Costa v. Deutsche Bank | NYSD - granted summary judgment (i) in favor of their RPAPL Article 15 claim seeking the cancellation and discharge of record of the Mortgage, a declaration adjudging the Property to be free from an encumbrance arising from the Mortgage, and a declaration discharging Plaintiffs’ obligations under the Note

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Costa v. Deutsche Bank | NYSD – granted summary judgment (i) in favor of their RPAPL Article 15 claim seeking the cancellation and discharge of record of the Mortgage, a declaration adjudging the Property to be free from an encumbrance arising from the Mortgage, and a declaration discharging Plaintiffs’ obligations under the Note

Costa v. Deutsche Bank |  NYSD – granted summary judgment (i) in favor of their RPAPL Article 15 claim seeking the cancellation and discharge of record of the Mortgage, a declaration adjudging the Property to be free from an encumbrance arising from the Mortgage, and a declaration discharging Plaintiffs’ obligations under the Note

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VITO V. COSTA and MARION P. COSTA,
Plaintiffs,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR GSR
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-OAI,
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA1, and
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC,
Defendants.

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:

Stripped of its technical jargon, this case is about whether a nearly
decade-old defaulted mortgage loan remains enforceable. Plaintiffs Vito and
Marion Costa argue that the applicable six-year statute of limitations has
expired and that they are therefore entitled to the cancellation and discharge of
their mortgage loan. Defendants, the loan trustee and the servicer, maintain
that the limitations period has not expired because it had not started prior to
this action or, if it had, it was tolled or renewed; thus, foreclosure is warranted.
Even if their foreclosure claim is time-barred, however, Defendants still seek to
recoup their expenses in maintaining the property over the past decade. The
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56 following the close of discovery. For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiffs’ motion is granted and Defendants’ motion is denied.

[…]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8571 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives