Showing 27 posts in Foreclosure.

New York Courts Lift Suspension of Foreclosure Proceedings, Add Additional Conference Requirement

July 29, 2020 by Mitra P. Singh, Brian S. McGrath

On July 24, 2020, the New York State Courts issued Administrative Order 157/20 (AO/157/20). Effective July 27, 2020, AO/157/20 removes the formal suspension of all residential foreclosures, but keeps a limited suspension of commercial foreclosures in place until August 19, 2020. Under this new directive, foreclosure actions can be resumed by courts first scheduling at least one conference. Those conferences are expected to be the same as the mandatory CPLR 3408 settlement conferences—even if settlement conferences were previously held—because the courts were directed to consider all aspects of the case, including "the effects, if any, that the COVID-19 pandemic has had upon the parties." More ›

Stepping Beyond the CARES Act: Massachusetts Expands Forbearance and Issues Sweeping Moratorium on Foreclosures and Evictions during COVID-19 Emergency

April 21, 2020 by Maura K. McKelvey

On April 20, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed H.4647 into law. The law establishes a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions for 120 days from the date of the enactment, or 45 days after the COVID-19 Emergency Order is lifted, whichever is sooner, and also extends forbearance to any borrower who requests it due to COVID-19. The law allows the Governor to expand the foreclosure moratorium for a further 90 days, so long as it does not exceed the 45 day limit after the COVID-19 Emergency Order is lifted. More ›

First Circuit Reverses Course in Closely-Watched Pre-Foreclosure Notice Decision, Defers to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

July 30, 2019 by Samuel C. Bodurtha

Earlier this year, Hinshaw reported on a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals which invalidated a Massachusetts foreclosure based on the Court's determination that the mortgage loan servicer's notice of default included additional language which did not strictly comply with Paragraph 22 of the mortgage. In the wake of that decision, the servicer filed a petition for rehearing on several grounds, but primarily because the Code of Massachusetts Regulations required use of what the Court had characterized as additional language. The banking community also filed several amicus briefs in support of Chase's petition. More ›

Massachusetts Mortgage Holders Beware — Foreclosure Winning Bids May Now Need to Consider Development Potential of a Property

May 28, 2019 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Under Massachusetts law, a foreclosing lender has a duty of good faith and reasonable diligence to obtain the highest possible price for a property at auction. Until recently, it was considered appropriate for the lender to make a credit bid up to the amount owed on the mortgage in order to satisfy this duty. However, a recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court has expanded the duty of good faith and reasonable diligence beyond a review of the property's assessed or appraised fair market value. A property's development potential may also need to be reviewed in order to calculate an acceptable winning bid. More ›

First Circuit Concludes that "Potentially Deceptive" Language Added to Default Notice May Void Foreclosure Sale in Massachusetts

February 13, 2019 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held a foreclosure was potentially void where terms in the lender's default notice arguably conflicted with terms in Paragraph 19 of the Mortgage. Although Chase's notice of default provided the Thompsons with the disclosures required under Paragraph 22 of the Mortgage, Chase's default notice further stated that the Thompsons "could still avoid foreclosure by paying the total past-due amount before a foreclosure sale takes place." The First Circuit interpreted this additional language as potentially misleading, because advising borrowers that they could make payment up to the time of the foreclosure sale differed from the Mortgage's Paragraph 19, which only allowed a reinstatement payment five days before the sale of the Property. More ›

Another Court Refuses Lost Note Status to a Successor Lender

November 13, 2018 by Samuel C. Bodurtha

Last year, we reported on a Massachusetts Land Court decision, which interpreted Uniform Commercial Code section 3-309 to conclude that a mortgagee cannot foreclose in reliance upon a lost note affidavit, because the 1990 version of UCC 3-309 requires the party seeking to enforce the note demonstrate possession prior to its loss. 32 states remain under the 1990 version, and recently the Rhode Island Supreme Court joined decisions that prohibit enforcement of a lost note under this outdated version of the UCC. In SMS Fin. v. Corsetti, SMS Financial sued to enforce default on a note that was lost by a prior transferee. Sovereign Bank had loaned the defendants $1 million in exchange for a promissory note and a mortgage on property located at 385 South Main Street in Providence, Rhode Island. Following default and foreclosure, the defendants issued to Sovereign a new promissory note to repay the $200,000 deficiency on the original loan. Sovereign subsequently assigned its interest in the loan to SMS Financial; but, Sovereign had lost the original note so it delivered to SMS a lost note affidavit and an allonge. SMS filed suit against the defendants to collect on breach of the note, but the Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants because SMS could not enforce the lost note. More ›

New York is Split on Whether Notice of Default Letters Trigger the Statute of Limitations

August 24, 2018 by Matthew C. Ferlazzo

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. More ›

Mortgage Holder Allowed to Proceed with Second Foreclosure Action after the First was dismissed with Prejudice

July 9, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In Federal National Mortgage Association v. Thompson, the Wisconsin Supreme Court permitted a lender to pursue a second judicial foreclosure action after the first case was dismissed with prejudice. In the first foreclosure action, the lower court agreed with borrower Cory Thompson that his lender had failed to present evidence that a notice of intent to accelerate was mailed and that the servicer was in possession of the original note. After an unsuccessful appeal of the dismissal, the lender sent Thompson a new notice of intent to accelerate payment of the note and filed a second foreclosure action when no payments were received in response to the letter. Following trial of the second foreclosure action, the lower court granted judgment in favor of the lender. Thompson appealed, asserting that claim preclusion barred the second action. More ›

Despite Acceleration of Debt Through Prior Dismissed Foreclosure Action, Bankruptcy Petition Tolls Statute of Limitations on Subsequent Action

April 18, 2018 by Han Sheng Beh

In Lubonty v. U.S. Bank National Association, a mortgagor sought to void a mortgage loan claiming that the six-year statute of limitations to foreclose had expired. The mortgagor had commenced multiple bankruptcy proceedings that trigged automatic stays and prevented foreclosure from proceeding for approximately four and a half years. New York law, CPLR § 204, extends the statute of limitations "[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition," and the trial court held that the six-year statute of limitations was extended by the time period during which the foreclosure was stalled through successive bankruptcy petitions. More ›

HUD Regulation Requiring Face-to-Face Meeting Presents Compliance Challenge for Lenders Seeking Mortgage Foreclosure

March 26, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In Dan-Harry v. PNC Bank, the Rhode Island federal court concluded that a mortgagor may bring a claim for damages and other remedies against a mortgagee on allegations of failure to conduct a pre-foreclosure face-to-face meeting required for breach of an FHA-insured mortgage. Dawari Dan-Harry obtained an FHA-insured mortgage loan to purchase property in Providence, Rhode Island, which included in Paragraph 9(d) the following provisions: "Regulations of HUD Secretary. In many circumstances regulations issued by the Secretary will limit Lender's rights, in the case of payment defaults, to require immediate payment in full, and foreclose if not paid. This Security Instrument does not authorize acceleration or foreclosure if not permitted by regulations of the Secretary." PNC Bank foreclosed on the mortgage and sold the property at auction to a third-party in January 2017. While continuing to occupy the property, Dan-Harry sued PNC for damages and to void the foreclosure sale on allegations that PNC failed to comply with HUD regulation 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(b), which requires a mortgagee to have a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting before the mortgage becomes three months delinquent in payments. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives