Isn’t this about 95% of all foreclosure cases? Hmm the other 5% in case a foreclosure mill has to make one ASAP in-house!
Listen up folks, this could be the start of a new storm!
You represent the plaintiff-assignee on motion for summary judgment under Civil Practice Law and Rule 3212 in a commercial mortgage foreclosure action. Your “affirmation of regularity” is supported by a complaint verified in New Jersey. The assignment was effected and acknowledged, in Pennsylvania, under a power of attorney notarized in California. All documents – the power of attorney, the assignment of mortgage and the verification – were properly executed in the jurisdictions where they were signed.
So “all of your [predicate legal] ducks are lined up.” No heavy lifting here. File the motion and “judgment day” is near. (Sorry for the mixed metaphors.) But wait a minute!! None of the documents signed outside the state contain the so-called “certificate of conformity” required by CPLR 2309(c) and Real Property Law § 299-a. Was the assignment of the mortgage effective? And is your evidence in admissible form?
[REUTERS]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
One Response to “(In)validity and (in)admissibility of out-of-state documents and affidavits: the CPLR 3212/2309(c) – RPL 299-a ‘Bermuda triangle’”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[…] title clearing, Notary, NTC, out-of-state, Real Property Law § 299-a, Rule 3212 Important: This post earlier goes hand in hand with this Abigail’s story, must read both if you haven’t yet: […]