Real Property Law – New York Appellate Digest

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.

June 15, 2022/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Contract Law, Debtor-Creditor, Real Property Law

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.

June 15, 2022/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Foreclosure, Fraud, Real Property Law

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.

June 8, 2022/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

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

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.

June 7, 2022/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Partnership Law, Real Property Law

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.

June 3, 2022/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Limited Liability Company Law, Real Property Law

THE LLC’S FAILURE TO CHANGE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE FOR A DEFAULT; PARTIES TO WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED AFTER THE LIS PENDENS WAS FILED ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE BOUND BY THE RESULT IN THIS ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) defendant E&A did not show a reasonable excuse for its default, and (2) the parties to which the property was transferred after the lis pendens was filed were not necessary parties because they are bound by the result of the instant action:

E&A asserted that it did not receive the summons and complaint, which had been served on the Secretary of State, because it had failed to keep its address updated. However, where a defendant does not receive service of process because it failed to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State, courts will not find a reasonable excuse for a default … . …

Supreme Court should have denied E&A’s cross motion insofar as it sought to join as defendants Yuanqing Liu (who purchased the property from E&A) and NYC Happy Housing LLC (which purchased the property from Liu), as Liu and NYC Happy Housing are not necessary parties. On the contrary, Liu and NYC Happy Housing need not be joined to accord complete relief or to avoid an inequitable effect (CPLR 1001[a]); rather, they are “bound by all proceedings taken in the action . . . to the same extent as a party” because their conveyances were recorded after the filing of the notice of pendency (CPLR 6501 …). Majada Inc. v E&A RE Capital Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03476, First Dept 5-31-22

Practice Point: A limited liability corporation’s (LLC’s) failure to change the address on file with the Secretary of State is not an acceptable excuse for a default. Because a lis pendens was filed against the defendant’s property here, the parties to which the property was subsequently transferred are bound by the result of this action and are not, therefore, necessary parties.

May 31, 2022/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Debtor-Creditor, Foreclosure, Real Property Law

A NOTE EXECUTED BY ONE TENANT BY ENTIRETY AND SECURED BY REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY BOTH TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY, DONE WITHOUT THE OTHER TENANT BY THE ENTIRETY’S CONSENT, DOES NOT ENCUMBER THE OTHER TENANT BY THE ENTIRETY’S INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the note executed by Gladys Pajuelo and secured by a mortgage on property owned by Gladys and Celso Pajuelo as tenants by the entirety, done without Celso’s consent, did not encumber Celso’s interest in the property. Therefore the bank in this foreclosure action did not have an equitable mortgage on Celso’s interest:

Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against Celso F. Pajuelo, declaring that the plaintiff has an equitable mortgage on Celso F. Pajuelo’s interest in the property. Where spouses own property as tenants by the entirety, a conveyance by one spouse, to which the other has not consented, cannot bind the entire fee … . Here, the mortgage executed by Gladys F. Pajuelo did not encumber Celso F. Pajuelo’s interest in the property, and the plaintiff failed to submit evidence to demonstrate its entitlement to an equitable mortgage against Celso F. Pajuelo’s interest in the property … . Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Pajuelo, 2022 NY Slip Op 02006, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Where real property is owned by tenants by the entirety, and one of the tenants by the entirety, without the consent of the other, executes a note secured by the real property, the other tenant by the entirety’s interest is not encumbered.

March 23, 2022/by Bruce Freeman

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

WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE, THE DECEDENT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED OUTSIDE THE ESTATE TO THE DISTRIBUTEES AS TENANTS IN COMMON; THEREFORE, THE PARTITION ACTION BY ONE OF THE TENANTS IN COMMON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISED ON THE GROUND AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE HAD BEEN APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the partition action by a party holding 50% ownership of real property formerly owned by decedent should not have been dismissed based on the appointment of an administrator for decedent’s estate. Decedent died intestate. His interest in the real property passed to the distributees upon his death and is therefore not part of the estate:

… [T]he decedent died intestate, possessed of the subject property, and leaving six distributees who became owners of the subject property as tenants in common at the time of the decedent’s death. In its complaint, LCD Holdings alleged that it had acquired a 50% interest in the subject property from deeds given by and through certain of those distributees, with the defendants—the decedent’s remaining distributees—holding the other 50% interest. Consequently, the subject property is not part of the administrable estate … . Under such circumstances, LCD Holding, as the alleged holder of a 50% interest in the subject property as a tenant in common with the defendants, had the right to maintain this action for the partition and sale of the subject property in the Supreme Court, Kings County (see RPAPL 901[1] … ). Accordingly, the court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the action without prejudice to the commencement of a proceeding for the same relief in the in Surrogate’s Court … . LCD Holding Corp. v Powell-Allen, 2022 NY Slip Op 01447, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: When a real-property owner dies intestate, the decedent’s interest in the property immediately passes outside the estate to the distributees as tenants in common. Here the partition action by one of the tenants in common should not have been dismissed when an administrator of the estate was appointed because the real property was not part of the administrable estate.

March 9, 2022/by Bruce Freeman

Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Fiduciary Duty, Real Estate, Real Property Law

THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY STATED FACTS AMOUNTING TO A BREACH-OF-FIDUCIARY-DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKER, DESPITE PLAINTIFF-SELLER’S CONSENT TO THE BROKER’S “DUAL AGENCY;” IT WAS ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS AWARE THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD BY THE BUYERS FOR THREE TIMES THE PRICE AND SHE WOULD BE THE BUYERS’ BROKER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SALES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant real estate broker, despite the plaintiff’s consent to the broker’s “dual agency:”

Although the complaint does not explicitly articulate a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, such a cause of action is manifest in its factual allegations, and the documentary evidence fails to utterly refute those allegations … . In connection with his sale of certain real property, plaintiff signed a disclosure form pursuant to Real Property Law § 443, giving his informed consent to a “dual agency with designated sales agent” relationship with defendants. The form states that a dual agent cannot give the seller or buyer “undivided loyalty.” Nevertheless, it does not relieve defendants from all fiduciary duty. The form states that defendant Nikki Carchedi, of defendant Stone House Properties, “is appointed to represent the seller in this transaction.” The complaint establishes a cause of action for breach of a fiduciary duty beyond the acknowledged “divided” duty by alleging that [defendant] Carchedi failed to disclose that she had a personal stake in the sale to the buyers, who planned to subdivide the property immediately after purchase and retain her as the broker for the sale of the subdivided parcels, and that they did so, listing the subdivided parcels for almost three times the price plaintiff received in his sale … . We also note plaintiff’s assertion that the agent representing the buyer was the son of Carchedi’s longtime client about whom plaintiff had expressed concern. Hahn v Stone House Props. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01416, First Dept 3-8-22

Practice Point: Even though breach-of-fiduciary-duty was not explicitly pled, the facts alleged stated a cause of action against defendant real estate broker.

Practice Point: Even though the seller signed a form consenting to the broker’s “dual agency,” the broker was not relieved of her fiduciary duty to the seller. Allegedly, the broker was aware the buyers were going to subdivide the property, sell it at three times the price, and that she would be the broker for the subsequent sales.

March 8, 2022/by Bruce Freeman

Landlord-Tenant, Real Property Law

PURSUANT TO THE LOFT LAW AND THE REAL PROPERTY LAW, THE LANDLORD WAS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THE TENANCY AND REGAIN POSSESSION OF THE LOFT IN A HOLDOVER PROCEEDING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the the Loft Law did not prohibit the landlord, Aurora, from terminating the tenancy and regaining possession of the loft by a holdover proceeding. The opinion and the dissenting opinion are comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Aurora Associates LLC, the owner of Loft 3B at 78 Reade Street in Manhattan, commenced this holdover proceeding to recover possession and terminate the tenancy of the current occupant. Summary judgment was granted to the tenant on the ground that Aurora could not terminate his tenancy because the loft unit was subject to rent stabilization. We must decide whether a loft unit located in an interim multiple dwelling covered by the provisions of the Loft Law but exempt from the rent regulation provisions of that statute by operation of a sale of the prior tenant’s rights and improvements is otherwise subject to rent stabilization. We hold that it is not … . * * *

As the Housing Court Judge explained, “[T]he core of the parties’ dispute is the rent regulatory status of the subject premises” because “[I]f the subject premises is unregulated, termination of a tenancy pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a is a remedy available to Petitioner,” and “[i]f the subject premises is rent-stabilized, RPL … 232-a is not a remedy available to Petitioner.” * * *

Here, the prior owner purchased rights and improvements in a particular unit in this Loft Law-eligible building, removing that unit from the Loft Law’s rent regulation provisions, entitling Aurora to charge a market rent and, pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a, to regain possession of the apartment by means of a holdover proceeding. Matter of Aurora Assoc. LLC v Locatelli, 2022 NY Slip Op 00958, CtApp 2-15-22

February 15, 2022/by Bruce Freeman