S. Bank N.A. v 18 Wilkshire Circle, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06372, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some discussion of the remedies of “strict foreclosure” and “reforeclosure” under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) where there was some defect in the original foreclosure proceedings.

December 18, 2024

Evidence, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to prove compliance with the notice requirements in RPAPL 1304 required reversal in this foreclosure action:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. To that end, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of Sarah L. Stonehocker, a vice president of loan documentation employed by the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), with attachments, which were insufficient to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304. While Stonehocker averred that she had personal knowledge of Wells Fargo’s business records and that, according to the business records she reviewed, 90-day notices were served via certified and first-class mail at the subject property, Stonehocker did not attest that she was familiar with the standard office mailing procedures of LenderLive, LLC (hereinafter LenderLive), the third-party vendor that apparently sent the RPAPL 1304 notices on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, Stonehocker’s “affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … .

Moreover, Stonehocker’s affidavit failed to address the nature of Wells Fargo’s relationship with LenderLive and whether LenderLive’s records were incorporated into Wells Fargo’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business… . Thus, Stonerhocker’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for the admission of a transaction report generated by LenderLive (see CPLR 4518[a] …). “Finally, the tracking numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304” … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Nahum, 2024 NY Slip Op 05581, Second Dept 11-13-24

Practice Point: Reversal of summary judgment because the bank failed to prove the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was properly mailed to defendant(s) is becoming less frequent, but there have been hundreds of reversals on this same ground over at least the last ten years.

November 13, 2024

Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WHERE FINAL JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS; HERE THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS THEREFORE UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO THE FAPA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applied retroactively to render the foreclosure action untimely because the debt had been accelerated by a prior foreclosure proceeding in 2008. The Third Department determined the retroactive application of the FAPA to foreclosure actions where final judgment has not been rendered did not violate plaintiff’s due process rights:

In drafting FAPA, the Senate and Assembly sponsors both expressed an urgent need to correct judicial interpretation with unintended consequences which allowed noteholders to unilaterally “manipulate statutes of limitations to their advantage” and to the detriment of homeowners … . … [W]e find that FAPA should be applied retroactively to effect its beneficial purpose … . * * *

… [W]e find that retroactive application of FAPA to foreclosure actions where a final judgment has not been enforced does not violate plaintiff’s due process rights … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Lynch, 2024 NY Slip Op 05261, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Where there has been no final judgment, retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) to render a foreclosure action untimely does not violate a plaintiff’s due process rights.

October 24, 2024

Evidence, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

THE BANK SUFFICIENTLY PROVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in this foreclosure action, over a detailed dissent, determined plaintiff had demonstrated compliance with the RPAPL 1304 mailing requirements for the notice of foreclosure. The dissent argued the notice requirements were not strictly complied with. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here, but it should be consulted for its discussion of the proof a bank must present on the “RPAPL 1304” notice requirements to warrant summary judgment. U.S. Bank N.A. v Romano, 2024 NY Slip Op 05235, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: For at least a decade, the appellate courts have reversed summary judgment in foreclosure cases because proof of the bank’s compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was found deficient. Here, over a strong dissent, the proof was deemed adequate. The detailed discussion of the proof requirements, in the majority decision and in the dissent, is instructive on the issue.

October 23, 2024

Evidence, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

ONCE AGAIN THE FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT CAREFULLY EXPLAINED ALL THE FLAWS IN THE PROOF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof requirements for sending the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure to the defendants were not met. This frequently recurring error was carefully explained by the Second Department, perhaps in an effort to instruct the bar:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affidavit of Kimberly Dutchess, an authorized representative of M & T Bank (hereinafter M & T), the plaintiff’s loan servicer and attorney-in-fact, along with a power of attorney authorizing M & T to act on the plaintiff’s behalf … . Although Dutchess laid a proper foundation for the admission of various business records annexed to her affidavit, inter alia, by attesting to her “familiar[ity] with business records maintained by M & T for the purpose of servicing mortgage loans,” she “failed . . . to attest that [s]he personally mailed the subject notices or that [s]he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of [M & T]” at the time the notices were sent … . Nor was Dutchess’s assertion that she “acquired personal knowledge of the matters stated in [her] affidavit by examining the [relevant] business records” sufficient to demonstrate her personal knowledge of M & T’s mailing procedures, since “a review of records maintained in the normal course of business does not vest an affiant with personal knowledge” … . Therefore, Dutchess “failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … .

Moreover, although Dutchess’s affidavit laid a proper foundation for the admission of the business records annexed thereto, the content of those records did not demonstrate, prima facie, the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . The only purported proof of first-class mailing attached to Dutchess’s affidavit was a letter log, which “failed to establish that the 90-day notice was actually mailed to both of the defendants . . . by first-class mail” … . Among other issues, the letter log did not contain any information regarding the method of mailing for any of the documents contained therein. It also contained only one entry for the 90-day notice allegedly mailed to both of the defendants in February 2018, notwithstanding that a “plaintiff must separately mail a 90-day notice to each borrower as a condition precedent to commencing the foreclosure action” … . Furthermore, although the letter log listed Alexander W. Swanson III as the borrower, it did not mention Nancy L. Swanson’s name, and the plaintiff did not provide any records showing that the 90-day notice was mailed to Nancy L. Swanson by first-class mail … . Notably, “[i]t is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . In any event, even if Dutchess had established that she had personal knowledge of M & T’s mailing procedures, her affidavit did not sufficiently clarify any of these issues … . Since the plaintiff did not demonstrate that it mailed the 90-day notices to both of the defendants by first-class mail, it failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v Swanson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04952, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: It is not easy to prove compliance with the foreclosure notice requirements in RPAPL 1304 by affidavit. The same flaws in the proof have been the basis for foreclosure reversals for a decade now.

October 9, 2024

Limited Liability Company Law, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL), Real Property Law

THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY AN LLC; ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES TO THE PARTITION ACTION ARE EQUAL MEMBERS OF THE LLC, MEMBERS HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF AN LLC; THEREFORE THE PARTITION ACTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the partition action could not be maintained because the real property was owned by an LLC and not by tenants in common or a joint tenancy, despite the fact that the parties to the partition action were members of the LLC:

An action for the partition and sale of real property may be maintained by “[a] person holding and in possession of real property as joint tenant or tenant in common” (RPAPL 901[1]). The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs on their summary judgment motion established that, contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the property was owned exclusively by the LLC and not by Emerson, Kasan, and the defendant as tenants in common. Essentially, the plaintiffs contended that the three individual parties held equal membership interests in the LLC, which owned the property. “A membership interest in the limited liability company is personal property. A member has no interest in specific property of the limited liability company” (Limited Liability Company Law § 601). Thus, the individual parties hold no ownership interest in the property. Further, even assuming that the plaintiffs had established that the individual parties held equal membership interests in the LLC, there is no allegation or evidence that the LLC has been dissolved or that the LLC’s affairs have been properly wound up (see id. § 703). Accordingly, this action, inter alia, for partition and sale of the LLC’s property cannot be maintained … . 459 Wash. Ave., LLC v Atkins, 2024 NY Slip Op 04538, Second Dept 9-25-24

Practice Point: Although the partition action would have been available if the parties were joint tenants or tenants in common, it was not available because the property was owned by an LLC of which the parties were equal members. Members of an LLC have no interest in the specific property of the LLC.

September 25, 2024

Civil Procedure, Evidence, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BY A PARTY WHICH PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN FORECLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK DID NOT PROVE THE BORROWER’S DEFAULT BECAUSE THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the motion to intervene by a party (the LLC) which had purchased the property subject to foreclosure should have been granted, (2) noncompliance with the notice requirement of RPAPL 1304 and 1306 and the mortgage agreement cannot be raised by the intervenor, a stranger to the note and mortgage, and (3) the bank did not prove the borrower’s default because the relevant business records were not attached to the bank’s affidavit:

…. [T]he LLC established that the representation of its interest by the parties would be inadequate, that the action involved the disposition of title to real property, and that it would be bound and adversely affected by a judgment of foreclosure and sale (see CPLR 1012[a][2], [3]; 6501 …). …[T]he fact that the LLC obtained its interest in the premises after the action was commenced and the notice of pendency was filed does not definitively bar intervention … . * * *

… [The bank] failed to provide evidence in admissible form of the borrower’s default in payment of the note … . In his affidavit submitted in support of U.S. Bank’s motion, Bennett [vice president of the bank’s servicer] averred that he was personally familiar with Rushmore’s record-keeping practices and that, based on his review of Rushmore’s business records, the borrower “defaulted under the terms of the loan documents by failing to make the monthly installment due on January 1, 2015 and has remained in default to the present date.” However, Bennett’s assertion regarding the borrower’s alleged default constituted inadmissible hearsay, as he failed to annex to his affidavit the business records on which he relied … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Medina, 2024 NY Slip Op 04588, Second Dept 9-25-24

Practice Point: Here the party which purchased the property in foreclosure should have been allowed to intervene.

Practice Point: In foreclosure proceedings affidavits which purport to describe the contents of business records which are not attached constitute inadmissible hearsay.

September 25, 2024

Evidence, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S AFFIANT DID NOT HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PRACTICES OF THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove the 90-day notice of foreclosure required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed to the defendant, a failure of proof which has been the ground for hundreds of reversals spanning many years:

… [P]laintiff proffered the affidavit of Trey Cook, a document execution specialist employed by the plaintiff’s loan servicer, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (hereinafter Nationstar), which was insufficient to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304. While Cook averred that he had personal knowledge of Nationstar’s business records and further averred that according to the business records he reviewed, 90-day notices were served via certified and first class mail at the mortgaged premises and last known address of the borrower, he did not attest that he was familiar with the standard office mailing procedures of Walz Group, Inc. (hereinafter Walz), the third-party vendor that apparently sent the RPAPL 1304 notices on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, Cook’s affidavit did not establish proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Further, Cook’s affidavit failed to address the nature of Nationstar’s relationship with Walz and whether Walz’s records were incorporated into Nationstar’s own records or routinely relied upon in its business … . Thus, Cook’s affidavit failed to lay a foundation for the admission of a transaction report generated by Walz (see CPLR 4518 [a] …). Finally, the tracking numbers on the copies of the 90-day notices submitted by the plaintiff, standing alone, did not suffice to establish, prima facie, proper mailing under RPAPL 1304 … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Palomaria, 2024 NY Slip Op 04374, Second Dept 9-11-24

Practice Point: In yet another reversal on this ground, plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not produce an affiant with first-hand knowledge of the mailing practices of the party responsible for mailing the RPAPL 1304 ninety-day notice of foreclosure to the defendant. Therefore the judgment of foreclosure was reversed.

September 11, 2024

Civil Procedure, Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

HERE THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (CPLR 213(4)) ESTOPPED PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED AND ADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) (CPLR 213(4)) prohibited plaintiff mortgage company from asserting a defense to dismissal of the foreclosure action on statute-of-limitations grounds which had not been timely raised and adjudicated. Plaintiff tried to argue the debt was not validly accelerated because of a prior dismissal based on reference to the wrong property address:

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, it failed to raise such a triable issue of fact on the asserted basis that the prior action did not constitute a valid acceleration of the debt in light of BOA’s [Bank of America’s] use of the improper property address and the resulting dismissal of the action. “[T]he recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act … amended CPLR 213(4) by adding paragraph (a), which provides that “‘[i]n any action on an instrument described under this subdivision, if the statute of limitations is raised as a defense, and if that defense is based on a claim that the instrument at issue was accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, a plaintiff shall be estopped from asserting that the instrument was not validly accelerated, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated'” … .

Here, the prior action was not dismissed “on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated” … . Thus, under FAPA, the plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the debt was not validly accelerated by the commencement of the prior action … . Reverse Mtge. Solutions, Inc. v Gipson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04335, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the effect of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act which prohibits attacking a statute-of-limitations defense to a foreclosure action on a ground not timely raised and adjudicated prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

August 28, 2024

THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WILLFUL NEGLECT BY PLAINTIFF BANK OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST RESULTED IN THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WHERE FINAL JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS; HERE THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS THEREFORE UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO THE FAPA (THIRD DEPT).

THE BANK SUFFICIENTLY PROVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

ONCE AGAIN THE FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT CAREFULLY EXPLAINED ALL THE FLAWS IN THE PROOF (SECOND DEPT).

THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY AN LLC; ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES TO THE PARTITION ACTION ARE EQUAL MEMBERS OF THE LLC, MEMBERS HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF AN LLC; THEREFORE THE PARTITION ACTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BY A PARTY WHICH PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN FORECLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK DID NOT PROVE THE BORROWER’S DEFAULT BECAUSE THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE VICE PRESIDENT’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S AFFIANT DID NOT HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PRACTICES OF THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

HERE THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (CPLR 213(4)) ESTOPPED PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED AND ADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.