Source: http://www.wallstreetmainstreet.com/2016/
Timestamp: 2019-02-18 04:31:07
Document Index: 104334683

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1304', '§1304', '§1304', '§1304', '§1304', '§1303', '§1303', '§1303', '§1303', '§1303', '§1303']

Wall Street, Main Street: 2016
A.G. Schneiderman will forward approximately $350,000 to NYC to help combat "Zombie Homes". These grants are awarded under the Zombie Remediation and Prevention Initiative. Under the passage of the Abandoned Property Neighborhood Relief Act in June 2016, banks are now required to register any properties abandoned by their customers with the Department of Financial services. If you've ever lived next to an abandoned property you'll surely appreciate this act. Unfortunately there are now approximately 16,000 Zombie homes across New York State. So, odds are you've either seen them in your neighborhood or unfortunately live next door to one.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-announces-nearly-13-million-awards-cities-combat-vacant-and-zombie
A new rule will be put in place starting December 20, 2016 that will significantly help home owners in foreclosure. Borrowers will now be permitted to file an answer (late) after their time to answer has expired. An "answer" (in response to the summons and complaint) is required to be filed in writing within a certain amount of days according to how the summons and complaint was served (delivered) to the borrower. If delivered by process server the answer must be filed within 20 days. Delivered in any other way and the borrower gets an additional 10 days (30 days total). The new rule will give borrowers 30 days to answer AFTER the first Foreclosure Conference (court hearing). At the first Foreclosure Conference the court will provide the borrower with a 'Consumer Bill of Rights" handbook.
New York now boasts one on the longest time-frames to foreclose in the country. It now takes an average of 1,061 days to foreclose. Seems part of the delay may be cause by re-defaults of those borrowers whose loans were modified. It appears though that the Foreclosure Settlement process may be helping somewhat. Part of the reason appears to be now borrowers are "required" to bring all of their financials to the first court appearance. This will give the bank a quick view of the borrower's finances to see if a modification is possible. The best part of this, at least for the banks anyway, seems to be that vacant properties can now move quicker through the foreclosure process. This in turn will allow the banks to sell these properties sooner. If you've ever lived next to a "Zombie Home" this is welcome news.
- Lastly, and more importantly the new 90 Day Notice states that the foreclosure process can only begin if the borrower did nothing during the 90 day period to resolve the missing payments.
There are many pitfalls to avoid when filing for bankruptcy that consumers need to be aware of and understand . To help avoid these problems you should hire only a competent attorney specializing in bankruptcy law. Because one small error or misstep may cause your case to be dismiss (instead of discharged).
Did you know your credit score takes a major hit when there are judgments and liens? In fact, it stays on your credit for seven years! This alone should be a reason to avoid judgment and liens. Consider too that because of the ding on your credit you may also pay a higher interest rate when borrowing for mortgages, car loans/leases, etc.
If you have two mortgages (on the same property) and you're home is financially under water (you owe more than what your home is worth) filing for bankruptcy may help to eliminate (or "strip away") your second mortgage. Here's something else to think about. Did you know you could file for bankruptcy and still lose your home? Most people don't. Just another reason why you need a competent bankruptcy attorney.
Bankruptcy is not the answer to all financial problems. There are certain judgments and liens where bankruptcy may not help. This may include IRS liens, NYS tax warrants, mechanic liens and domestic support judgments. Most taxing authorities will allow you to work out a payment plan. It may be worth a shot to try and work out a deal as opposed to doing nothing and having a tax lien/warrant.
Should you ever be in the position where you need the guidance of a bankruptcy attorney be certain to hire a competent one who's expertise is bankruptcy. This is not the time to hire a "jack of all trades" attorney. Like foreclosure defense (consumer law), bankruptcy law is a very specific area of law.
Notice Provisions of RPAPL §1304 Inapplicable Where Borrower Deceased
US Bank moved for summary judgment and an order of reference in this mortgage foreclosure action. The now-deceased borrower, Eisenman, failed to make payments, but defendant opposed the motion arguing dismissal was warranted due to bank's failure to serve the estate of Eisenman with notice of default under RPAPL §1304. The court found bank established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and an order of reference noting defendant failed to raise an issue of fact precluding summary judgment in bank's favor. It found defendant's laches argument meritless, as was the claim bank failed to comply with the notice provisions of §1304. Also, contrary to defendant's claim, the Jan. 30, 2012 dismissal of a prior action against Eisenman was not dismissed on the merits, and was not res judicata barring this action. The court stated prior courts found §1304 was inapplicable where the borrower was deceased. Therefore, as Eisenman, the borrower, was deceased, there could no longer be notice given to the borrower, and accordingly, the notice provisions of RPAPL §1304 did not apply. Hence, bank's motion for summary judgment, and an order of reference was granted.
Full article and decision can be found here: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202763984389?slreturn=20160715094217
"Communities are redlined," Miller said, referring to the discriminatory practice of banks rejecting mortgages for residents of certain areas.
"You can't go through a traditional bank to get a traditional mortgage, and then we become very vulnerable and susceptible to predatory lenders."
ISSUES RAISED IF MODIFICATION ENTERED INTO REVOKING ACCELERATION BAR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment, striking Azad's answer and dismissing the counterclaims and defenses in this foreclosure action. Bank alleged a loan modification was entered into and that the holder of the mortgage and underlying debt defaulted under their terms by failing to make monthly payments due. As such, bank elected to accelerate the entire debt, moving for summary judgment and an order of reference. After obtaining an order of reference and a judgment of foreclosure and sale, bank vacated the judgment and twice discontinued the action, commencing a third foreclosure suit that was dismissed in 2013. Azad raised, as an affirmative defense, that the action was barred by the statute of limitations—foreclosure actions were governed by a six-year limitations period. The debt was accelerated in Oct. 2008, and the suit not commenced until Nov. 2014, making it time-barred if lender took no other affirmative action to revoke its election to accelerate all sums due. The loan modification would act as a revocation, but Azad denied entering to such one, thus, there was a question of fact if she entered into one, raising an issue of fact if there was a revocation of the accelerated debt and if the action was timely. Summary judgment and order of reference was denied.
Steven Kenner came home to a nasty surprise after a two-week vacation in Florida. Papers were strewn about the house. Cabinets were left open. Cigarette butts were ground into the floor. A lock on the door to the laundry room had been tampered with. Kenner, 71, thought his East Hanover home had been burglarized. But what actually happened may have been worse.
It wasn't a burglar. Instead, Kenner's mortgage lender hired subcontractors to break into Kenner's home as part of efforts to see if the home was vacant or abandoned, according to a lawsuit filed by Kenner against Citizens Bank, Citizens One Home Mortgage, subsidiaries of the bank and its subcontractors. The suit was filed in May in Morris County Superior Court.
While subcontractors broke into his home, Kenner was in touch with the bank about a pending mortgage modification and no one reported anything was amiss, he said. And the bank even knew he was away on vacation, Kenner said. Citizens Bank said it doesn't comment on ongoing litigation.
Before it all happened, Kenner said, he broke a bone in his back and was unable to work. In January 2015, he fell behind on the mortgage payments for his home, which he had owned for nearly 40 years.
He contacted his lender to request a mortgage modification.
Kenner entered into a trial plan in December 2015. If he paid the agreed monthly payment on time and in full for January, February and March of 2016, he would enter a mortgage modification that would start in April.
Citizens took automatic monthly payments from Kenner's bank account, and payments were on time for the trial period, Kenner said.
While Kenner was on the two-week trip in late February and early March, he said, he called the lender to check on the status of the modification, and the lender said his payments were not received.
But that wasn't so, Kenner said, and he arranged for his bank to send the proof to Citizens.
When he next spoke to Citizens, Kenner said, he was told there had been an error and yes, his payments were on time. Kenner qualified for the modification, he said he was told, and he was instructed to look for packages with all the paperwork he needed to sign when he returned from vacation.
When Kenner got back to his East Hanover home on March 14, Kenner said he entered the way he usually does: through an unoccupied first floor apartment where his mom used to live.
"The lights were on. Cabinets were open and there were papers all over the place," Kenner said. "I didn't know if I was robbed or what. I didn't know what was happening."
He next entered the home proper through a laundry room that's next to the apartment.
The inside of the laundry room showing the removed lock and the messy floor as it was found when Steven Kenner came home from his vacation.
The laundry room has a door with two locks. Kenner said one of the locks was removed and a round cylinder was placed to cover the space where the lock was.
"They must have put their hand around the round opening to open the other lock to enter my home," Kenner said.
Next, Kenner entered the main house, he said.
More lights were on, more cabinets were open, and cigarette butts were all over, he said.
When officers arrived, they proceeded as if there was a burglary, Kenner said. They dusted for fingerprints and took photos, and they asked Kenner to see if anything was missing.
As officers searched the home, Kenner opened the front door, looking for the packages he was expecting from the mortgage company.
That's when he saw a "6" -- Kenner's house number -- written on the outside of the door with some kind of marker. And then they saw a sticker affixed to the door.
"This property has been determined to be vacant/abandoned," the sticker said.
Police called the number on the sticker and learned it was all a mistake by Kenner's mortgage company, Kenner said.
That's some mistake.
"The police said they were told that the mortgage company more or less made a mistake," Kenner said. "The mortgage company had contracted with the company that broke into my home to see if the home was vacant."
But the home was not vacant, nor had the bank ever started any foreclosure proceedings, said Kenner's attorney, Philip Vinick.
Vinick said the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted amendments to court rules governing the foreclosure of vacant and abandoned residential properties in December 2012.
If a lender brings a foreclosure action and it believes a property is vacant or abandoned, the lender can ask for a quicker judgment from the court so it can take steps to maintain the property. For that to work, the lender must prove that at least two of 14 conditions must be present at the property, such as overgrown or neglected vegetation, disconnected utilities, the accumulation of mail or newspapers and the absence of window treatments.
None of the 14 conditions applied to Kenner's home, the attorney said.
"In Mr. Kenner's case the lender did not even institute a foreclosure action much less prove that Mr. Kenner's house was vacant, which it obviously was not," Vinick said.
Even after Citizens was made aware of the error, the bank's subcontractors continued to contact Kenner, the homeowner said. One wanted to come into the home. Another wanted to shut off his water.
And two days after Kenner returned home, Kenner's son passed the home and saw workers on property, according to a statement provided to Kenner's attorney. The son said he asked the workers what they were doing, and they said they were hired by the mortgage company to remove some shrubs. The workers then called the mortgage company, which in turn told them to leave the property, the statement said.
And, Kenner realized, the cylinder that replaced the lock on the laundry room door could be removed by anybody at any time.
At first he moved a washing machine in front of the door. Now a table blocks the passageway.
"I've been very upset," Kenner said, noting that he doesn't feel comfortable in his own home. "I'm thinking very seriously of selling because of what happened to me."
After the suit was filed, Citizens offered to settle, but Kenner's attorney called the amount "insufficient" to "compensate him for his physical and psychological damages, including being embarrassed and having to explain to his neighbors what happened."
"The laws were bypassed or disregarded. It will eventually be left up to jury to determine how much Mr. Kenner's nightmare is worth," Vinick said.
The full story can be found here: http://www.nj.com
Plaintiff HSBC Bank moved for summary judgment against Murphy, among other things, in this foreclosure on a mortgage action against the subject real property. It alleged it was in possession of the original note with proper endorsement and/or allonge, thus, was the holder of the note and mortgage, stating Murphy defaulted by failing to make scheduled monthly payments. The court granted bank's motion to consolidate two actions, and for a default judgment against defaulting, non-answering defendants. Murphy alleged bank lacked standing arguing the copy of the original note and blank endorsement annexed to its motion and affidavits was invalid as it was on a separate, undated, otherwise blank page. The court agreed, finding the affidavit of Doublin, a document execution specialist for bank's servicer, attesting its physical possession of the original note endorsed in blank, was insufficient on its face. It stated the endorsement itself failed to contain any evidence it was "firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof." Doublin also offered no information as to the original note's condition, simply noting Nationstar, as bank's agent, received the original note Sept. 3, 2013, and remained in possession. Thus, bank was not entitled to summary judgment.
Plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment and an order of reference in this action to foreclose a mortgage on an owner-occupied, two-family dwelling. Mitchell cross-moved to dismiss the action alleging bank's failure to serve him with RPAPL §1303 notice. Bank's process server alleged he personally served Mitchell with the §1303 notice when he served the summons and complaint, stating same was effectuated at Mitchell's residence. Mitchell's affidavit averred he was never personally served with §1303 notice or the summons and complaint, stating at the time the process server allegedly served papers, Mitchell was more than one mile away from the home at a local store. The court stated as Mitchell submitted admissible proof controverting the process server's affidavit, the matter was referred for a traverse hearing, and the special referee concluded service of process was not properly effectuated on Mitchell. It found no merit to bank's claim Mitchell waived bank's noncompliance with §1303, noting a lender's failure to comply with §1303 was not an affirmative defense that a defendant to a foreclosure action was required to assert in an answer. Therefore, Mitchell's cross-motion to dismiss was granted and the motion denied.
THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT EXTENDS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
However, it is often the case that the Statute of Limitations is about to expire during this 90-day period, and servicers are often concerned that if they wait the 90 days to comply with the 90-day notice requirement imposed by RPAPL 1304, the Statute of Limitations will expire. Those who are unaware of CPLR 204A may, therefore, be tempted to initiate the action without first complying with RPAPL 1304.
This is a big mistake, as the failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 will cause the foreclosure to be fatally defective, and the action to be dismissed. (See my prior article - Recent Decisions Regarding New York’s Pre-Foreclosure Requirements).
New York’s CPLR 204A, however, expressly provides “Where the commencement of an action has stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” Furthermore, when New York State’s Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, decided the case Archer v. New York City Transit Authority, they expressly ruled that CPLR 204A extends the Statute of Limitations by the amount of time during which Plaintiff has stayed from commencing the action.
Accordingly, banks and servicers should meticulously comply with the requirements of RPAPL 1304, wait to file the summons and complaint until after the 90 days has expired, and take comfort in the extension granted by CPLR 204A.
This Story is from Peter T. Roach & Associates, P.C. click here to view their blog.
Pols say new foreclosure buyback program will help...
ISSUES RAISED IF MODIFICATION ENTERED INTO REVOKIN...
Bamboozled: Bank unlawfully breaks into home, laws...
Bank Fails to Prove Standing, Not Entitled To Summ...
Lender's Failure to Comply With RPAPL §1303 Requir...
THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT EXTENDS THE STATUTE ...