Beneficial Homeowner Service Corporation | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "beneficial homeowner service corporation"

NY Judge Spinner Denies 86 Applications for JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE Due to No Affirmation by Plaintiff Counsel

NY Judge Spinner Denies 86 Applications for JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE Due to No Affirmation by Plaintiff Counsel


Excerpt:

Plaintiff has applied to this Court for the granting of a Judgment of Foreclosure & Sale pursuant to RPAPL § 1351. The express provisions of the Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts, no. A0548/10 require the filing of an Affirmation by Plaintiff’s counsel. No such Affirmation has been filed in this proceeding, in derogation of the aforesaid mandate. Accordingly, this application must be denied.

It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the within application by the Plaintiff shall be and the same is hereby denied without prejudice.

[ipaper docId=59494902 access_key=key-264kx7256bxnizbtwjpy height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

NYSC Denies Summary Judgment “Chase is either servicing Wells Fargo’s mortgage, or has acquired unrecorded assignment of the mortgage” | PIZZUTO v. SORIANO

NYSC Denies Summary Judgment “Chase is either servicing Wells Fargo’s mortgage, or has acquired unrecorded assignment of the mortgage” | PIZZUTO v. SORIANO


ANTHONY PIZZUTO, Plaintiff,
v.
ALLAN SORIANO; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BENEFICIAL HOMEOWNER SERVICE CORPORATION; CHASE HOME FINANCE, L.L.C.; VIRGINIA ADAMS; and RICHARD ADAMS, Defendants.

No. 101892/09, Motion No. 2.

Supreme Court, Richmond County.

May 5, 2011.

Excerpt:

Helena Soriano first encumbered the subject property in the amount of $20,000.00 on August 26, 1999. This first mortgage was made to Beneficial Homeowner Service, Corp. [“Beneficial”]. On April 11, 2007, Helena Soriano obtained a second mortgage of $289,000.00 from Ameripath Mortgage Corporation {“Ameripath”) with the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (“MERS”) acting as the servicer of the mortgage. On August 28, 2008, this mortgage was assigned to Wells Fargo. Chase is either servicing Wells Fargo’s mortgage, or has acquired unrecorded assignment of the mortgage.

[…]

Therefore, summary judgment must not be granted to the non-defaulting defendants.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the motion made by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Chase Home Finance L.L.C. in their order to show cause that seeks to vacate the default judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff, Anthony Pizzuto, is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the motion made by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Chase Home Finance L.L.C. in their order to show cause that seeks to vacate the settlement order granted to Anthony Pizzuto on July 13, 2010 is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the motion made by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Chase Home Finance L.L.C. in their order to show cause that seeks to reargue the default judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff, Anthony Pizzuto, is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the motion made by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Chase Home Finance L.L.C. in their order to show cause that seeks to defer the referral specified in the settlement order granted to Anthony Pizzuto on July 13, 2010 is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the motion made by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Chase Home Finance L.L.C. in their order to show cause that seeks to dismiss the complaint by Anthony Pizzuto is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the motion made by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Chase Home Finance L.L.C. in their order to show cause seeking summary judgment against Anthony Pizzuto is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the reference to the previously appointed Referee proceed as directed in the settlement order of July 13, 2010.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=56778979 access_key=key-1odo3yhkk0wxh9fyoged height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

[NYSC] Judge Spinner “Plaintiff’s Papers Raises Disturbing Issues”, “Appears To Run Counter To New York’s Statute of Frauds” BENEFICIAL HOMEOWNER SERV. CORP v. STEELE

[NYSC] Judge Spinner “Plaintiff’s Papers Raises Disturbing Issues”, “Appears To Run Counter To New York’s Statute of Frauds” BENEFICIAL HOMEOWNER SERV. CORP v. STEELE


2011 NY Slip Op 50015(U)

BENEFICIAL HOMEOWNER SERVICE CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN STEELE, SUSAN STEELE, OCEAN BANK FSB, “JOHN DOE” AND “MARY ROE” (SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS, IT BEING THE INTENTION OF PLAINTIFF TO DESIGNATE ANY AND ALL OCCUPANTS OF THE PREMISES BEING FORECLOSED HEREIN), Defendants.

2010-01996.Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

Decided January 7, 2011.Jonathan D. Pincus, Esq, 95 Allens Creek Road, Rochester, New York 14618, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Steven Tekulsky, Esq., 113 Cedar Street, East Hampton, New York 11937, Attorneys for Defendants Steele.

JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER, J.

Plaintiff has commenced this action pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Article 13, claiming foreclosure of a mortgage which encumbers real property located at 634 Stephen Hands Path, East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. In both its Verified Complaint both and the present motion papers, Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner and holder of a Loan Agreement executed by STEPHEN STEELE and SUSAN STEELE dated October 26, 2006 in the principal amount of $92,696.60 which is secured by a Mortgage of the same date and executed by both STEPHEN STEELE and SUSAN STEELE, recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk in Liber 21410 of Mortgages at Page 639. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants STEELE are in default of their obligations under the Loan Agreement (though the nature and extent of the default is nowhere specified) and it is claimed that the principal sum of $91,614.34 is due and owing, together with interest at the rate of 5.250% per annum as computed from October 1, 2008. Defendants STEELE, through counsel, have timely appeared and have interposed an Answer consisting of general denials as to the allegations of the Plaintiff’s Complaint together with eight affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment in accordance with the provisions of CPLR 3212, having filed a Notice of Motion and supporting papers dated May 18, 2010 and containing a CPLR § 2214(b) seven day notice as well as a request for appointment of a Referee pursuant to RPAPL § 1921. Curiously and in direct derogation of the mandatory provisions of 22 NYCRR § 202.7, Plaintiff has failed to specify or insert a return date for the application and has apparently served its papers with no return date. Not surprisingly, counsel for Defendants has neither answered nor responded thereto, presumably due to the lack of both a stated return date and appropriate notice. The Clerk of the Court apparently scheduled the motion for June 10, 2010, which was administratively adjourned by the Court to November 17, 2010. In the interim period, mandatory foreclosure settlement conferences in accordance with CPLR § 3408 were convened on September 2, 2010 and November 9, 2010 respectively. Thereafter and on December 22, 2010, the Court received an Affidavit from Plaintiff’s counsel which purports to comply with the provisions of Administrative Order no. AO548/10.

It is settled law in New York that the initial burden is placed upon the proponent of an application for summary judgment as to making a prima facie case for entitlement to the relief sought, Norwest Bank Minnesota N.A. vs. Sabloff, 297 AD2d 722 (2nd Dept. 2002). Where Plaintiff comes forward with the mortgage at issue together with the underlying note or bond coupled with evidence of the alleged default, it establishes its prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law, Household Finance Realty Corporation of New York vs. Winn, 19 AD3d 544 (2nd Dept. 2005), Fleet National Bank vs. Olasov, 16 AD3d 374 (2nd Dept. 2005), leave to appeal dismissed 5 NY3d 849 (2005), Gateway State Bank vs. Shangri-La Private Club For Women, 113 AD2d 791 (2nd Dept. 1985), aff’d 67 NY2d 627 (1986). Once such a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the application to come forward with sufficient evidence to controvert the summary judgment motion by demonstrating the existence of a genuine triable issue of fact, Barcov Holding Corp. vs. Bexin Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 282 (1st Dept. 2005). For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden of setting forth a prima facie case for entitlement to the relief it seeks.

The copy of the mortgage appended to Plaintiff’s moving papers bears the signatures of both STEPHEN STEELE and SUSAN STEELE and contains an acknowledgment by a notary public. However, the copy of the Loan Agreement that is appended to Plaintiff’s papers raises disturbing issues. That instrument bears the date of October 26, 2006 and recites a principal amount of $92,696.60. The Loan Agreement clearly reflects Defendant STEPHEN STEELE as the sole obligor thereunder but, most glaring of all, the Loan Agreement bears no signature whatsoever. General Obligations Law § 5-701 requires promises such as those contained in the Loan Agreement to be both in writing and signed by the party to be charged [G.O.L. § 5-701(a)(1)]. This Court must question how, under the circumstances presented here, Plaintiff can, with unbridled temerity, demand enforcement of the Loan Agreement against Defendant STEPHEN STEELE, who has not executed that instrument and against Defendant SUSAN STEELE, who is not even a party to that agreement. The most cursory reading of these instruments reveal the obvious facts as set forth above. This posture by Plaintiff strains credulity and causes the Court to seriously question Plaintiff’s good faith in commencing this action.

Distilled to its essence, a mortgage is a conveyance of an interest in land that is expressly intended to constitute security for some obligation, most commonly an indebtedness, Burnett v. Wright 135 NY 543, 32 NE 253 (1895). It follows logically then that in order for a mortgage to be valid and subsisting, there must be an underlying obligation that is to be secured by an interest in the real property, owed by the obligor to the obligee, which contains both the right of the obligee to foreclose and the right of the obligor to redeem, Baird v. Baird 145 NY 659, 40 NE 222 (1895), R.H. Macy & Co. v. Bates 280 AD 292, 114 NYS 2d 143 (3rd Dept. 1952). Absent these essential elements, a valid mortgage cannot exist because it is the underlying obligation which gives rise to the validity of the mortgage as a lien upon the real property. Here, the Loan Agreement that has been presented to the Court facially appears to run counter to New York’s Statute of Frauds, G.O. L. § 5-701. Since there has been presented to this Court no valid underlying obligation and no further explanation, the mortgage appears to fail as a matter of law.

This situation is all the more disturbing when it is considered that the sworn statements contained in the both the Complaint and the Affidavit in Support Of the Motion for Summary Judgment expressly and falsely assert that Defendant SUSAN STEELE executed the Loan Agreement. This is compounded by the sworn statement of Shana Richmond, Plaintiff’s foreclosure specialist, which is dated April 28, 2010 and which contains the same painfully obvious mis-statements of fact. Going further, Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted an Affirmation dated December 2, 2010 which purports to comply with Administrative Order no. AO548/10 in which he ratifies and confirms, in essence, the incorrect assertions in the Complaint and the Summary Judgment application. Aside from the papers themselves, it appears that counsel’s affirmation runs afoul of the provisions of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1.

An action claiming foreclosure of a mortgage is a suit in equity, Jamaica Savings Bank v. M.S. Investment Co. 274 NY 215 (1937), and the very commencement of the proceeding invokes the equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Thus, in order to obtain equitable relief, the applicant must come before the Court with clean hands, else such relief will be denied. Thus, where a party comes before the Court and is shown to have acted in a manner which is offensive to good conscience, fairness and justice, that party will be completely without recourse in a court of equity, no matter what his legal rights may be, York v. Searles 97 AD 331 92nd Dept. 1904), aff’d 189 NY 573 (1907). Stated a bit differently, in order to obtain equity, one must do equity.

Here, it is irrefutable that Defendant SUSAN STEELE was not a party to the Loan Agreement and certainly did not execute the same. It is equally indubitable that Defendant STEPHEN STEELE did not execute the Loan Agreement that has been presented on this application. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has vigorously prosecuted this action, demanding foreclosure of the mortgage as well as money damages against both named Defendants. Under these circumstances, the Court is compelled to conduct a hearing to determine whether or not Plaintiff has proceeded in good faith and what sanction, if any should be imposed should the Court find a lack of good faith.

It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment and other relief is hereby denied; and it is further

ORDERED that a hearing shall be held in this matter, at which all counsel and parties shall appear, which shall not be adjourned except by the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that said hearing shall be held on March 16, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 229-A, Supreme Court, 1 Court Street, Riverhead, New York; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel shall, within ten days after entry hereof, serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry upon all parties in this action as well as all counsel who have appeared in this action.

[ipaper docId=48348399 access_key=key-ct39dzbrl5g0eok5029 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

NYSC LPS FORECLOSURE AFFIDAVIT ‘NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE’ & ‘FAILURE IN SUPPORT’

NYSC LPS FORECLOSURE AFFIDAVIT ‘NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE’ & ‘FAILURE IN SUPPORT’


INDEX NO. 16 150-2008
SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
I.A.S. PART 17 – SUFFOLK COUNTY
P R E S E N T :
Hon. PETER H. MAYER
Justice of the Supreme Court

BENEFICIAL HOMEOWNER SERVICE CORPORATION,

v.

TODD L. MASOTTI

In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint on April 24, 2008, which essentially alleges that the defendant-homeowner(s), Todd L. Masotti and Michelle Casey, defaulted in payments with regard to a mortgage, dated September 20,2004, in the principal amount of $311,842.43, for the premises located at 38 Crestwood Lane, Farmingville, New York. Although the plaintiff annexes a power of attorney permitting “LPS Default Solutions, Inc.” to act on its behalf, the affidavit of merit is by an employee of “Lender Processing Services, Inc.” According to the court’s database, a foreclosure settlement conference was held on June 23,2010. The plaintiff now seeks a default order of reference and requests amendment of the caption to remove the “Doe” defendants. The plaintiffs application is denied for the following reasons:

(1) failure to submit evidentiary proof of compliance with the requirements of CPLR 3215(f), including but not limited to a proper affidavit of facts by the plaintiff [or by plaintiffs agent, provided there is proper proof in evidentiary form of such agency relationship], or a complaint verified by the plaintiff and not merely by an attorney or non-party, such as a servicer, who has no personal knowledge; and

(2) failure to submit an affidavit in support, which is in a properly sworn form, as required by CPLR 15 2 3 0 9( b) .

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: August 6, 2010

[ipaper docId=38641780 access_key=key-2jrk2t2b6rlp1l232q2d height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-15 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in assignment of mortgage, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, lps default solutions Inc., mortgage, note, robo signers, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, stopforeclosurefraud.com, Supreme CourtComments (1)


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

Archives