Judge Peter H. Mayer | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "Judge Peter H. Mayer"

NYSC Orders All Witnesses To Be Present, All Documents Demonstrating Exactly When Bank Acquired Possession of the Note and Mortgage

NYSC Orders All Witnesses To Be Present, All Documents Demonstrating Exactly When Bank Acquired Possession of the Note and Mortgage


Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC

v

Bozymowski

00296-2010

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26 Harvester Avenue
Batavia, New York 14020

Lydia Bozymowski
Defendant Pro Se
8 Hofstra Drive
Greenlawn, New York 11740-1908

Peter H. Mayer, J.

Upon the reading and filing of the following papers in this matter: (1) Notice of Motion by the plaintiff, dated May 21, 2010, and supporting papers; and (2) prior Order of this Court, dated November 1, 2010; and now

UPON DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT of the foregoing papers, the motion is decided as follows: it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s application (seq. #001) in this foreclosure action is hereby denied for the reasons set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff shall appear for a hearing on May 13, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at which time the Court will conduct an inquiry of the plaintiff’s witnesses concerning the information and documents submitted by the plaintiff in connection with this foreclosure action, and will determine what, if any, sanction to impose upon the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff’s attorney; and it is further

ORDERED that at the time of the hearing, the plaintiff shall produce the following witnesses to provide testimony under oath in response to all inquiries by the Court: (1) Margaret Burke Tarab, Esq., the attorney from plaintiff’s counsel’s firm who executed the December 13, 2010 attorney affirmation, which is purportedly compliant with the October 20, 2010 Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York; (2) Karen Griffith, Vice President of plaintiff Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, the individual who executed the February 2, 2010 affidavit in support of plaintiff’s application for an order of reference; and (3) Robert D. Repass, plaintiff’s Senior Vice President, identified in Ms. Tarab’s December 13, 2010 affirmation as the plaintiff’s representative with whom she communicated for purposes of executing her said affirmation; and it is further

ORDERED that at the time of the hearing, the plaintiff shall produce for Court inspection all of the documents and records reviewed by plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff’s other representatives for purposes of submitting its application for an order of reference, including but not limited to the original note and mortgage, and all documents demonstrating exactly when the plaintiff acquired possession of the note and ownership of the mortgage in this case; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall promptly serve, via first class mail, a copy of this Order upon the homeowner-defendant(s) at all known addresses, as well as upon all appearing parties (or upon their attorney[s] if represented by counsel), and shall promptly thereafter file the affidavit(s) of such service with the County Clerk; and it is further

ORDERED that failure to comply with any of the directives set forth herein shall result in [*2]the Court issuing any sanction the Court deems appropriate under the CPLR and/or Court Rules, including but not limited to waiver of any interest, attorneys fees and costs to which the plaintiff claims entitlement, as well as dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint on January 12, 2010. The complaint essentially alleges that the defendant-homeowner, Lydia Bozymowski, defaulted in payments with regard to the subject mortgage, dated April 22, 2004, in the principal amount of $225,000.00, for the premises located at 8 Hofstra Drive, Greenlawn, New York 11740. The original lender, Florida Bank, N.A. d/b/a Florida Bank Mortgage (“Florida Bank”), is alleged to have had the mortgage assigned to the plaintiff, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Bayview Loan”), by assignment dated November 25, 2009. The assignment was purportedly executed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Florida Bank. In its application (001), the plaintiff requested a default order of reference and amendment of the caption to remove the “Doe” defendants as parties.

By Order dated November 1, 2010, this Court referred the plaintiff’s application to a conference with the Court on December 15, 2010. As part of that Order, the plaintiff’s counsel was instructed to review the pending application prior to the conference “to determine whether or not such application is fully compliant with all foreclosure-related statutes, case law and Court Rules.” If so, counsel was to then “execute and submit to the Court at the conference the requisite attorney affirmation mandated by the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York.” With regard to such attorney affirmation, this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order stated that, “[i]f plaintiff’s counsel is unable for personal or professional reasons to execute the necessary affirmation, the pending application may be withdrawn without prejudice and with leave to resubmit upon proper papers, including the mandatory attorney affirmation.” The November 1, 2010 Order also warned counsel that “with regard to any scheduled court conferences or future applications, if the Court determines that such conferences have been attended, or such applications have been submitted, without proper regard for the applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules, or without regard for the required proofs delineated herein, the Court may, in its discretion, strike the non-compliant party’s pleadings or deny such applications with prejudice and/or impose sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1, and may deny those costs and attorneys fees attendant with the filing of such future applications.”

On December 15, 2010, a conference was held and plaintiff’s counsel submitted an attorney affirmation. Initially, the Court notes the plaintiff’s failure to submit proof of compliance with RPAPL §1304. For those actions commenced on or after September 1, 2008 and prior to January 14, 2010, RPAPL §1304 requires that, with regard to a “high-cost home loan” (as defined in Banking Law §6-l), or a “subprime home loan” or a “non-traditional home loan” (as defined in RPAPL §1304), at least 90 days before a lender or mortgage loan servicer commences a foreclosure action against the borrower, the lender or mortgage loan servicer must give the borrower a specific, statutorily prescribed notice. In essence, the notice warns the borrower that he or she may lose his or her home because of the loan default, and provides [*3]information regarding available assistance for homeowners who are facing financial difficulty. The specific language and type-size requirements of the notice are set forth in RPAPL §1304(1).

Pursuant to RPAPL §1304(2), the requisite 90-day notice must be “sent by the lender or mortgage loan servicer to the borrower, by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower, and if different, to the residence which is the subject of the mortgage. Notice is considered given as of the date it is mailed.” The notice must also contain a list of at least five housing counseling agencies approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or those designated by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, that serve the region where the borrower resides, as well as the counseling agencies’ last known addresses and telephone numbers.

This action was commenced on January 12, 2010. Therefore, barring any statutorily stated exceptions, if the subject loan being foreclosed upon qualifies as a “high-cost home loan,” a “subprime home loan,” or “non-traditional home loan,” the pre-commencement notice requirements of RPAPL §1304 will apply. Plaintiff, however, has failed to submit evidentiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal knowledge, as to whether or not this action involves such a loan and, if so, proof of compliance with the applicable pre-commencement requirements of RPAPL §1304 or, in the alternative, an affidavit sufficient to show why such requirements do not apply. Such failure requires denial of plaintiff’s application for an order of reference. The boilerplate language in paragraph 4(c) of the complaint regarding compliance with RPAPL §1304 “if the underlying mortgage qualifies,” is ambiguous and is, therefore, insufficient to affirmatively show such compliance, particularly where, as here, the complaint is not verified by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff has also failed to submit a properly sworn affidavit in support of the requested relief. In this regard, CPLR §2309(b) requires that an “oath or affirmation shall be administered in a form calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his religious or ethical beliefs.” Accordingly, for affidavits to have sufficient validity, a notary public witnessing signatures must take the oaths of the signatories or obtain statements from them as to the truth of the statements to which they subscribe their names (see, Matter of Helfand v Meisser, 22 NY2d 762, 292 NYS2d 467 [1968]; Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d 427, 863 NYS2d 473 [2d Dept 2008]; Matter of Leahy v O’Rourke, 307 AD2d 1008, 763 NYS2d 508 [2d Dept 2003]).

In support of its application for an order of reference, the plaintiff submits an affidavit from Karen Griffith, Vice President of plaintiff Bayview Loan; however, there is no showing that the notary who witnessed Ms. Griffith’s signature took an oath from Ms. Griffith, and no statement by Ms. Griffith attesting to the truth of the statements contained in her affidavit. Instead, there is a statement disguised to appear as a proper oath. Rather than swearing to the truth of the statements contained in her affidavit, Ms. Griffith merely attests in paragraph 12 to the truth of the contents of “the [plaintiff’s] complaint” (emphasis added). Such statement is insufficient to satisfy the form of oath required by CPLR §2309(b) with regard to Ms. Griffith’s [*4]affidavit. This is particularly pertinent here because additional submissions by the plaintiff raise questions as to the reliability of Ms. Griffith’s affidavit, as well as the plaintiff’s standing to bring this action.

A plaintiff has standing to maintain the action only where the plaintiff is the proper assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 755 NYS2d 730 [2d Dept 2003]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 1996]). It remains settled that foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2d Dept 1988]). Furthermore, a plaintiff has no foundation in law or fact to foreclose upon a mortgage in which the plaintiff has no legal or equitable interest (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, supra; Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243, 672 NYS2d 308 [1st Dept 1998]). Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra).

To support its contention that Bayview had proper standing to commence this action, Ms. Griffith’s alleges in paragraph 6 of her affidavit that “[t]he loan was acquired by and in the possession of the Plaintiff on April 22, 2004″ (emphasis added). Notably, this is the same date the mortgage documents were executed by the defendant-borrower to the original lender, Florida Bank. Even if this nebulous statement by Ms. Griffith were construed to mean that Bayview was in possession of the “note and mortgage” on April 22, 2004, such statement fails to show that the plaintiff was the holder of the note and mortgage when the action was commenced, nearly six years later (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, supra; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, supra; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, supra). On the one hand, Ms. Griffith alleges in paragraph 6 of her affidavit that the loan was in the possession of the plaintiff on April 22, 2004. On the other hand, in the same paragraph of her affidavit she states that the mortgage “instruments were assigned to [the Plaintiff] by [assignment] dated November 25, 2009.” Compounding this confusion is the handwritten statement on the assignment, asserting that it was “effective as of: 7/1/09.”

Despite these inconsistent statements of fact in support of ownership, there is an additional submission that suggests the true owner is or may be CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”), a non-party to this action. In this regard, affixed to the last page of the note is an undated indorsement from Florida Bank to CitiMortgage. This indorsement, which was executed by Jacqueline Ring as Florida Bank’s Vice President, specifically states, “WITHOUT RECOURSE PAY TO THE ORDER OF CITIMORTGAGE, INC.” Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion that it possessed “the loan” on the same date it was executed by the borrower, and the inconsistent assertion that plaintiff obtained the mortgage instruments by assignment dated [*5]November 25, 2009, is rebutted by the fact that when the note was indorsed to CitiMortgage, the mortgage passed to CitiMortgage as an inseparable incident (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]. Therefore, without the valid transfer of the note to the plaintiff, the assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff was a nullity (id.; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2d Dept 1988]). Curiously, evidence of the indorsement to CitiMortgage by Florida Bank was not in the plaintiff’s affidavit or attorney affirmation.

The plaintiff has also failed to comply with this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order regarding submission of an attorney affirmation in the form and with the language required by the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order of Hon. Ann Pfau, New York’s Chief Administrative Judge. As explained in this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order, “[p]ursuant to the Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, dated and effective October 20, 2010, plaintiff’s counsel in foreclosure actions must file with the court in all such actions an affirmation in a form prescribed by the Order.” It remains clear from the language of Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 Order, as well from the language of the official mandatory affirmation and its preamble, that the intent of the new Rule is to assure accountability for and accuracy of all court filings in foreclosure actions.

With the intent of the new Rule in mind, this Court requires that after October 20, 2010, the mandatory affirmation must accompany all applications made at any and all stages of foreclosure proceedings. Obviously, a mere single filing at only one phase of the case would not comport with the intent of Judge Pfau’s Order. Indeed, if compliance were sufficient by filing the requisite affirmation at only one phase, improper or untruthful papers could be filed at other phases with virtual impunity. Therefore, plaintiff’s failure to submit the official mandatory affirmation in the form and with the language prescribed by Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 Order must result in denial of the requested relief.

In relevant part, the Court’s November 1, 2010 Order also included, with italicized emphasis, the warning set forth in the last sentence of the preamble paragraph of the official mandatory affirmation, which states: “The wrongful filing and prosecution of foreclosure proceedings which are discovered to suffer from these defects may be cause for disciplinary and other sanctions upon participating counsel” (emphasis added). Despite this language required by the official mandatory affirmation, and despite this Court’s emphasis of that language in its November 1, 2010 Order, the December 13, 2010 affirmation signed by plaintiff’s attorney, Margaret Burke Tarab, Esq., does not include such language. Also, as required by paragraph 3 of the official mandatory affirmation, the plaintiff’s attorney must affirm that “[b]ased upon my communication with [plaintiff’s representative], as well as upon my own inspection of the papers filed with the Court and other diligent inquiry, I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Summons and Complaint and all other documents filed in support of this action for foreclosure are complete and accurate in all relevant respects . . .” (emphasis added). In counsel’s December 13, 2010 affirmation, the word “diligent” was omitted and replaced with the word “reasonable.” In addition, as required by paragraph 4 of the official mandatory affirmation, the plaintiff’s attorney must acknowledge that he or she understands “that [*6]the Court will rely on this Affirmation in considering the [plaintiff’s] application.” In paragraph 4 of counsel’s affirmation, however, she omitted the specific mandatory language and replaced it with a generic acknowledgment, that “I am aware of my obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.”

Although the Court has heard several attorneys for plaintiff banks informally question Judge Pfau’s authority to have issued the October 20, 2010 Order in the first instance, this Court gives full deference to her Honor’s Order (see NY Const, art VI, § 28). Counsel for plaintiff banks have also claimed that the attorney affirmation required by Judge Pfau’s Order was unofficially amended on November 18, 2010 and posted on the internet in amended form. Counsel, however, has failed to submit an order by Judge Pfau executed after her October 20, 2010 Order, or any other legitimate legal authority, in which the language of the official mandatory affirmation was modified. Therefore, this Court requires counsel to submit an attorney affirmation in the specific form and with the specific language originally mandated by her Honor’s Order of October 20, 2010.

In this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order, the Court warned of potential sanctions, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1, if a party submits an application “without proper regard for the applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules.” Indeed, although the plaintiff’s December 13, 2010 attorney affirmation does not include certain language mandated by Judge Pfau’s October 2010 Order, the affirmation does, nevertheless, state at paragraph 4 that counsel is “aware of [her] obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.” With regard to sanctions, 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 states, in pertinent part that:

(a) . . . [T]he court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130-1.3 of this Part. . . .

(b) The court, as appropriate, may . . . impose such financial sanctions against either an attorney or a party to the litigation or against both. Where the . . . sanction is against an attorney, it may be against the attorney personally or upon a partnership, [or] firm . . . that has appeared as attorney of record. The . . . sanctions may be imposed upon any attorney appearing in the action or upon a partnership, firm or corporation with which the attorney is associated.

(c) For purposes of this Part, conduct is frivolous if:

(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;

(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or

(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false. [*7]

. . . In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, or should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party.

(d) An . . . imposition of sanctions may be made . . . upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The form of the hearing shall depend upon the nature of the conduct and the circumstances of the case.

At the December 15, 2010 conference, plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that the plaintiff’s submitted application was, in fact, fully compliant with all applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules. Counsel then tendered to the Court Ms. Burke Tarab’s December 13, 2010 affirmation, which is purported to be compliant with the requirements of Judge Pfau’s Order of October 20, 2010. In counsel’s affirmation, she identifies Robert D. Repass, plaintiff’s Senior Vice President, as the representative with whom she communicated on December 10, 2010 for purposes of executing her affirmation.

According to paragraph 2 of the affirmation, Mr. Repass reportedly informed Ms. Tarab that he “personally reviewed plaintiff’s documents and records relating to this case for factual accuracy.” He also allegedly “confirmed the factual allegations set forth in the Complaint and any supporting affirmations filed with the court, as well as the accuracy of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents (Plaintiff’s Affidavit[s]) filed therewith.” Neither the proofs submitted in support of the order of reference, nor the mandatory attorney affirmation are sufficient to grant an order of reference.

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s application for an order of reference is denied. The nature of the proofs provided by the plaintiff, from all sources, compels the Court to order hearing in accordance with 22 NYCRR §130-1 to determine if the conduct undertaken by the plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s counsel was “frivolous” as defined in 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c) and what, if any, sanction should be imposed.

This constitutes the Order of the Court.

Dated:February 17, 2011

PETER H. MAYER, J.S.C.

[ipaper docId=49755154 access_key=key-1nqux6te6r5mleytllbl height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

NY DAILY NEWS: Dubious signatures, missing, inaccurate paperwork halt 4,450 city foreclosures

NY DAILY NEWS: Dubious signatures, missing, inaccurate paperwork halt 4,450 city foreclosures


BY Robert Gearty
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, October 24th 2010, 4:00 AM

Thousands of foreclosures across the city are in question because paperwork used to justify the seizure of homes is riddled with flaws, a Daily News probe has found.

Banks have suspended some 4,450 foreclosures in all five boroughs because of paperwork problems like missing and inaccurate documents, dubious signatures and banks trying to foreclose on mortgages they don’t even own.

The city’s not alone. All 50 states are investigating foreclosure paperwork, evicted homeowners are hiring lawyers and buyers of foreclosed homes are fretting over the legality of their purchases.

Last week, New York‘s top judge, Jonathan Lippman, began requiring all bank lawyers to sign a form vouching for the accuracy of their foreclosure paperwork.

That could have been a problem for one Long Island foreclosure that was being brought by GMAC Mortgage last year.

A sworn affidavit dated March 30 was signed by someone identified as Sherry Hall, vice president of a GMAC affiliate called Homecomings Financial Network.

Fifteen days later another sworn affidavit surfaced in another Suffolk County foreclosure, this time signed by a GMAC vice president named Sheri D. Hall.

Despite the difference in the names, the signatures were identical – and were vouched for by the same notary.

Suffolk Supreme Court Justice Peter Mayer refused to approve the foreclosure bearing the name Sherry Hall and ordered her, and the notary, to appear in court Nov. 17. GMAC officials did not return calls.

.

Related link:

.

CASE EVERYONE SHOULD READ: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST AMS. AS TRUSTEE v. McCoy, 2010 NY Slip Op 51664 – NY: Supreme Court, Suffolk

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

CASE EVERYONE SHOULD READ: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST AMS. AS TRUSTEE v. McCoy, 2010 NY Slip Op 51664 – NY: Supreme Court, Suffolk

CASE EVERYONE SHOULD READ: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST AMS. AS TRUSTEE v. McCoy, 2010 NY Slip Op 51664 – NY: Supreme Court, Suffolk


2010 NY Slip Op 51664(U)

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS TRUSTEE, Plaintiff(s),
v.
DEREK McCOY; EDYTA McCOY; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AS NOMINEE FOR HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC, (F/K/A HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC.) BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE SILVER CHASE CONDOMINIUM; “JOHN DOE #1-5 AND “JANE DOE #1-5″ SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS, IT BEING THE INTENTION OF Plaintiff TO DESIGNATE ANY AND ALL OCCUPANTS, TENANTS, PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS, IF ANY, HAVING OR CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE PREMISES BEING FORECLOSED HEREIN, Defendant(s).

7782-2008. Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

Decided September 21, 2010. Fein, Such & Crane, LLP, 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977-6216, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Derek McCoy, Edyta McCoy, 35 Gibbs Road, Coram, New York 11727, Defendants Pro Se.

PETER H. MAYER, J.

UPON DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT of the foregoing papers, the motion is decided as follows: it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s resubmitted application (seq. # 002) for an order of reference in this foreclosure action is considered under 2009 NY Laws, Ch. 507, enacted December 15, 2009, and 2008 NY Laws, Ch. 472, enacted August 5, 2008 (as amended), as well as the related statutes and case law, and is hereby denied without prejudice, and with leave to resubmit upon proper papers, for the reasons set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED that, inasmuch as the plaintiff has failed to properly show that the homeowner-defendants are not entitled to a foreclosure settlement conference, pursuant to CPLR 3408 such conference is hereby scheduled for November 17, 2010, 9:30 a.m., in the courtroom of the undersigned, located at Room A-259, Part 17, One Court Street, Riverhead, NY 11901 (XXX-XXX-XXXX), for the purpose of holding settlement discussions pertaining to the rights and obligations of the parties under the mortgage loan documents, including but not limited to, determining whether the parties can reach a mutually agreeable resolution to help the defendant avoid losing their home, and evaluating the potential for a resolution in which payment schedules or amounts may be modified or other workout options may be agreed to, and for whatever other purposes the Court deems appropriate; and it is further

ORDERED that “Sherry Hall,” who purports, in this particular case, to be the Vice President of Homecomings Financial Network, Inc., the purported attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff, shall appear at the November 17, 2010 Foreclosure Settlement Conference; and it is further

ORDERED that “Nikole Shelton,” the individual who purportedly notarized Ms. Hall’s signature in this particular action, as well as in the action entitled GMAC Mortgage, LLC v Ingoglia, under Suffolk County Index Number XXXX-XXXX, shall appear at the November 17, 2010 Conference; and it is further

ORDERED that any attorney appearing at the conference on behalf of the plaintiff (including a per diem attorney) shall, pursuant to CPLR 3408, be fully authorized to dispose of the case; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall bring to all future conferences all documents necessary for evaluating the potential settlement, modification, or other workout options which may be appropriate, including but not limited to the payment history, an itemization of the amounts needed to cure the default and satisfy the loan, and the mortgage and note; if the plaintiff is not the owner of the mortgage and note, the plaintiff shall provide the name, address and telephone number of the legal owner of the mortgage and note; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall promptly serve, via first class mail, a copy of this Order upon the homeowner-defendants at all known addresses (or upon their attorney if represented by counsel), as well as upon all other appearing parties, and shall provide the affidavit(s) of such service to the Court at the time of the scheduled conference, and annex a copy of this Order and the affidavit(s) of service as exhibits to any future applications submitted to the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that in the event any scheduled court conference is adjourned for any reason, the plaintiff shall promptly send, via first class mail, written notice of the adjourn date to the homeowner-defendants at all known addresses (or upon their attorney if represented by counsel), as well as upon all other appearing parties, and shall provide the affidavit(s) of such service to the Court at the time of the subsequent conference, and annex a copy of this Order and the affidavit(s) of service as exhibits to any future applications submitted to the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that with regard to any future applications submitted to the Court, the moving party(ies) must clearly state, in an initial paragraph of the attorney’s affirmation, whether or not the statutorily required foreclosure conference has been held and, if so, when such conference was conducted; and it is further

ORDERED that with regard to any scheduled court conferences or future applications by the parties, if the Court determines that such conferences have been attended, or such applications have been submitted, without proper regard for the applicable statutory and case law, or without regard for the required proofs delineated herein, the Court may, in its discretion, strike the non-compliant party’s pleadings or deny such applications with prejudice and/or impose sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1, and may deny those costs and attorneys fees attendant with the filing of such future applications.

In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint on February 26, 2008. The complaint essentially alleges that the homeowner-defendants, Derek McCoy and Edyta McCoy, defaulted in payments with regard to a December 8, 2006 mortgage in the principal amount of $288,000.00 for the premises located at 35-34 Gibbs Road, Coram, New York 11727. The original lender, Homecomings Financial, LLC, had the mortgage assigned to the plaintiff by assignment dated February 28, 2008, two days after the commencement of the action. According to the court’s database, a foreclosure settlement conference has not yet been held. The plaintiff’s application seeks a default order of reference and requests amendment of the caption to remove the “Doe” defendants as parties. Plaintiff’s counsel contends that the “present application corrects the specified defects articulated in the [December 4, 2008]Short Form Order.” Notwithstanding counsel’s contention, plaintiff’s current application fails to correct several defects, and presents other grounds which preclude an order of reference in favor of the plaintiff.

By Order dated December 4, 2008, the plaintiff’s prior application for the same relief was denied without prejudice, and with leave to resubmit upon proper papers, to allow the plaintiff to properly show whether or not the subject loan is a “subprime home loan” or a “high-cost home loan” as defined by statute, thereby entitling the defendants to a foreclosure settlement conference pursuant to the then-applicable 2008 NY Laws, Chapter 472. In this regard, the plaintiff’s attorney has submitted a letter in which he claims that it is his “belief that the mortgage being foreclosed is not a sub-prime home loan and is not subject to the [foreclosure conference] requirements.” Counsel also submits an Affirmation of Compliance with CPLR 3408, which states that “[w]e have determined that this loan is not subprime,” and that the defendants “are not entitled to a court conference” (emphasis in original).

Despite counsel’s assertions, the plaintiff’s own affidavit of merit states that “[w]e have determined that this loan is subprime” and that “the defendants are entitled to court conference” (emphasis added). The direct contradiction between counsel’s “belief” and the assessment of one whose affidavit states, as in this case, that she has “first-hand knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding this action,” validates this Court’s approach in refusing to accept counsel’s assertions as fact in any given foreclosure action. The mistaken “belief” of an attorney who has no personal knowledge of the facts, yet opines in court documents that a homeowner-defendant is not entitled to a statutorily required court conference, may prejudice the homeowner’s rights while subjecting the attorney to otherwise avoidable court sanctions. Since the plaintiff has failed to adequately show that the homeowner-defendants are not entitled to a foreclosure settlement conference, such conference shall be held on November 17, 2010, 9:30 a.m.

The Court’s December 4, 2008 Order also specifically stated that “[w]ith regard to any future applications … plaintiff’s papers shall include … 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 plaintiff’s 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, with no personal knowledge.”

In an apparent effort to satisfy the requirements of CPLR §3215(f), the plaintiff submits an affidavit of merit from “Sherry Hall,” who purports in this particular case to be the Vice President of Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. (“Homecomings”), the purported attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff. The Limited Power of Attorney annexed to the affidavit, however, does not name Homecomings as the attorney-in-fact. Instead, it names Residential Funding Company, LLC. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that the affidavit was “made by the party” as required by CPLR §3215(f) (emphasis added). Notably, the instructions on the power-of-attorney form also require the form to be recorded and returned not to the plaintiff bank, nor to Homecomings as the purported attorney-in-fact, but rather to “GMAC ResCap.” This raises certain concerns, particularly given the nature of the affidavit of merit submitted in this case, as compared to the affidavit of merit submitted to the Court by the same attorneys in an unrelated foreclosure matter, GMAC Mortgage, LLC v Ingoglia, under Suffolk County Index Number XXXX-XXXX.

In the Ingoglia case (which was recently discontinued), counsel submitted an affidavit of merit from “Sheri D. Hall” in her purported capacity as Vice President of GMAC Mortgage, LLC. That affidavit was notarized by Nikole Shelton on April 14, 2009. Just weeks earlier, on March 25, 2009, Ms. Shelton notarized an affidavit of merit from “Sherry Hall” in this case, in which Ms. Hall purports to be Vice President of Homecomings. It would appear, therefore, that Ms. Hall purports to be the Vice President of two different banks almost simultaneously. Furthermore, although the affidavit in this case appears to have been notarized by Ms. Shelton on March 25, 2009, it appears to have been signed by Ms. Hall five (5) days later, on March 30, 2009, after it was notarized.

The “Hall” affidavit in each case is accompanied by a Certificate of Acknowledgment notarized by “Nikole Shelton” in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Both Certificates state that the individual executing the affidavits “personally appeared” before Nikole Shelton. Both state that the affiant was “personally known to [Nikole Shelton] or proved to [Nikole Shelton] on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the [affidavit].” Notwithstanding these assertions by Ms. Shelton in both cases, the affidavit submitted to the Court in Ingoglia was executed by one who printed and signed her name as “Sheri D. Hall,” while the affidavit submitted in this case was executed by one who printed and signed her name as “Sherry Hall.” Although the Court cannot function as a handwriting expert, the signatures in both affidavits appear virtually identical, despite the difference in the two names.

These facts raise questions concerning the true identity and veracity of the person signing the affidavits of merit, who swears to be the Vice President of two different banks almost simultaneously, as well as the veracity of Nikole Shelton, in notarizing both signatures. Accordingly, “Sherry Hall,” who submitted the affidavit of merit in this case, and “Nikole Shelton,” who purportedly notarized Ms. Hall’s signature in this case and purportedly notarized the signature of “Sheri D. Hall” in the Ingoglia case, shall appear at the November 17, 2010 conference, so the Court may determine whether or not it must conduct an evidentiary hearing on these issues.

Concerning assignment of the subject mortgage, this Court’s December 4, 2008 Order specifically required any resubmitted motion to include “evidentiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal knowledge, of proper and timely assignments of the subject mortgage, if any, sufficient to establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the subject note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced, and that the assignment is not merely an invalid assignment or an assignment with an ineffectual retroactive date” (emphasis added). Despite this specific instruction, the plaintiff’s affidavit of merit merely states that the plaintiff “is still the holder of record of the … mortgage.” This statement fails to show that the plaintiff was the holder of the note and mortgage when the plaintiff commenced the action. The plaintiff filed the summons and complaint on February 26, 2008; however, the assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff from the original lender, Homecomings Financial, LLC, is dated February 28, 2008, two days after the commencement of the action.

Only where the plaintiff is the assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced does the plaintiff have standing to maintain the action (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 755 NYS2d 730 [2d Dept 2003]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 NYS2d 121 [2d Dept 1996]). An assignment executed after the commencement of an action, which states that it is effective as of a date preceding the commencement date, is valid where the defaulting defendant appears but fails to interpose an answer or file a timely pre-answer motion that asserts the defense of standing, thereby waiving such defense pursuant to CPLR 3211[e] (see, HSBC Bank, USA v Dammond, 59 AD3d 679, 875 NYS2d 490 1445 [2d Dept 2009]). It remains settled, however, that foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2d Dept 1988]).

Indeed, a plaintiff has no foundation in law or fact to foreclose upon a mortgage in which the plaintiff has no legal or equitable interest (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]; Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243, 672 NYS2d 308 [1st Dept 1998]). Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]).

Although the February 28, 2008 assignment states it is “effective January 19, 2008,” such attempt at retroactivity is ineffectual. If an assignment is in writing, the execution date is generally controlling and a written assignment claiming an earlier effective date is deficient, unless it is accompanied by proof that the physical delivery of the note and mortgage was, in fact, previously effectuated (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d 937, 938, 694 NYS2d 245 [1999]). A retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709, 888 NYS2d 914 [2d Dept 2009]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]). Plaintiff’s failure to submit proper proof, including an affidavit from one with personal knowledge, that the plaintiff was the holder of the note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced, requires denial of the plaintiff’s application for an order of reference.

In its prior Order, the Court also gave specific directives concerning proof of compliance with RPAPL §1303 and § 1320 for any resubmitted motions. In this regard, the prior Order required “evidentiary proof, including an attorney’s affirmation, of compliance with the form, type size, type face, paper color and content requirements of RPAPL §1303 regarding foreclosure notices, as well as an affidavit of proper service of such notice,” as well as “evidentiary proof, including an attorney affirmation, of compliance with the form, content, type size, and type face requirements of RPAPL §1320 regarding special summonses in residential foreclosure actions, and proof of proper service of said special summons” (emphasis supplied). Despite these very specific directives, the attorney’s affirmation in support of this resubmitted motion fails to address those sections. While the affidavit of service does state that the summons and complaint were served with a Section 1303 notice on colored paper and a Section 1320 notice, such information, by itself, is not proper proof that those notices were compliant with the specific form, content, type size, and type face requirements set forth in those statutes.

Lastly, the Court notes that although service of process was made upon defendant Derek McCoy by substitute service pursuant to CPLR 308(2), the additional mailing required for such service was never completed. Instead, the process server sent the additional mailing to defendant Edyte McCoy who is alleged to have received a copy of the summons and complaint by personal service pursuant to CPLR 308(1). Such personal service does not require an additional mailing to complete service. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff has established neither completion of service upon the defendant, Derek McCoy, nor jurisdiction of this Court over that defendant.

Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff’s motion is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

[ipaper docId=38861983 access_key=key-szfht6qv85fge3gqrb height=600 width=600 /]


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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, conflict of interest, deutsche bank, foreclosure, foreclosures, Notary, trusteeComments (3)

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)

“indorsement” on a separate page ‘I DON’T THINK SO’! IndyMAC BANK FSB v. Garcia, 2010 NY Slip Op 51127 – NY: Supreme Court, Suffolk 2010

“indorsement” on a separate page ‘I DON’T THINK SO’! IndyMAC BANK FSB v. Garcia, 2010 NY Slip Op 51127 – NY: Supreme Court, Suffolk 2010


Don’t we love New York!

This is another case for you all to learn from…Now again, shouldn’t their be a conflict of any documents where MERS is the nominee for any of these banks?

I think we are going to see lenders, servicers et al slowly begin to turn on MERS!


2010 NY Slip Op 51127(U)

IndyMAC BANK F.S.B., Plaintiff(s),
v.
LUDDY BRITO GARCIA, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., ACTING SOLELY AS A NOMINEE FOR STERLING NATIONAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., SUBSIDIARY OF FEDERALLY CHARTERED BANK, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AND “JOHN DOE # 1″ THROUGH “JOHN DOE # 10″, THE LAST TEN NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS AND UNKNOWN TO plaintiff, THE PERSONS OR PARTIES INTENDED BEING THE PERSONS OR PARTIES, IF ANY, HAVING OR CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON THE MORTGAGED PREMISES DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT, Defendant(s).

7282-2008

Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

Decided June 22, 2010.

Eschen, Frenkel & Weisman, LLP, 20 West Main Street, Bay Shore, New York 11706, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Luddy Brito Garcia, 124 East 13th Street, Huntington Station, New York 11746, Defendant Pro Se.

PETER H. MAYER, J.

Upon the reading and filing of the following papers in this matter: (1) Notice of Motion by the plaintiff, dated June 2, 2009, and supporting papers; and now

UPON DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT of the foregoing papers, the motion is decided as follows: it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s application (seq. # 002) for an order of reference in this foreclosure action is considered under 2009 NY Laws, Ch. 507, enacted December 15, 2009, and 2008 NY Laws, Ch. 472, enacted August 5, 2008, as well as the related statutes and case law, and is hereby denied without prejudice and with leave to resubmit upon proper papers, for failure to submit proper evidentiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal knowledge, of a valid indorsement of the note or assignment of the mortgage, sufficient to establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall promptly serve a copy of this Order upon the defendant-homeowner(s) at all known addresses and upon all other answering defendants, via first class mail, and shall promptly file the affidavit(s) of such service with the County Clerk and annex a copy of this Order and the affidavit(s) of service as exhibits to any motion resubmitted pursuant to this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that with regard to any scheduled court conferences or future applications by the plaintiff, if the Court determines that such conferences have been attended, or such applications have been submitted, without proper regard for the applicable statutory and case law, or without regard for the required proofs delineated herein, the Court may, in its discretion, dismiss this case or deny such applications with prejudice and/or impose sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1, and may deny those costs and attorneys fees attendant with the filing of such future applications.

By Order dated November 24, 2009, this Court scheduled a foreclosure settlement conference for December 23, 2009, which was adjourned to February 24, 2010. The defendant-homeowner, Luddy Brito Garcia, failed to appear at both. The plaintiff now seeks a default order of reference and requests amendment of the caption to substitute a tenant in the place and stead of the “Doe” defendants. For the reasons set forth herein, the plaintiff’s application is denied.

In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint on January 3, 2008, which essentially alleges that Ms. Garcia defaulted in her payments of a mortgage, dated August 15, 2006, in the principal amount of $411,500.00, for the premises located at 124 East 13th Street, Huntington, New York. The original lender, Sterling National Mortgage Company, Inc., purportedly indorsed the promissory note to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of this action. According to the plaintiff, this indorsement made the plaintiff the lawful holder of the note and mortgage with standing to commence the action. Although the plaintiff’s affidavit in support indicates that the “original note with a proper indorsement is [now] in the plaintiff’s possession,” the plaintiff does not prove — or even assert — that the plaintiff actually possessed the note and mortgage at the time the action was filed.

Instead, citing Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v Coakley, 41 AD3d 674, 838 NYS2d 622 (2d Dept 2007), the plaintiff summarily argues that because the promissory note was indorsed to the plaintiff, the mortgage passed as an incident to the note. Under the circumstances presented herein, however, the plaintiff’s reliance on Coakley is misguided. In Coakley, the record showed that the promissory note had been indorsed by the original lender to another bank, who then indorsed it in blank and ultimately transferred and tendered it to the foreclosing plaintiff. On that particular record, the court found that at the time the action was commenced, the plaintiff was the lawful holder of the promissory note and of the mortgage, which had passed as an incident to the promissory note. In this case, however, the alleged “indorsement” appears to be on a separate page from the promissory note and, in any event, is clearly undated.

New York UCC §3-202 (1) states, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the instrument is payable to order it is negotiated by delivery with any necessary indorsement” (emphasis added). In addition, UCC §3-202(2) requires that “[a]n indorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof (emphasis added). Here, the purported indorsement is payable to order, but there is no evidence of delivery of the note prior to the action’s commencement. Furthermore, the alleged indorsement appears to be on a separate page, makes no specific reference to the subject note, and is, in any event, undated. As such, the so-called “indorsement” is, at best, unreliable and fails to support plaintiff’s claim that the “note and mortgage were assigned by a properly indorsed note prior to the commencement of this action” (see, Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, Inc., 147 AD2d 208, 542 NYS2d 721 [2d Dept 1989]). This is particularly true where, as here, the plaintiff’s affidavit in support of the motion fails to affirmatively state that the plaintiff did, in fact, possess the note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced. Without either proof of a proper written assignment of the underlying note or proper proof of the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action, the plaintiff has failed to sufficiently show either the proper transfer of the obligation, or that the mortgage passed as an inseparable incident to the debt (see, U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]).

A plaintiff has no foundation in law or fact to foreclose upon a mortgage, unless the plaintiff has shown it has legal or equitable interest in such mortgage (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]; Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243, 672 NYS2d 308 [1st Dept 1998]). A written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action would be sufficient to transfer the obligation, and have the mortgage pass as an inseparable incident to the debt (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]). With regard to a written assignment, the execution date is generally controlling and a written assignment claiming an earlier effective date is deficient, unless it is accompanied by proof that the physical delivery of the note and mortgage was, in fact, previously effectuated (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d 937, 938, 694 NYS2d 245 [1999]). A retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709, 888 NYS2d 914 [2d Dept 2009]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]).

Applying this analysis to the case before this Court, a statement by the plaintiff merely indicating that the original note is in plaintiff’s possession as of the making of a motion for an order of reference is insufficient to show that the plaintiff had standing to bring the action in the first instance (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709, 888 NYS2d 914 [2d Dept 2009]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]). Plaintiff’s failure to submit proper proof of a valid indorsement or assignment, and failure to otherwise prove that the plaintiff was the holder of the note and mortgage at the time the action was commenced, requires denial of the plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

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



Posted in chain in title, conflict of interest, dismissed, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, indymac, lawsuit, MERS, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., reversed court decisionComments (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