Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) – Page 7

THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT CAUSES OF ACTION DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS SOUNDED IN FRAUD, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW; ALL WERE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, revering Supreme Court, determined the declaratory judgment causes of action were time-barred according to the statutes of limitations applicable to the underlying allegations, i.e., fraud, unjust enrichment, Real Property Law (RPL) and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) causes of action:

“Actions for declaratory judgments are not ascribed a certain limitations period. The nature of the relief sought in a declaratory judgment action dictates the applicable limitations period. Thus, if the action for a declaratory judgment could have been brought in a different form asserting a particular cause of action, the limitations period applicable to the particular cause of action will apply” … . Here, the cause of action for declaratory relief could have been, and previously was, brought in the form of causes of action to recover damages for fraud and intentional misrepresentation. Since the instant action was commenced more than six years after the plaintiff allegedly was fraudulently induced to convey title to the property and more than two years from the discovery of the alleged fraud, the cause of action for declaratory relief was time-barred … .

… [T]he second cause of action … seeks to void the defendant’s title to the property by virtue of the plaintiff’s claim that the plaintiff was fraudulently induced into conveying title to the defendant. Accordingly, this cause of action is governed by the six-year statute of limitations governing actions based upon fraud and, therefore, was untimely.

… [T]he cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment accrued … when the deed conveying title to the defendant was executed, and, therefore, this cause of action was also time-barred.

… [T]he cause of action alleging a violation of Real Property Law § 265-a was time-barred since it was commenced more than two years after recordation of the subject deed and more than six years after the alleged fraudulently induced conveyance. Mahabir v Snyder Realty Group, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03342, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: The applicable statutes of limitations for declaratory-judgment causes of action depend on the nature of the underlying allegations. Here the underlying allegations sounded in fraud, unjust enrichment and Real Property Law causes of action. All were time-barred.

June 21, 2023

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

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not present sufficient proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [A]lthough the affidavit of the servicing agent stated that the 90-day notice was mailed to the defendant by certified mail and regular first-class mail, the affiant did not attest to having personally mailed the notices, nor that she was familiar with the mailing procedures of the entity that mailed the notices and that such procedures were designed to ensure that the notices were properly addressed and mailed … The plaintiff also failed to submit documentation from the United States Postal Service proving the first-class mailing of the 90-day notice to the defendant … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Smith, 2023 NY Slip Op 03372, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: Once again, failure to demonstrate the RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure was properly mailed results in reversal of summary judgment.

June 21, 2023

Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined sending the notice of foreclosure to the two borrowers in the same envelope violated RAPL 1304 which must be strictly complied with:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that, “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” “The statute further provides the required content for the notice and provides that the notice must be sent by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower” … . Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action … .

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304, since the 90-day notice was jointly addressed to both of the defendants … . Moreover, while the plaintiff contends that two identical copies of the notice were included in the mailing, one for each of the defendants, the plaintiff concedes that they were mailed in the same envelope, which was also improper … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Schneider, 2023 NY Slip Op 02869, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a foreclosure action the bank must demonstrate strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. Here the statute was violated by sending the 90-day foreclosure notice to both borrowers in the same envelope.

May 31, 2023

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

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE NECESSARY PARTY CAN BE SUMMONED AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE ACTION CAN CONTINUE IN THE PARTY’S ABSENCE; THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMONING THE NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, explained the proper procedure where it is alleged the complaint should be dismissed for failure to include a necessary party, here the failure to include an estate in a foreclosure action. First the court should determine whether the party can be summoned, noting that the expiration of the statute of limitations is does not bar summoning the party. Second, if the party cannot be summoned the court should determine whether the action can continue in the party’s absence:

“Pursuant to RPAPL 1311 (1), ‘necessary defendants’ in a mortgage foreclosure action include, among others, ‘[e]very person having an estate or interest in possession, or otherwise, in the property as tenant in fee, for life, by the courtesy, or for years, and every person entitled to the reversion, remainder, or inheritance of the real property, or of any interest therein or undivided share thereof, after the determination of a particular estate therein'” … . “Particularly where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment, and alleges a default in payment subsequent to the death of the deceased mortgagor, the estate of the mortgagor is a necessary party to the foreclosure action” … .

When a necessary party has not been made a party and is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint, but rather for the court to order that the necessary party be summoned (see CPLR 1001[b] …). Contrary to the intervenors’ contention, the Supreme Court’s ability to direct joinder of a representative of [the] estate at this juncture is not affected by the purported running of the statute of limitations, because the expiration of a statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional defect … . … [W]hen jurisdiction over an absent necessary party “can be obtained only by [that party’s] consent or appearance, the court, when justice requires, may allow the action to proceed without [that party],” upon consideration of various enumerated factors (CPLR 1001[b] …). U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Germoso, 2023 NY Slip Op 02704, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here an estate was a necessary party in the foreclosure action. The proper procedure is for the court to determine if the party can be summoned, and, if not, whether the action can continue in the party’s absence. The fact that the statute of limitations had run did not preclude summoning the estate.

May 17, 2023

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

UNDER THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO CPLR 213, A BANK WHICH HAS STARTED A FORECLOSURE ACTION CANNOT STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the 2022 amendment to CPLR 213 (the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act [FAPA]) overruled the recent Court of Appeals case which held a voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action stopped the running of the statute of limitations. In addition, the Second Department ruled the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

FAPA amended CPLR 3217, governing the voluntary discontinuance of an action, by adding a new paragraph (e), which provides that “[i]n any action on an instrument described under [CPLR 213(4)], the voluntary discontinuance of such action, whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice, shall not, in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute.” * * *

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish … it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavit of Cynthia Wallace, an officer of Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter SLS), the plaintiff’s loan servicer, was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Wallace attested that she was familiar with the types of records maintained by SLS in connection with the loan, that she had personal knowledge of the procedures for creating the records, and that the plaintiff mailed the notices, but she failed to attest that she personally mailed the notices or that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff or SLS. Therefore, Wallace failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed (see id.). The plaintiff also failed to submit any domestic return receipts or other documentation proving the certified and first-class mailings … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Stewart, 2023 NY Slip Op 02487, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A recent amendment CPLR 213 prohibits a bank which has started a foreclosure action from stopping the running of the statute of limitations by voluntarily discontinuing the action.

Practice Point: If the bank doesn’t prove strict compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304, its summary judgment motion in a foreclosure action must be denied.

May 10, 2023

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

IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing its prior decision after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether it was notified of the tax foreclosure proceeding by defendant county. The Court of Appeals had ruled that, although the county proved the notice was mailed the letters were not returned, plaintiffs could prove the notice was not received by other evidence:

… “[A]lthough the statute contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is,by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance, an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) by other relevant proof, despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by section 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” … . …

Although we are aware that, on its own, failure to receive notice is insufficient to defeat summary judgment … , such failure, when combined with other evidence, can support a reasonable inference that defendants failed to comply with the mailing requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). … [I]f the notices were not received, there are only two real possibilities — either the procedure used by defendant County … failed to comply with RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) inasmuch as the wrong address was affixed, or the United States Postal Service made an error. When viewed in conjunction with the further facts that the certified mail tracking history indicated an unknown address and that the return receipt was unstamped, it is reasonable to infer, together with the additional evidence of nonreceipt, that the notices were not correctly mailed and that the County failed to comply with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2023 NY Slip Op 02148, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: In this tax foreclosure proceeding, the county submitted prima facie proof it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1125 by submitting proof the letters were mailed and not returned. However, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that the notice was not received, which raised a question of fact about whether the county in fact complied with RPAPL 1125.

April 27, 2023

Foreclosure, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, HE WAS A TITLE-HOLDER AND WAS LISTED AS A BORROWER ON THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Kalenborn was entitled to the RPAL 1304 notice of foreclosure even though he did not sign the note. Kalenborn held title to the property and was listed as a “borrower” on the mortgage:

… [D]efendants established that the plaintiff failed to serve Douglas Kalenborn with notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304, and, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Douglas Kalenborn was entitled to such notice as a “borrower” within the meaning of that statute. Although Douglas Kalenborn did not sign the note, the plaintiff conceded that both of the defendants were title owners of the subject property and both executed the mortgage as a “borrower.” “Where, as here, a homeowner defendant is referred to as a ‘borrower’ in the mortgage instrument and, in that capacity, agrees to pay amounts due under the note, that defendant is a ‘borrower’ for the purposes of RPAPL 1304, notwithstanding . . . any ambiguity created by a provision in the mortgage instrument to the effect that parties who did not sign the underlying note are not personally obligated to pay the sums secured” … . Since Douglas Kalenborn “signed the mortgage as a ‘borrower’ and, in that capacity, agreed to pay the amounts due under the note, [he] was entitled to notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Kalenborn, 2023 NY Slip Op 02109, Second Dept 4-26-23

Practice Point: Here defendant did not sign he note but he was a title-holder and was listed as a borrower on the mortgage. Therefore defendant was entitled to notice of the foreclosure which met the requirements of RPAPL 1304.

April 26, 2023

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

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate the notice of foreclosure was mailed to defendant in accordance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with RPAPL 1304 … . The plaintiff did not submit proof of actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures. Further, the plaintiff failed to present sufficient proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, including “how the mail was transmitted to the postal service” … . Freedom Mtge. Corp. v King, 2023 NY Slip Op 02105, Second Dept 4-26-23

Practice Point: The plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not prove how the notice of foreclosure was transmitted to the postal service. Therefore compliance with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not proven and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

April 26, 2023

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

THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SOUGHT RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE IN SUCH A PROCEEDING (REMOVAL OF A TERRACE CONSTRUCTED ABOVE PETITIONER’S RESIDENCE); THE APPELLATE COURT CONVERTED THE PETITION TO A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 103 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Article 78 petition seeking the removal of a terrace constructed above petitioner’s property sought relief not available pursuant to Article 78 but converted the petition to a complaint pursuant to CPLR 103[c]:

RPAPL 871(1) authorizes the owner of any legal estate in land to maintain an action for an injunction directing the removal of a structure encroaching on such land. “Even where the facts which would justify the grant of [such] an extraordinary remedy are established, the court must still decide whether, in the exercise of a sound discretion, it should grant the remedy, and if granted, the terms and conditions which should be annexed to it” … . Consequently, that branch of the petition which was to compel the respondents to remove the terrace did not seek the performance of a purely ministerial act which can be obtained in a CPLR article 78 proceeding … .

Pursuant to CPLR 103(c), however, a proceeding should not be dismissed “solely because it is not brought in the proper form,” and this Court has the power to convert a proceeding into the proper form … . Under the circumstances, we convert so much of the proceeding as sought to compel the respondents to remove the terrace into an action, deem that branch of the petition which was to compel the respondents to remove the terrace to be the complaint, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the complaint. Matter of Dicker v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01673, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: An Article 78 proceeding is not appropriate for relief beyond a ministerial act, here the removal of a terrace constructed above petitioner’s residence. Here the appellate court converted the petition to a complaint seeking that relief pursuant to CPLR 103.

March 29, 2023

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

IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense (alleging failure to comply with RPAPL 1306) should not have been granted to the plaintiff in this foreclosure action. Because there was no proof of when the notice of default required by RPAPL 1304 was mailed, proof that plaintiff had filed papers with the superintendent of financial services pursuant to RPAPL 1306 was insufficient. RPAPL 1306 requires filing within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice. But the date of mailing was not proven:

… [I]n the absence of evidence establishing when the plaintiff mailed the notices required by RPAPL 1304, the plaintiff could not establish, as a matter of law, that it complied with the requirement of RPAPL 1306 to file with the superintendent of financial services within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by RPAPL 1304. Thus, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defendant’s fifth affirmative defense as alleged a failure to comply with RPAPL 1306…. . PROF-2013-S3 Legal Title Trust V v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01204, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, if there is no proof when the RPAPL 1304 notice of default was mailed, the bank can’t prove the papers filed pursuant to RPAPL 1306 were filed within three business days of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice (which is a requirement of strict compliance with RPAPL 1306).

March 8, 2023

THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT CAUSES OF ACTION DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS SOUNDED IN FRAUD, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW; ALL WERE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

UNDER THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO CPLR 213, A BANK WHICH HAS STARTED A FORECLOSURE ACTION CANNOT STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, HE WAS A TITLE-HOLDER AND WAS LISTED AS A BORROWER ON THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION SOUGHT RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE IN SUCH A PROCEEDING (REMOVAL OF A TERRACE CONSTRUCTED ABOVE PETITIONER’S RESIDENCE); THE APPELLATE COURT CONVERTED THE PETITION TO A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 103 (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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