Opinion ID: 660667
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waste After the Appointment of the Receiver

Text: 42 To the extent that Travelers' claims of waste relate to conduct that occurred after the appointment of the receiver, they were properly dismissed. 43 Travelers concedes that the District Court correctly determined that an action for waste will lie only against a mortgagor in possession. Brief for Appellant at 20. We said as much on the first appeal. Travelers I, 973 F.2d at 85; see also United States v. Miller, 400 F.Supp. 1080, 1084 (S.D.N.Y.1975). Travelers argues that the District Court's dismissal should nevertheless be reversed on the ground that an action for waste lies against the Partnership as the retainer of an equity of redemption, which enables it to reclaim possession at any time prior to the conclusion of the foreclosure sale. Travelers' Brief at 26. 44 Travelers does not cite, nor has this court found, any decision of the courts of New York suggesting that an action in waste will lie for waste committed by one with a contingent possessory interest. In addition, extension of the action to those who retain an equity of redemption would sever the doctrine of waste from its underlying rationale. If an action for waste exists to induce persons in possession or control of real property to manage it as if they were the owners, because the Partnership here is out of possession and control, it has no opportunity to exploit the property, regardless of its equity of redemption. 45