Second Circuit Rules Homeowners Established Article III Standing for Statutory Damages Claim

On May 10, 2021, ruling on an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Maddox v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust affirmed denial of BNY Mellon's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue over the alleged violation of legal interests created by New York State statute. The ruling has important implications for mortgage lenders and their servicers. More ›

New York Court of Appeals Decision Clarifies RPAPL Notice Requirements, Affirms Heightened Standard for Borrowers

Last year, as we reported, the Second Circuit requested that the New York Court of Appeals rule on two certified questions concerning predicate notices in foreclosure actions. On March 30, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Schiffman on the questions certified by the Second Circuit concerning New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) §§ 1304 (90-day predicate notice) and 1306 (pre-foreclosure filing with the superintendent of banks). More ›

Landmark New York Court of Appeals Decision Clarifying Calculation of Statute of Limitations in Mortgage Foreclosure Actions

The New York Court of Appeals reversed four Appellate Division decisions and decided in favor of the mortgagees in a consolidated decision issued on February 18, 2021, ruling, inter alia, that:

• a demand letter which includes language that the debt "will be" accelerated expresses a possible future event and therefore does not constitute an unequivocal overt act which would accelerate the mortgage debt; 
• a defective pleading which incorrectly references only the original terms of a loan – not the operative modification agreement – is insufficient to accelerate the mortgage debt;
• a mortgagee's voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action is sufficient to revoke the acceleration created by the filing of that complaint; and
• a mortgagee's motivation for the discontinuance and revocation of the acceleration is irrelevant to the Court's analysis.