Tips on Using a Settlement Conference RJI to Show CPLR 3215(c) Compliance in New York Foreclosure Actions

In New York civil actions, where a defendant fails to answer the complaint, the next step is usually a motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215. However, in residential mortgage foreclosure actions, the plaintiff is generally required to file a Request for Judicial Intervention ("RJI") to seek the scheduling of a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408. More ›

Maine Supreme Court Revisits Reverses its Controversial 2017 One-and-Done Foreclosure Decision

A highly contested and controversial legal defense to residential foreclosures in Maine resurfaced earlier this month with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Finch v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Finch renewed the legal question of whether a mortgage lender is barred from pursuing a second judicial foreclosure action after a trial court dismissed the first action on the grounds that the lender's pre-foreclosure notice of right to cure failed to comply with Maine statutory law, specifically Section 6111. More ›

Rhode Island Supreme Court Concludes that Door Hanger Left by Mortgage Servicer Prior to Foreclosure Satisfied HUD Face-to-Face Requirement

In Montaquila v. Flagstar Bank, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected a borrower's attempt to expand the plain language of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) federal regulation requiring loan servicers of FHA-backed mortgages to conduct a face-to-face meeting or make a "reasonable effort" to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the borrower prior to foreclosing. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the regulation only requires a trip to the property to arrange a face-to-face meeting; the actual face-to-face meeting is not required at this visit. More ›

First Circuit Expands Strict Compliance Review of a Pre-Foreclosure Notice of Default Beyond Disclosure of a Borrower's Rights

An ever-expanding review of pre-foreclosure notices of default experienced its latest chapter in the First Circuit's recent decision reversing dismissal of suit in Aubee v. Selene. In Aubee, the borrowers challenged the notice of default they received prior to foreclosure on the grounds that the notice inserted additional language that was misleading and deceptive. The Aubees' mortgage included the standard Paragraph 22 notice of default disclosures requiring the mortgage lender to inform a borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense to acceleration and sale. The Aubees' notice of default stated: "You have the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding the non-existence of a default and/or the right to bring a court action to assert the non-existence of a default or any other defense to acceleration, foreclosure and/or sale of the property." The Rhode Island federal court dismissed the case because the notice of default provided the Aubees with all disclosures mandated under Paragraph 22, but the First Circuit reversed. More ›

New York Appellate Court Reverses Foreclosure Judgement, Reaffirms Business Record Itself Must be Provided to Trigger Hearsay Exception

In Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Ezeji, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3313 (2d Dep't, May 19, 2021), New York's Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding that although the mortgagee asserted it possessed the subject note before commencing the foreclosure and had complied with service of the statutory predicate notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304, it failed to introduce the actual business records evidencing these facts. The ruling is instructive for mortgagees and their servicers about the evidence they must provide in support of a prima facie case to foreclose. More ›

New York Courts Will Allow Mortgagors to Continue Submitting Hardship Declarations to Extend the Stay of Residential Foreclosures

On May 24, 2021, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks issued Administrative Order 159/21 (AO/159/21) to extend the stay of residential foreclosure actions through August 31, 2021, for cases in which the mortgagor submits a Hardship Declaration (the Declaration). AO/159/21 clarifies the uncertainty surrounding the deadline for submitting the Declaration, which was not addressed in the previous administrative order. More ›

New York Court Finds an Action is Timely in Some Circumstances in CPLR 205(a) Decision

The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court's First Department recently issued a decision addressing the calculation of the six-month timeframe permitted to file a new action, according to New York's Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) 205(a) and following the termination of a prior action. The First Department concluded that an action is timely if it is brought within six months of the termination of time to appeal a denial of a motion to renew. More ›

New York Court of Appeals Finds There is "No Checklist" to Prove Standing to Foreclose, While Leaving Newly-Enacted RPAPL 1302-a for Another Day

The New York Court of Appeals issued two important end-of-the-year decisions on December 17, 2020 in a heavily litigated, affirmative defense in residential mortgage foreclosure actions: the lack of standing to foreclose.

In US Bank N.A. v. Nelson and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Caliguri, the court analyzed both the pleading requirements for the defense and the standard of proof required to show standing to foreclose. In one-page, unanimous decisions, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's decisions, which both ruled in favor of the mortgagee. More ›

New York State Passes Eviction and Foreclosure Moratorium Protecting Renters, Homeowners, and Small Landlords

On Monday, December 28, 2020, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020. Among other things, this legislation (S.9114/A.11181) extends certain residential foreclosure and eviction moratoria for renters and homeowners suffering hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. More ›

In a Win for Mortgage Servicers, Massachusetts Supreme Court Finds Mandatory Notice of Right to Cure in Notice of Default is Not Potentially Deceptive

Massachusetts moved one step closer to resolving an ongoing debate over pre-foreclosure notices of default that started with the First Circuit's decision in Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank back in February of 2019. Initially, the First Circuit concluded that a notice of default, which disclosed that borrowers "could still avoid foreclosure by paying the total past-due amount before a foreclosure sale," was potentially misleading because the mortgage only allowed reinstatement five days before the sale. Chase filed a petition for rehearing, joined by numerous amici, that demanded reconsideration of the First Circuit's decision on grounds that the potentially misleading language was in fact a mandatory disclosure under the Code of Massachusetts Regulations. More ›