You are here: / Trusts and Estates
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, ,

ATTEMPTS TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT, INCLUDING VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT, WERE INEFFECTUAL, THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined the statute of limitations began to run in 2009 when the mortgage debt was accelerated in this foreclosure action and the attempts to subsequently de-accelerate the debt after the death of the defendant, including voluntary discontinuances, were ineffectual. Therefore the action was time-barred:

With respect to the notices of discontinuance in the 2009 and 2013 actions, we note that we, as well as other Appellate Divisions, have held that the voluntary discontinuance of an action, without more, will not generally constitute an affirmative act that revokes a lender’s election to accelerate a debt … . * * *

In the 2009 action, plaintiff filed its notice of voluntary discontinuance roughly 13 months after decedent had passed away, without having sought substitution of a legal representative to act on behalf of decedent’s estate (see CPLR 1021; see also SCPA 1002, 1401, 1402 [1] [b]). Thus, as the action was stayed and there was no substitution of a proper defendant, the notice of voluntary discontinuance filed in the 2009 action was without effect. …  As for the notice of discontinuance filed in the 2013 action, plaintiff commenced that action against decedent, despite the fact that she had died more than two years earlier. As a result, the 2013 action was a nullity from its inception and the subsequent notice of voluntary discontinuance was void … .

We similarly find that, under the circumstances of this case, the July 2015 and September 2015 notices did not constitute affirmative acts that would notify decedent’s legal representative that the prior debt acceleration was revoked, that the debt was de-accelerated and that the loan was reinstated to installment payments. Irrespective of the content and substance of the July 2015 and September 2015 notices, plaintiff addressed the notices to decedent, who had been deceased for more than four years, and mailed them to the mortgaged property. The record reflects that the September 2015 letter, which was sent by both regular mail and certified mail, was returned as undeliverable. Beneficial Homeowner Serv. Corp. v Heirs at Large of Ramona E. Thwaits, 2020 NY Slip Op 03709, Third Dept 7-2-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE MORTGAGE, THE DEATH OF THE BORROWER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; BECAUSE THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS FOR THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE STILL OWING AND THE ACTION WAS NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the foreclosure action should not have been dismissed as time-barred, noting that the death of the borrower did not accelerate the debt. Therefore the installment payments due during the six year prior to commencing the action were still owing:

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [4]). Here, the note provided that decedent agreed to repay the loan in monthly installments from September 2007 to August 2032. “[W]ith respect to a mortgage payable in installments, there are separate causes of action for each installment accrued, and the [s]tatute of [l]imitations [begins] to run, on the date each installment [becomes] due” … . Plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action on September 15, 2017. Therefore, recovery for the installments due within the six years prior to that date, i.e., September 15, 2011, is not barred by the statute of limitations. To the extent that plaintiff seeks recovery for installments due before that date, recovery is barred by the statute of limitations … . * * *

We reject defendants’ contention that the debt accelerated automatically upon decedent’s death. The mortgage provides that there is a default upon decedent’s death, but it does not provide that the death of decedent would automatically accelerate the debt. Rather, the mortgage provides that the lender may accelerate the debt upon a default and, here, defendants did not establish that plaintiff chose to accelerate the debt at any time before the complaint was filed … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. FSB v Deliberto, 2020 NY Slip Op 03297, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS MADE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT EFFORT TO LOCATE THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE DECEDENT IN THIS RIGHT-OF-SEPULCHER CASE; THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR, HOWEVER, ENJOYED GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs had raised a question of fact whether the hospital defendants made reasonable and sufficient efforts to locate the decedent’s next of kin in this right-of-sepulcher case alleging defendants interfered with plaintiffs right to immediate possession of decedent’s body. After the hospital defendants failed to locate the next of kin, the investigation was turned over to the County Public Administrator (PA). After the PA failed to locate the next of kin the decedent was buried. After plaintiffs learned of decedent’s death, the body was exhumed and a memorial service was held at the PA’s expense. The suit against the County PA was properly dismissed because the PA enjoyed governmental function immunity and no special duty was owed plaintiffs:

The common-law right of sepulcher “affords the decedent’s next of kin an absolute right to immediate possession of a decedent’s body for preservation and burial . . . , and damages may be awarded against any person who unlawfully interferes with that right or improperly deals with the decedent’s body” … . “To establish a cause of action for interference with the right of sepulcher, [a] plaintiff must establish that: (1) plaintiff is the decedent’s next of kin; (2) plaintiff had a right to possession of the remains; (3) defendant interfered with plaintiff’s right to immediate possession of the decedent’s body; (4) the interference was unauthorized; (5) plaintiff was aware of the interference; and (6) the interference caused plaintiff mental anguish” … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs identified certain records of the hospital defendants, which indicated that decedent had resided, on some occasions, at a local homeless shelter. Those documents were available to the hospital defendants at the time they conducted their search for decedent’s next of kin, and there is no dispute that the hospital defendants did not attempt to contact that homeless shelter during their search.

Plaintiffs also submitted deposition testimony from a person employed by the homeless shelter, who testified that decedent was a frequent resident there and that she knew members of decedent’s family and could have contacted them if she had been notified of decedent’s death. Green v Iacovangelo, 2020 NY Slip Op 03363, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ALLOWED THE SELLER TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT IF SELLER COULD NOT CONVEY TITLE, THAT PROVISION REQUIRES THE SELLER TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SELLER FALSELY CLAIMED TO BE THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHEN IN FACT SHE OWNED 50%; THE SELLER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint seeking specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement should not have been granted. Although the contract allowed the seller to refund the down payment and cancel the contract if the seller is unable to convey title, the seller must do so only in good faith and only if the buyers reject the defective title. Here the complaint alleged the seller fraudulently claimed she was the sole owner of the property, when in fact she owned only 50%:

“Where, as here, a contract for the sale of real property provides that in the event the seller is unable to convey title in accordance with the terms of the contract, the seller may refund the buyer’s down payment and cancel the contract without incurring further liability, that limitation contemplates the existence of a situation beyond the parties’ control and implicitly requires the seller to act in good faith'” … . Contrary to the Surrogate’s Court’s determination, the … complaint set forth cognizable causes of action sounding in breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment, among other things, upon allegations that the seller wilfully failed to supply good and marketable title and rescinded the contract of sale even though the buyer and the appellants did not reject the defective title … . Matter of Valderrama, 2020 NY Slip Op 03236, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

MOTIONS IN LIMINE WHICH AFFECT THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL ARE APPEALABLE; TWO-YEAR WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE MUNICIPALITIES; PRECLUDING EXPERT TESTIMONY BASED UPON DISCLOSURE DEFICIENCIES WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff did not allege separate claims for personal injury and wrongful death, therefore the two-year wrongful-death statute of limitations in EPTL 5-4.1, not the one-year-ninety-days statute of limitations for negligence, applied to the actions against the municipalities; (2) motions in limine which limit the scope of the trial are appealable; and (3) preclusion of plaintiff’s expert’s testimony, based upon deficient disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d)(1), was an abuse of discretion. The action arose from a gas explosion at the great grandfather’s house which killed plaintiff’s 15-month-old son. Plaintiff sued the village, the town, the county and the New York State Electric & Gss Corporation (NYSEG). With regard to the motions in limine, the Third Department wrote:

“An order ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable as of right or by permission since an order made in advance of trial which merely determined the admissibility of evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling. However, an order that limits the scope of issues to be tried, affecting the merits of the controversy or the substantial rights of a party, is appealable” … . As to plaintiff’s objection to that part of the order as allowed evidence of the great grandfather’s negligence as a defense to the claim of res ipsa loquiter does not limit the scope of issues or impact a substantial right, such issue is not appealable … . Plaintiff also contends that Supreme Court erred in partially granting NYSEG’s motion to preclude the testimony of Reiber, plaintiff’s economist. Finding that the expert disclosure lacked reasonable detail as to how the value that Reiber assigned to plaintiff’s lost services and support would be calculated, Supreme Court precluded his testimony with regard to said damages. … However, because this ruling restricted plaintiff’s ability to prove and recover damages, this issue is appealable … . Reed v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03054, 5-28-20

 

/by
, ,

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-703 GIVES AN EQUITY COURT THE POWER TO ENFORCE AN ORAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE AN ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT GIVING PLAINTIFFS THE OPTION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY UPON THE OWNER’S DEATH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that the general statute of frauds statute, General Obligations Law (GOL) 5-701, did not apply to the alleged oral agreement to give plaintiffs the option to buy the decedent’s property upon her death. Rather GOL 5-703, which carves out an exception for specific performance of a real estate contract, applied. Decedent owned a two-unit property and plaintiffs rented the second unit. Plaintiffs alleged decedent asked them to care for her in exchange for the option to purchase. Plaintiffs did in fact care for decedent until her death. The executor refused to honor the alleged oral agreement and plaintiffs sued:

General Obligations Law § 5-701, the general statute of frauds provision outlining which agreements must be in writing, contains no explicit statutory authority for a court, exercising its equitable powers, to grant specific performance of an oral agreement insufficiently memorialized in writing so as to satisfy the statute of frauds. Notably, in Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v Aegis Group (93 NY2d 229, 234 n 1), the Court of Appeals clarified that New York has not adopted a judicially created common-law exception to General Obligations Law § 5-701, which would permit a court to direct specific performance of an oral agreement in cases of part performance.

By contrast, General Obligations Law § 5-703, the more specific statute of frauds provision relating to contracts concerning real property, contains an explicit carve-out, which provides that “[n]othing contained in [General Obligations Law § 5-703] abridges the powers of courts of equity to compel specific performance of agreements in cases of part performance”… .

Here, the plaintiffs’ allegations that they entered into an oral option agreement … to purchase the subject property from her estate describe, in sum and substance, “[a] contract to devise real property . . . or any interest therein or right with reference thereto” … , and therefore, this action is governed by General Obligations Law § 5-703 … . Accordingly, since the action is governed by General Obligations Law § 5-703, the plaintiffs are not foreclosed, as a matter of law, from obtaining the remedy of specific performance … . Korman v Corbett, 2020 NY Slip Op 02637, Second Dept 5-6-20

 

/by
, , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment was not available in this dispute about ownership of land and personal property. Plaintiff alleged that land, personal property and the the proceeds of the timber business were his, despite the fact that the land, personal property and bank account, based upon the documentary evidence, appeared to belong to defendant. There were questions of fact whether a constructive trust had been created and whether defendant had been unjustly enriched:

“The elements of a constructive trust are a confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise and unjust enrichment. As a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, courts do not rigidly apply the elements but use them as flexible guidelines. In this flexible spirit, the promise need not be express, but may be implied based on the circumstances of the relationship and the nature of the transaction. Similarly, courts have extended the transfer element to include instances where funds, time and effort were contributed in reliance on a promise to share in some interest in property, even though no transfer actually occurred” … . Here, both parties concede that they had a confidential relationship. However, it is sharply disputed whether there was a promise, a transfer or unjust enrichment. * * *

“A person is unjustly enriched when his [or her] retention of the benefit received would be unjust considering the circumstances of the transfer and the relationship of the parties” … . Plaintiff claims this is his business, that he worked full time and utilized all funds earned in the business to purchase the equipment, personal property and the vacant land. On the other hand, defendant argues it was their business, she held title to all assets, paid for all assets and debts and paid for plaintiff’s services by paying his expenses, housing and cash. Baker v Harrison, 2020 NY Slip Op 01233, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

/by
, ,

WIFE’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR HER DECEASED HUSBAND TO ENFORCE THE PAYMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT IN HER HUSBAND’S SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s wife’s (Jesenia’s) motion pursuant to CPLR 1015 for leave to substitute herself for her deceased husband in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Defendant had settled the case and Jesenia was seeking payment:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the settlement of the action did not preclude the granting of a motion for substitution (see CPLR 1015[a]; 1021 …). “The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a)” … . Without substitution as a party plaintiff, Jesenia may not seek relief pursuant to CPLR 5003-a. CPLR 5003-a provides that if a settling defendant fails to pay the sum due under a settlement agreement within 21 days of tender of a duly executed release and a stipulation discontinuing the action, the settling plaintiff may, without further notice, pursue the entry of a judgment in the amount of the settlement, plus interest, costs, and disbursements … . Rivera v Skeen, 2020 NY Slip Op 01100, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

/by
, ,

ORDERS ISSUED WHEN THE STAY PURSUANT TO CPLR 321(c) WAS IN EFFECT, DUE TO THE INABILITY OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL TO CONTINUE FOR MEDICAL REASONS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that orders issued when a stay was in effect pursuant to CPLR 321(c), due to the inability of petitioner’s counsel to continue for medical reasons, should have been vacated. The petitioner is Oleg Cassini’s (the fashion designer’s) wife and the underlying matter is the heavily litigated (to say the least) administration of his estate. The opinion is overwhelming in its detail and cannot be fairly summarized here:

On these appeals, we consider the interplay between CPLR 321(b)(2), which permits the attorney of record for a party to withdraw by order of the court, with the court having the ability to stay proceedings pending substitution of new counsel, and CPLR 321(c), which automatically and effectively suspends all proceedings against a party whose attorney becomes incapacitated until 30 days after notice to appoint another attorney has been served upon that party. In this contentious, complex estate litigation, the Surrogate’s Court determined, in the context of a motion by the attorneys for the petitioner to withdraw from representing her, that the attorney primarily responsible for the matter had become unable to continue to represent the petitioner due to health reasons. While the Surrogate’s Court relieved counsel and provided for a 30-day stay of proceedings, it failed to require that the adverse parties serve the orders relieving counsel upon the litigant whose counsel was permitted to withdraw. The adverse parties themselves failed to serve the orders and also to serve the petitioner with a notice to appoint new counsel. However, several months later, the petitioner appeared with prospective new counsel at a court conference and was advised by the court that a trial would be conducted some six weeks later, regardless of whether the petitioner was present and regardless of whether the petitioner had representation. This was, under the circumstances, the practical equivalent of more than 30 days’ notice to the litigant to appoint new counsel. In conformity with the controlling statutory and decisional authorities, and to protect the litigant’s right to legal representation, we conclude that the judicial determinations rendered in between the Surrogate’s Court determination of incapacity and its subsequent practical notification of a deadline to appoint counsel should be vacated. Matter of Cassini, 2020 NY Slip Op 01057, Second Dept 2-13-2o

 

/by
, , ,

THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO OBTAIN COUNSEL WAS NOT MOOT, DESPITE THE FACT THE TRIAL WAS HELD AND COMPLETED IN PETITIONER’S ABSENCE; THE ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined petitioner’s motion for an adjournment to obtain new counsel should have been granted and the appeal of the denial of an adjournment was not moot. The matter was before Surrogate’s Court for an accounting in the estate of Oleg Cassini, who died in 2006. At the time of the request for an adjournment three attorneys had withdrawn from the case. The trial went ahead without the presence of petitioner, Oleg Cassini’s wife Marrianne, and without counsel for petitioner:

An appeal is not moot “[w]here the case presents a live controversy and enduring consequences potentially flow from the order appealed from” … . On the other hand, “[a]n appeal is moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment'” … . Here, enduring consequences flow from the order appealed from since, absent a reversal of the order appealed from, the Surrogate’s Court’s determination after a trial in which Marianne did not participate will bind the parties. * * *

The Surrogate was rightly concerned about the lengthy history of delay in this case, just as we are. However, there was no evident urgency that required the trial to start on July 25, 2016, as opposed to 60 days later, and any prejudice to the objectants could have been readily addressed by appropriate orders dealing with the administration of the estate and its assets. In the overall context of this long-running litigation, an adjournment of 60 days to allow Marianne’s prospective counsel, McKay, to prepare for the trial should have been granted. Indeed, the failure [*6]to grant it has resulted in additional delay and expense in the conclusion of this estate. Given our preference that matters be determined on their merits, and the absence of any indication on this record that Marianne’s motion for an adjournment was made solely for the purpose of delay, the Surrogate’s Court should not have rejected the request out of hand. Matter of Cassini, 2020 NY Slip Op 01056, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy