New York is Split on Whether Notice of Default Letters Trigger the Statute of Limitations
In Milone v. US Bank, N.A., a New York intermediate appellate court held that a letter to a borrower stating that the failure to cure a mortgage loan default "will result in acceleration" does not start the clock on the statute of limitations to foreclose and recover the entire debt. This ruling differs from that of another New York intermediate appellate court, which had ruled otherwise, setting up the possibility of the New York Court of Appeals weighing in on a key issue in New York foreclosure actions.
Second Department Holds that Notice of Default Letter Stating "Future Intent" to Accelerate Does Not Start Running of Statute of Limitations. Milone stemmed from the plaintiff-borrower's failure to make the October 1, 2008 payment due on her mortgage loan—or any subsequent payments. As a result, the servicer sent the borrower a notice of default letter, dated November 16, 2008, providing that her failure to cure her default within 30 days "will result in acceleration" of her loan. Subsequently, on January 13, 2009, US Bank commenced a foreclosure action against the borrower, which was dismissed in February 2012 without US Bank establishing it had standing.
Nothing further happened with respect to the loan until October 21, 2014, when the servicer sent the borrower a letter stating that it was de-accelerating the loan and re-instituting the borrower's monthly payment obligation. Several months later, in March 2015, the borrower commenced an action seeking to cancel and discharge the mortgage and note based on the expiration of the six-year statute of limitations to foreclose and recover the entire amount owed on the loan. The borrower alleged that the November 16, 2008 letter accelerated her loan and thus started running New York's six-year statute of limitations. Alternatively, she asserted that the clock started to run when US Bank commenced the foreclosure action on January 13, 2009. US Bank moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations had not run because the October 21, 2014 letter de-accelerated the loan within the six-year period. The lower court agreed with US Bank and dismissed the action.
On appeal, the Second Department held that the November 16, 2008 letter had not accelerated the loan, and thus had not started the running of the statute of limitations on the entire debt. The court reasoned that the language in the letter—providing that the failure to cure the default within 30 days "will result in acceleration" of the loan—was an expression of future intent that did not amount to an actual acceleration. As there was no acceleration, the statute of limitations to recover the entire debt and foreclose had not started to run.
De-Acceleration of the Loan Also Addressed. The court held that a lender could de-accelerate a mortgage loan because its right to accelerate was discretionary. In addition, the court determined that the de-acceleration letter was in a proper form because it contained an unequivocal demand that the borrower meet her prospective monthly payment obligations. But, the court held that just as a party has to establish it has standing to foreclose, so too does a party have to establish it has standing to de-accelerate a loan. As there was an open question as to US Bank's standing, it was not entitled to dismissal of the action.
Going Forward – Headed for Court of Appeals? As the court noted in Milone, there is now a split between the Appellate Division, First Department and Second Department in New York as to whether stating that the failure to cure "will result in acceleration" starts the clock on the statute of limitations. Given this split among the intermediate appellate courts on this important issue, it may be addressed by the Court of Appeals. For now, however, lower courts in the Second Department—including courts in Kings, Nassau, Queens, Suffolk and Westchester counties—are bound by Milone. Loan holders in those courts now have a favorable decision to defeat arguments by borrowers that notice of default letters stating a future intent to accelerate the loan start running the statute of limitations to foreclose and recover the entire debt.
Topics
- ACA
- ACA International
- Amicus Brief
- Anti-Discrimination Policy
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Appraised Value
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- Article III Standing
- ATDS
- Attorneys' Fees
- Auto-Dialer
- Automatic Telephone Dialing System
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- behavioral economics
- Biden Administration
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Bitcoin
- Blockchain
- BNPL
- Business Records
- California
- California Consumer Financial Protection Law
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Car Dealership
- CARES Act
- CCPA
- CDC
- CFPA
- CFPB
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Civil Contempt
- Claim-Splitting
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Climate Change
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Commercial Foreclosure
- Communications
- Compliance
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Connecticut
- Connecticut Insurance Department
- Constitutional Claims
- Consumer Data Privacy
- Consumer Disclosures
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- COVID-19
- CPRA
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Credit Reporting Agencies
- Creditor
- Cryptocurrency
- cyber regulation
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Damages
- Data Breach
- Data Privacy Laws
- Data Security
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Dispute
- Debt Purchase
- Debtor
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Protection and Innovation
- Department of Financial Services
- DFPI
- DFS
- DFS Part 500
- Digital Financial Asset Law
- Disclosure
- Discovery Rule
- District of Columbia
- Document Retention
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Due Process Clause
- ECOA
- Economic Impact Payment
- Education
- Education Debt
- Eighth Amendment
- Electronic Communications
- Eleventh Amendment
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- European General Data Privacy Regulation
- Eviction
- Excessive Fines Clause
- Executive Order
- Exempt Status
- Exemption
- FACTA
- Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
- Fair Credit Billing Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Lending
- Fair Market Value
- Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
- FCBA
- FCC
- FCRA
- FDCPA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Housing Administration
- Federal Housing Finance Agency
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68
- Federal Trade Commission
- FHA
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Final Rule
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Registration
- Financial Regulatory
- Financial Risk
- FinTech
- First Amendment
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- For-Profit Student Loans
- Forbearance
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
- FTC
- Furnishers
- GDPR
- hacking
- Hardship Declaration
- HealthTech
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- Hobbs Act
- HUD
- Human Intervention Test
- Hunstein
- IDFPR
- Illinois
- Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
- Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Investigation
- IRS
- Judicial Estoppel
- Kathleen Kraninger
- Kentucky
- kickbacks
- Lack of Standing
- Landlord and Tenant
- Least Sophisticated Consumer Standard
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Lender Credit Bid
- LGBTQ
- Licensing
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Discharge
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Marketing Services Agreements
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Appeals Court
- Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Material Misrepresentation
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Debts
- Medical Expenses
- Medical Marijuana
- Minnesota
- Monetary Damages
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Acceleration
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loan Acceleration
- Mortgage Loans
- Mortgage Servicers
- Mortgage Servicing
- Motion to Dismiss
- MSA
- Municipal Code
- Municipal Code Violations
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Court of Appeals
- New York Department of Financial Services
- New York Legislation
- New York Real Property Procedures and Acts
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- NMLS
- North Carolina
- North Carolina Consumer Finance Act
- North Dakota
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- NPRM
- NYCRA
- NYS DFS
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Origination
- Paragraph 22
- Part 500
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Post-Discharge-Communications
- PPP
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Preemption
- Privacy
- Private Colleges and Universities
- Private Right of Action
- Private Student Loans
- Property Rights
- Property Value
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- Redlining
- referral fees
- Regulated Entities
- Regulated Non-Depositories
- Regulated Organizations
- Regulation
- Regulation X
- Regulatory
- Regulatory Compliance
- Regulatory Relief
- Remote Working
- Residential Foreclosure
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Revocation of Election to Accelerate
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- Right of Redemption
- Right to Cure
- Right to Cure Notice
- Right to Reinstate
- Risk Management
- Robocalls
- Rohit Chopra
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- Sanitary Codes
- SCOTUS
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Separation of Powers
- Settlement
- Settlement Conference
- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Social Media
- Standard of Proof
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Damages
- Statutory Interpretation
- Stimulus
- Student Loans
- Students
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Tax
- Tax Implications
- Tax Lien
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texas
- Texting
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- U.S. Constitution
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Undue Hardship
- Unfair and Deceptive Practices
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Treasury
- Unsolicited Advertisement
- Usury Laws
- Utah
- Video Conferencing
- Virginia
- Virtual Currency Business Act (VCBA)
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Washington D.C.
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Consumer Act