You are here: / Real Property Law
,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF-SELLER MAY HAVE THOUGHT THE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY SHE SOLD WAS SMALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS, DEFENDANT-BUYER WAS NEVER UNDER THAT IMPRESSION; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE DEAL SHOULD BE RESCINDED BASED ON MUTUAL MISTAKE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, determined the plaintiff-seller of real property did not demonstrate the sale should be rescinded based upon mutual mistake. Plaintiff alleged she intended to transfer 20 acres but the deed described a 39-acre parcel. The parcel, however, was described in feet, not acres, and defendant was never under the impression the parcel was 20 acres in size. There was no “mutual mistake:”

… [E]ven if plaintiff misunderstood the size of the parcel she ultimately conveyed in the corrected deed, she was bound by the contents of a deed she executed absent fraud or other wrongdoing by defendant that she does not suggest occurred, and any unilateral mistake on her part as to the acreage being conveyed by it “resulted from [her] negligence in failing to take the means readily accessible of checking” its property description … . Williams v Sowle, 2022 NY Slip Op 05914, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff-seller may have thought the parcel of land she sold to defendant was smaller than it actually was. But defendant was never under that impression. Therefore the sale could not be rescinded based upon “mutual mistake.”

 

/by

THE CERTIFICATES OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE DEED AND OTHER DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING PLAINTIFF’S OWNERSHIP OF THE REAL PROPERTY CREATED A PRESUMPTION OF DUE EXECUTION WHICH WAS NOT OVERCOME BY DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATIONS OF FORGERY (SECOND DEPT). ​

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring she was the sole owner of real property should have been granted. The certificates of acknowledgment for the deed and other documents created a presumption of due execution which the defendants’ allegations of forgery did not overcome:

“A certificate of acknowledgment attached to an instrument such as a deed or a mortgage raises the presumption of due execution, ‘which presumption . . . can be rebutted only after being weighed against any evidence adduced to show that the subject instrument was not duly executed'” … . “‘[A] certificate of acknowledgment should not be overthrown upon evidence of a doubtful character, such as the unsupported testimony of interested witnesses, nor upon a bare preponderance of evidence, but only on proof so clear and convincing as to amount to a moral certainty'” … . …

… [T]he defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavits of interested parties submitted by the defendants were insufficient to rebut the presumption of due execution arising from the notarized certificates of acknowledgment accompanying the 1950 documents and the 1952 deed … . Oro v Figeroa, 2022 NY Slip Op 05327, Second Dept 9-28-22

Practice Point: Certificates of acknowledgment included in a deed or other documents create a presumption of due execution. Here the presumption of due execution was not overcome by allegations of forgery.​

 

/by
, ,

RENOVATION WORK ON DEFENDANTS’ TOWNHOUSE RENDERED PLAINTIFFS’ TOWNHOUSE, WHICH WAS NEXT DOOR, UNINHABITABLE; A LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH GRANTED DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO PLAINTIFFS’ TOWNHOUSE INCLUDED A LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION WHICH WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION SOUGHT SOME EQUITABLE RELIEF BUT PRIMARILY SOUGHT MONEY DAMAGES; THEREFORE PLANTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined, among many other issues not summarized here, the liquidated damages provision in the license agreement was enforceable and plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial should not have been struck. Defendants purchased an historic townhouse next to plaintiffs’ townhouse. In the course of the defendants’ major renovations, plaintiffs’ townhouse was damaged. High levels of lead dust infiltrated plaintiffs’ townhouse forcing plaintiffs to move out. They never returned. The plaintiffs and defendants entered a license agreement giving defendants access to plaintiffs’ townhouse for 18 months. The liquidated damages provision entitled plaintiffs to $1000 a day for every day a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) was not obtained after the expiration of the license. The TCO was not obtained for 318 days entitling plaintiffs to $318,000. Although some equitable relief was requested, the suit primarily sought money damages. Therefore plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial should not have been struck:

“Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . These provisions “have value in those situations where it would be difficult, if not actually impossible, to calculate the amount of actual damage” … . Liquidated damages will be sustained if, at the time of the contract, “the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … . * * *

The court erred in granting [defendants’] motion to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand. The equitable relief sought by plaintiffs was incidental to their demand for money damages … ; to the extent plaintiffs seek to compel [defendants] to perform certain remediation work, monetary damages will afford full and complete relief … . Further, the claim for “abatement of and damages for a nuisance” is triable by a jury (CPLR 4101[2]). Seymour v Hovnanian, 2022 NY Slip Op 04705, First Dept 7-26-22

Practice Point: This decision includes a good discussion of how the validity of a liquidated-damages provision should be analyzed. The court noted that, although plaintiffs’ action sought some equitable relief, it primarily sought money damages. Therefore plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial should not have been struck.

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND INCLUDED A PARCEL OF LAND NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEED AND SOUGHT A CORRECTED DEED; PURSUANT TO THE MERGER DOCTRINE, THE CONTRACT AND THE DEED MERGED AT THE CLOSING AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IN THE DEED IS DEEMED TO REFLECT THE FINAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES (ABSENT FRAUD OR AMBIGUITY IN THE DEED); PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, pursuant to the merger doctrine, the contract for the sale of land merged with the deed when the deal was closed. The deed therefore represents the final agreement of the parties. The plaintiff alleged the deed description did not match the description in the contract and demanded that the deed be “corrected” to include an additional parcel of land:

… [W]e agree with defendants that the court erred in denying the motion with respect to the breach of contract and quiet title causes of action. Those causes of action are barred by the merger doctrine. “It is settled law that, where a contract for the sale of land has been executed by a conveyance, the terms of the contract concerning the nature and extent of property conveyed merge into the deed and any inconsistencies between the contract and the deed are to be explained and governed solely by the deed, which is presumed to contain the final agreement of the parties” … . Exceptions to the merger doctrine include “where the parties have expressed their intention that [a] provision shall survive delivery of the deed” … , where the deed is ambiguous with respect to the land conveyed …, and where there exists a valid fraud cause of action … . Pickard v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 04442, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Any discrepancy between the property as described in a real estate contract and as described in the deed is resolved by the merger doctrine. Absent fraud or ambiguity in the deed, the deed description controls.

 

/by
, ,

IF AN APPELLATE ISSUE IS NOT LISTED IN THE NOTICE OF APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment was precluded by questions of fact in this action stemming from defendants’ blocking of a tunnel leading to plaintiffs’ parking garage. Plaintiffs alleged they own the rights to the easement created for the construction of the tunnel. The tunnel goes under the Rath Erie County Office Building and was apparently blocked by county officials for security reasons. The decision addresses declaratory judgment, breach of contract, trespass and appeal issues. Only the appeal issue is summarized here. If an appellate issue is not listed in the notice of appeal, the issue is not before the appellate court:

… [P]laintiffs’ contention on the cross appeal that the court erred in denying that part of the motion seeking a permanent injunction is not properly before us. In their notice of cross appeal, plaintiffs indicate that they are cross-appealing from the order “to the extent that the [c]ourt reached a determination as set forth in paragraph ‘e’ finding that the actions taken by . . . [d]efendants . . . constitute a taking.” It is well settled that, where a party files a notice of cross appeal indicating that it is appealing from a specific part of an order, that party “is limited by its notice of cross appeal to arguing only with respect to the” part of the order listed in the notice … . Pearl St. Parking Assoc. LLC v County of Erie, 2022 NY Slip Op 04235, Fourth Dept 7-1-22

Practice Point: When a party appeals from an order, only those portions of the order listed in the notice of appeal are before the court. If a portion of the order is not listed, the appellate court will not consider it.

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY WERE OVERWHELMED BY THE DOCUMENTS THEY SIGNED AND DID NOT REALIZE THE DOCUMENTS TRANSFERRED THEIR PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT; THOSE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR ON THEIR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND QUIET TITLE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their actions for fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and to quiet title should not have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged the were overwhelmed by the number of documents to sign and did not realize they documents transferred the property to the defendant:

… [T]he plaintiffs … each averred that the defendant misled them into believing that they were signing documents to arrange a short sale of the property when, in fact, they executed documents that transferred the property to the defendant. One of the documents … was the deed to the property that the plaintiffs signed. The plaintiffs do not aver in their affidavits or in the complaint that they failed to read the documents they signed or that they were illiterate, blind, or did not read English, nor do they allege that they expressed any difficulty in understanding what they were signing … . Instead, the plaintiffs contend that they were “overwhelmed by the paperwork” but do not allege any facts that would suggest that they were prevented from reading the documents prior to signing them or that they were forced to sign … . Holder v Folsom PL Realty, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03890, Second Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiffs alleged they signed documents without realizing what they were agreeing to. Those allegations did not support summary judgment on their fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and quiet title causes of action. The plaintiffs did not allege they were prevented from reading the documents, or they could not understand the documents.

 

/by
, ,

THE STIPULATION ACKNOWLEDGING THE PRIOR DEBT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DEED TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY CREATED ONLY A SECURITY INTEREST AND DID NOT TRANSFER LEGAL TITLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the transfer of property by deed did not transfer title, but rather was a security interest for a loan (a mortgage):

… [T]he … deed never conveyed legal title to the plaintiff, but merely created a security interest in the subject property. “A deed conveying real property, which, by any other written instrument, appears to be intended only as a security in the nature of a mortgage, although an absolute conveyance in terms, must be considered a mortgage; and the person for whose benefit such deed is made, derives no advantage from the recording thereof, unless every writing, operating as a defeasance of the same, or explanatory of its being desired to have the effect only of a mortgage, or conditional deed, is also recorded therewith, and at the same time” (Real Property Law § 320).

Here, the … stipulation clearly recited the existence of a prior debt, authorized the decedent to continue occupying the property subject to certain terms and conditions, obligated her to maintain the property, and, most importantly, expressly authorized her to “retain ownership of the subject [p]roperty” … upon full repayment of the debt. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, such characteristics bear all the hallmarks of a security interest—not an outright conveyance of legal title … . RTT Holdings, LLC v Nacht, 2022 NY Slip Op 03916, Second Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: Here a deed transferring the property was deemed to have created a security interest for a prior debt which was acknowledged in a stipulation. Legal title, therefore, was not transferred by the deed.

 

/by
, ,

AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE BUT BEFORE THE CLOSING, THE MORTGAGOR STARTED AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUD IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; THE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT RENDER THE TITLE UNMARKETABLE SUCH THAT THE PURCHASER COULD SET ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE AND HAVE THE DOWN PAYMENT RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact that the mortgagor, after the foreclosure sale but before the closing, started an action alleging fraud in the foreclosure proceeding did not render the title to the property unmarketable. Therefore the purchaser at the foreclosure auction did not have right to set aside the foreclosure sale and have the down payment returned:

“A marketable title is a title free from reasonable doubt, but not from every doubt” … . “[S]omething more than a mere assertion of a right is essential to create an unmarketable or doubtful title” … . Here, contrary to the purchaser’s contention, the mortgagor’s action did not render title unmarketable. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the purchaser’s motion which were to set aside the foreclosure sale and to direct the plaintiff to return the down payment. DiTech Fin., LLC v Steplight, 2022 NY Slip Op 03710, Second Dept 6-8-22

Practice Point: The title to the property sold at the foreclosure auction was not rendered unmarketable by a subsequent action brought by the mortgagor alleging fraud in the foreclosure proceedings. Therefore the purchaser’s motion to set aside the foreclosure sale and return the down payment was properly denied.

 

/by
, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER (ADDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES) WAS MADE AFTER A TWO-YEAR DELAY, THE DELAY ALONE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PLAINTIFF WAS PREJUDICED; THE MOTION TO AMEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to amend its answer to add additional affirmative defenses should have been granted. The two-year delay was not enough to show plaintiff was prejudiced. Discovery was ongoing:

The court should have granted defendant’s motion to amend its answer to add the four affirmative defenses of RPAPL 1951, adverse possession, mutual breach, and unclean hands, as leave to amend is freely given and plaintiff did not show that it would be prejudiced by the delay in asserting the defenses (CPLR 3025[b] …). While over two years had passed since defendant served its original answer, discovery was still ongoing … . Plaintiff’s claim of significant prejudice is unpersuasive, as all it points to is mere delay, which is insufficient to show prejudice … . Nor did plaintiff rebut defendant’s showing that the proffered amendment is not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit … . Board of Mgrs. of the Porter House Condominium v Delshah 60 Ninth LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03680, First Dept 6-7-22

Practice Point: Here defendant moved to amend its answer by adding affirmative defenses two years after the answer was served. Discovery was still ongoing. The delay alone was not enough to demonstrate the plaintiff was prejudiced. The motion to amend should have been granted.

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING THE PROCEEDS OF A JOINT VENTURE, WHICH, UNDER PARTNERSHIP LAW, INVOLVES PERSONAL PROPERTY, NOT REAL PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF HAD NO INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS TO BE USED AS AN INN OPERATED AS A JOINT VENTURE; THERFORE THE LIS PENDENS FILED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no relationship between plaintiff’s action seeking the assets of a joint venture and the ownership of the real property associated with the joint venture (to be used as an inn). Therefore defendants’ motion to cancel the lis pendens should have been granted:

“A notice of pendency may be filed in any action in a court of the state or of the United States in which the judgment demanded would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property” (CPLR 6501). Because the provisional remedy of a notice of pendency is an ” ‘extraordinary privilege’ ” … , the Court of Appeals has held that to be entitled to that remedy, there must be a “direct relationship” between the relief sought in the complaint and the title to or possession of the disputed property … . In making that determination, a court must use “a narrow interpretation,” and its “analysis is to be limited to the pleading’s face” … . …

Supreme Court erred in denying their motion insofar as it sought to cancel the notice of pendency because there was no direct relationship between title to or possession of the property and the relief sought by plaintiff. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Reviewing the complaint on its face, we conclude that plaintiff seeks merely to enforce her purported 50% share in the joint venture and does not assert an interest in the property itself. Indeed, the complaint alleges that title to the property was, at all relevant times, held by Properties LLC, of which plaintiff was not a member. It is well settled that ” ‘the legal consequences of a joint venture are equivalent to those of a partnership’ ” … , and thus a joint venturer’s interest in a joint venture constitutes an interest in only personal property, not real property, thereby precluding recourse to a notice of pendency … . Renfro v Herrald, 2022 NY Slip Op 03593, Fourth Dept 6-3-22

Practice Point: Partnership law applies to joint ventures. Here the joint venture was the operation of an inn. Plaintiff sought the assets of the joint venture, which involves only personal property, not real property. Plaintiff had no interest in the real property (the inn). Therefore the lis pendens filed by the plaintiff should have been cancelled.

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy