No Pre-Foreclosure Notice to Borrower's Estate
In his Foreclosure Litigation column, Bruce Bergman discusses the recent decision in 'HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Shah,' where the defendant argued that the foreclosing plaintiff failed to demonstrate strict compliance with the 90-day letter pre-foreclosure notice provision. He writes that the case "offers a modicum of solace, under concededly limited but not so uncommon circumstances."
December 15, 2021 at 03:00 PM
4 minute read
Real EstateWhile by now this should be an old story for lenders and servicers involved with New York mortgages, the need to send a pre-foreclosure notice per RPAPL §1304 to the borrower in the home loan foreclosure case is a constant source of lender and servicer defeats when foreclosures are started. It is truly astonishing. While there is no doubt that lenders get it right at least some of the time (maybe most of the time) it seems that a majority of the reported cases—primarily the ones that are appealed—rule against the mortgage holder. Typically the issue arises at the summary judgment stage so if the foreclosing plaintiff loses there—especially after an appeal—the time consumed by the process is both extraordinary and meaningful.
In parsing the foreclosing party's losses, most often the mortgage holder is found unable to demonstrate mailing of the 90-day pre-foreclosure notice. That results in denial of a motion for summary judgment (or an order to appoint a referee) with the necessity then to either conduct a trial on the issue of service of the notice, or the need on the part of the mortgage holder to discontinue the action and start all over again. It should be apparent that either choice is both expensive and time consuming.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudgment of Partition and Sale Vacated for Failure To Comply With Heirs Act: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Tortious Interference With a Contract; Retaliatory Eviction Defense; Illegal Lockout: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Delaware Supreme Court Names Civil Litigator to Serve as New Chief Disciplinary Counsel
- 2Inside Track: Why Relentless Self-Promoters Need Not Apply for GC Posts
- 3Fresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
- 4Ex-Kline & Specter Associate Drops Lawsuit Against the Firm
- 5Am Law 100 Lateral Partner Hiring Rose in 2024: Report
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250