A., 34 NY3d 250, 261 )-in each case, the timeliness dispute turns on whether or when the noteholders exercised certain rights under the relevant contracts, impacting when each claim accrued and whether the limitations period expired, barring the noteholders' foreclosure claims. The parties do not dispute that under CPLR 213 (4), a mortgage foreclosure claim is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (see Lubonty v U.S. These conclusions compel a reversal of the Appellate Division order in each case. Adopting a clear rule that will be easily understood by the parties and can be consistently applied by the courts, we hold that where the maturity of the debt has been validly accelerated by commencement of a foreclosure action, the noteholder's voluntary withdrawal of that action revokes the election to accelerate, absent the noteholder's contemporaneous statement to the contrary. The remaining cases turn on whether the noteholder's voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action revoked acceleration of the debt, reinstating the borrower's contractual right to repay the loan over time in installments. (258 NY 472 ) that a noteholder must effect an "unequivocal overt act" to accomplish such a substantial change in the parties' contractual relationship, we reject the argument in Vargas that the default letter in question accelerated the debt, and similarly conclude in Wells Fargo that two complaints in prior discontinued foreclosure actions that each failed to reference the pertinent modified loan likewise were not sufficient to constitute a valid acceleration. Applying the long-standing rule derived from Albertina Realty Co. v Ferrato, the primary issue is when the maturity of the debt was accelerated, commencing the six-year statute of limitations period. Involve the intersection of two areas of law where the need for clarity and consistency are at their zenith: contracts affecting real property ownership and the application of the statute of limitations. These appeals-each turning on the timeliness of a mortgage foreclosure claim. Caesar, New York State Foreclosure Defense Bar, amici curiae. Caesar, New York State Foreclosure Defense Bar, United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, Inc., Adam Plotch, amici curiae.įrancis M. New York State Foreclosure Defense Bar, United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, Inc., Adam Plotch, amici curiae.įrancis M. Legal Services NYC, et al., American Legal and Financial Network, New York State Foreclosure Defense Bar, New York Mortgage Bankers Association, USFN - America's Mortgage Banking Attorneys, United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, Inc., amici curiae. Santhana Kumar Nataraja Naidu, Respondent, et al., Defendants.ĭeutsche Bank National Trust Company, Appellant.ĭonna Ferrato, Respondent, The Simon & Mills Building Condominium Board, et al., Defendants.ĭonna Ferrato, Respondent, Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., et al., Defendants. Herschel Engel, Respondent, et al., Defendants. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.įreedom Mortgage Corporation, Appellant, Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. The Court of Appeals held (1) in the first case, the default letter in question did not accelerate the debt (2) in the second case, two complaints in prior discontinued foreclosure actions that failed to reference the pertinent loan were not sufficient to constitute a valid acceleration and (3) as to the remaining issues, where the maturity of the debt has been validly accelerated by commencement of a foreclosure action, the noteholder's voluntary withdrawal of that action revokes the election to accelerate. The remaining issues in the other cases turned on whether the noteholder's voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action revoked acceleration of the debt, thus reinstating the borrower's right under contract to repay the loan in installments. In two cases, the issue was when the maturity of the debt was accelerated, commencing the six-year statute of limitations period. In these four appeals turning on the timeliness of a mortgage foreclosure claim and involving the intersection of contracts affecting real property ownership and the application of the statute of limitations, the Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division order in each case must be reversed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |