Source: http://www.sakhizadalaw.com/law/
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 08:26:54
Document Index: 460404752

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1304', '§ 1304', '§ 1304', '§ 1304', '§ 1306', '§ 1304', '§ 1304', '§ 3408']

Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer (decided April 17, 2019) – Evidence needed to prove (and disprove) compliance with RPAPL § 1304.
Real Property and Proceeding Law (“RPAPL”) § 1304(1) provides that, “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” Strict compliance with RPAPL § 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action. Citimortgage, Inc. v Banks, 155 AD3d 936, 936-937 (2d Dept. 2017); HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Ozcan, 154 AD3d 822, 825-826 (2d Dept. 2017); Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Weisblum, 85 AD3d 95 (2d Dept. 2011).
When contested, a plaintiff must demonstrate full compliance with the statute through admissible evidence and cannot proceed to judgment without doing so. Conversely, a defendant can dismiss a foreclosure action by proving that the bank failed to strictly adhere to RPAPL § 1304. Section 1304 is very specific as to the contents and method of serving of the 90-day notice. Additionally, banks must also comply with the state filing requirements of the notice pursuant to RPAPL § 1306.
On April 17, 2019, the Second Department addressed the evidence required to establish prima facie compliance with RPAPL § 1304. In Citibank, N.A. v. Conti-Scheurer, the Appellate Division reversed a Nassau County Supreme Court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding that contrary to the lower court’s 2015 determination, the bank failed to establish compliance with RPAPL § 1304.
On March 27, 2019, the Second Judicial Department modified a decision made by the Nassau County Supreme Court with hopes of finally clarifying basic evidentiary law and eliminating many foreclosure disputes that make up the ever-increasing trial courts. In Bank of New York Mellon v. Dushaun Gordon, contrary to the lower court’s findings, the Second Department determined that the bank unequivocally failed to establish the defendant’s default under the loan documents. In other words, the bank couldn’t even prove that borrower/mortgagor stopped repayment on the loan.
Standing — Use it or Lose it!
A facially adequate foreclosure action only requires allegations regarding the existence of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and the obligor’s default. IndyMac Venture, LLC v Amus, 164 AD3d 883 (2d Dept. 2018). Thus, a bank in a foreclosure action is not required to prove that it is the owner of the loan, unless Standing is specifically raised as a defense.
On January 23, 2019, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, made abundantly clear in US Bank National Association v. Kenyatta Nelson, et al., that the defense of lack of standing is indisputably waived unless it is timely interposed as an Affirmative Defense or asserted in a pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss. The Court affirmed that a defendant’s mere denial to a bank’s allegation of ownership of the mortgage loan documents does not effectively place Standing at issue.
As mortgage loans are often bought, sold, and securitized, issues may arise over which entity has the legal right to foreclose — resulting in legitimate questions of Standing.
Time to Answer a Complaint
A defendant sued in a civil action typically has 20-30 days after service is complete to respond to a Complaint. Governor Andrew Coumo signed legislation in 2016, which amongst other things, amended several provisions of the RPAPL and CPLR, including CPLR § 3408.
Effective December 20, 2016, a “defendant who appears at the settlement conference but who failed to file a timely answer… shall be presumed to have a reasonable excuse for the default and shall be permitted to serve and file an answer, without any substantive defenses deemed to have been waived within thirty days of initial appearance at the settlement conference. The default shall be deemed vacated upon service and filing of an answer.”
While the Summons may demand a response to the Complaint within 20-30 days after service, you may have several months before the deadline to interpose an Answer.